It is, however, doubtful that they would be able to achieve this, because in Canada, telecommunications are solely regulated by the federal government.
But, nevertheless, it’s a good acknowledgement that Internet is being recognized as a necessity.
"People, who vote, decide nothing. People counting votes decide everything."
— Joseph Stalin
Closed source, open source, half-way open source - they all have holes the size of the Titanic, and are casing our privacy to sink to the bottom of the ocean.
Are you trying to say, governments haven't spied on and persecuted opponents before these modern-day conveniences appeared?
The problem is our dependence on these "conveniences" we can now not live without.
We can live without them, but the life will be, wait for it, less convenient.
They make living more comfortable. For everyone — including the spies.
1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?
No, it is not enough. Because there are legitimate questions as to how it is measured, how the measurements are calibrated (including the scandal of some raw data disappearing), and what swings are normal. For example, Tasmania used to be connected to Australian mainland not too long ago. It is now an island. Do you think, the shamans of the aborigines living there blamed the sins of their contemporaries for the rising seas back then? Same question about Kodiak archipelago — it used to be reachable from Alaska, but is not any more. The Kodiak bears are now considered different species from mainland grizzlies... Is humanity to blame for that?
And there is a big difference in falsifiability
You try to find a prediction by "climate scientists", that uses a falsifiable "will" instead of the evasive non-falsifiable "may"... The scarcity of such statements itself is an indication, of the state of this sorry non-science... What you can find is as scientific and meaningful as the Geico's commercials: "15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more..."
If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world
I don't need to find errors — the purported "scientists" need to demonstrate, their discipline is really a science. And the only way to do that is by showing useful predictions, that have come true. I'm yet to see any.
Try it yourself: assemble a list of link-pairs:
Give it your best... Can you offer at least 3 such link-pairs?
Which means the winning side runs up legal fees until the loser goes right out of business.
My proposal explicitly included the vetting of the winner's expenses by the judge... He can trim them, if he suspects abuse or some such.
The point is, currently, the winner needs to file a separate lawsuit seeking legal expenses compensation. This is too costly and time consuming in itself — the award should be an automatic part of the conclusions.
And then you're back to the problem of wealthy companies/individuals who can afford expensive legal teams, intimidating poorer, lesser funded individuals who can't afford good legal support
My way, the poor side can reclaim its expenses upon winning.
The current way, the poor side will be bankrupt even if it wins, which is exactly, what allows for the intimidation you denounce.
No one would ever dare to sue any corporation
Why not? If you are so sure of your case and/or can find a deep-pocketed sponsor (such as described in TFA). But, if you aren't sure, you would not file your stupid suit — thus lowering the legal insurance fees for the corporations and lower prices for their products/services for the rest of us.
because if they lost they would be broke after paying the legal fees of the corporate lawyers
I did allow for the judge to review the expenses claimed by the winner — to prevent abuses.
The solution to frivolous lawsuits is the loser pays system. If you lose a suit, you have to pay the winner's legal expenses (vetted by the judge). Automatically...
And, yes, the rule ought to cover criminal proceedings too with wrongfully accused compensated by the prosecutor's office.
Because the real predictions are only going to be proven after it's too late to do a damn thing about it
Will that ever happen? You say, it will. But you have no proof — you are asking me, and the rest of the civilization, to take it on faith.
Something tells me, you'd dismiss as a fool (or worse) anyone telling you to repent before it is too late and you died before absolution. And yet, you are telling me the same thing about climate: believe in it, before it is too late.
Maybe, I'd be willing to listen to the authorities, to which you appeal — if they were authorities. But they aren't scientists either — no meaningful falsifiable statement has been made by them, that has not been falsified in due time... Off, off with you — 21st century shamans...
They can explain everything, but are able to predict nothing. Internet is full of compilations of failed predictions, but the only "successful" ones are the useless statements like "it may get hotter, or colder". Yeah, right...
If you want to get "technical" the web (aka http/html) was first (1990 vs 1991 for gopher)
I would say, Lee's web was indistinguishable from Gopher back then. Certainly not until Mosaic offered graphical browsing.
email was the killer app, inter-domain mail (via unix mail via rmail/UUCP) was probably the real killer app, not ARPANET
But that too existed already in the 1970-80ies... The actual interconnections remained scarce, but software and protocols for distinct computers to exchange "emails" appeared much earlier than the celebrated 1991.
I'd also add, that Sir Lee's affable personality — and the fact, that he is not an American — contribute to the "cult".
You're not Dave. Who are you?