That our authority over DNS is legally US government property in any sense the framers would have agreed upon, even stretching that concept of property to include intangible property.
Even if you can argue that DNS is American government property, it's pretty useless property. Since it is largely administered in a decentralized fashion, if the rest of the world wants it can set up its own DNS system and have people in their country point to their preferred root servers.
I'd like to know why people laugh so much at "ancient alien theorists" or anyone who believes that stuff. Personally, I don't, because the evidence is just way too flimsy, however, what I question is why they get derision, while the large majority of humanity who believes in one of the main religions does not. Why are everyday Christians and Muslims not called "crackpots" too?
Which "theory" is more plausible? Ancient aliens visited the Earth and had some kind of hand in humanity's development, OR there's a supernatural being who talks to ancient peoples with burning bushes and orders some tribes to commit genocide against other tribes and doesn't want us eating pork? At least the first one has some sort of scientific plausibility. There's no evidence aliens exist, but there's a LOT of stars and planets out there, and if we evolved on this one, it's possible a civilization evolved somewhere else, and it's remotely possible they visited here. Again, there's no evidence for this really, but it's still more plausible than some angry deity magically parting the Red Sea, killing all the firstborn in Egypt, causing "miracles", "angels" existing and having something to do with us even though no one can produce any evidence for it, the Earth being 6500 years old despite all geological evidence to the contrary, etc. Yet people who believe all this stuff are never dismissed as "crackpots", only "devout" or even "normal", depending on the extent of their beliefs (the 6500yo Earth people are generally considered extremists most places except the USA).
Sounds like your saying is if a bully keeps punching people in the face when there is no witnesses, we should wait until he kills someone before calling him out. Sooner or later, "the boy who cried wolf" should be called "where there's smoke there's fire".
I'm thinking of WWII- where all material went to the war effort and extremely strict rationing was in effect.
AGW, if it is true, is far worse of an emergency than beating the axis. Why aren't the very people who are trying to convince us that it exists acting like it?
Yep. Violent philosophies are still philosophies. And yes, just about every rational train of thought, and quite a few irrational ones, are philosophies as well.
The scientific method can't be proved by the scientific method, and thus it is a philosophy.
> Whoever, having the custody of any such record...
Which means she is innocent, as the FBI found. She did not destroy records. She had someone else do them. Go after them for their crimes. Leave her alone.
Well then that would make it a conspiracy wouldn't it.
They should also reconsider paying the over-the-air networks for content. How did this happen?
No, the right question is "why did it take so long to start"? It happens because the OTA stations can charge to be carried. They used to be happy with must-carry rules just to make sure they were on the cable, now they know that people will complain to the cable company if their channel isn't on cable so they can extort the cable companies.
Isn't it an amazing irony that an OTA broadcaster can put a scroll on the bottom of the screen telling viewers to call their cable company because they might lose access, and the cable company has to carry this against their own best interests?
The networks charge Cable AND still show commercials?
Of course. The OTA channels are OTA content and not a separate feed. Your "NBC" channel is not "NBC", it's the local NBC affiliate. Why should they cut out the commercials? What would they put in their place? If they put in two minutes of "dead air" you'll just FF your DVR through that just like you FF it through the ads now. Or go to the bathroom or have your wench make you a sammich.
They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much.
This. The fine article is using the same kind of "lose" where a tax cut that leaves money in the pockets of the workers becomes a loss to the government. Or a 10% hike in funding for an agency or program when they asked for 20% is a "10% cut". It's starting with the assumption that the money belongs to the government or agency being funded (or the cable company) and if they don't get it for any reason it becomes a loss.
It becomes obvious when you look at the "loss" number ($1248/yr) and the "also found" (amazing discovery!) $104/month that the cord cutters save. Funny that -- a $104/month loss to the cable company is exactly what the customer was paying. I wonder if this "cg42" outfit realizes it is implying that cable companies are non-profits were these numbers true? (I.e., if my paying you $104 per month offsets your $104 per month loss, then you are making no profit!)
What a wanker, every punter know you ask shit like that on stackoverflow.com not reddit, no wonder our cyber-security is so FUBAR.
Mine has even dropped support for analog signal over cable.
So did mine. And I don't (explicitly) pay a dime for it (but that's probably because I'm on their lowest tier service, which they discounted away just so I'd stay a TV customer).
My biggest hope is that Trump seems to have a knack for surrounding himself with people who are better at their jobs than he is and follows their advice.
"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics