SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
CoolHand
on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:43PM
from the the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it dept.
from the the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it dept.
The FCC will reveal vote to repeal net neutrality this week
The new rules are expected to be announced on Wednesday, whilst most Americans are distracted by getting home to loved ones for Thanksgiving.
This will then be followed by a vote on 10 December, which would see the 2015 rules designed to protect the internet being torn down.
[...] The important point, as we've said before, is that once the genie is out of the bottle, getting it back in is almost impossible and for our readers outside the US, don't think this doesn't affect you - everything that passes through US servers will be affected in some way and will knock on to you.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
FCC Will Reveal Vote to Repeal Net Neutrality This Week
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 50 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognize terrorism if it
came up and bit him on his Internet."
-- Ross M. Greenberg
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:30PM (2 children)
I prefer to compare with the British empire. Britain spent most of 18th century and early 19th century paying competitors to invade each other - basically from 1700 through to Waterloo. Following which, Britain enjoyed a very wealth 19th century before decline in the late 19th/early 20th culminating in the first and second world wars.
America paid competitors - Britain and France - to invade Germany i.e. first and second world wars. Amerca enjoyed a very wealthy 20th century before decline in the early 21st century. Now, if America's competitors are on the ball, they need to encourage a nice war (which they can bankroll), say US against China or Russia, and that should set them on a course for a wealthy 21st century. As Britain did very effectively in 18th century, the trick is to stay aloof from the war for most of it, come in and finish off whoever happens to be the bad guy of the day (Hitler, Louis 14th, Bonaparte, etc)
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:02PM (1 child)
Er, what? You do know who invaded whom first in those wars, right? (Hint: It wasn't Britain or France.)
The only country that invaded Germany was actually Russia, towards the front end of the war (before they got bogged down in the revolution and signed out of the war). Germany agreed to an Armistice before anybody from the Western Front got onto their soil. Heck, they still controlled half of Belgium at the end.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:04PM
Sorry, fair point. And on a similar note Napoleon and Louis XIV were both aggressors. My point is, Britain stayed pretty aloof but bankrolled the other power's war, as did US in WWII. Until Pearl Harbour, obviously. You are right to correct me on the "moral imperative" but the strategic argument I think is the same.