fjabre

Depends on where you were living. Some neighborhoods are very walkable. LA like any major city has good and bad spots all over.

Yes but you were in Santa Monica one of the most touristed places in California. South bay sounds more your speed.

Hot by your standards maybe and also has been hotter in recent years but generally speaking most people find Southern California to have the best climate in the US and also in the world.

Not true. Many of these neighborhoods are extremely walkable. I used to live in one called West Hollywood

Excellent breakdown. People are quick to hate on LA. You cannot think of it as a traditional city. If you do your homework LA is an amazing place to visit with a ton to do and lots of friendly people to engage with under sunny skies most of the year.

I actually find it a benefit that you can have a house with a yard in the middle of LA.

Compare that to New York where people are stacked up on top of each other like ants.

For the cost of a studio apartment in Manhattan one could rent a free standing house in Los Angeles and with year round beautiful weather.

You really cannot think of LA as a traditional city. It is a collection of sprawling neighborhoods.

There are plenty of walkable neighborhoods in Los Angeles. This is a common misconception. More than in Seattle is my guess but Seattle is much smaller. Apples and Oranges.

Weather plays a big role of course as many find Seattle too depressing to live in for most of the year.

There are 12000 foot mountains within 2 hours of LA and visible from most of its sprawl. California has plenty of mountains all over.

Can you not see the potential of space exploration/settlement? There will be industries we can't even imagine that will be worth trillions. Imagine an economy that is more massive than all state economies on earth combined. That is space in the next 50-100 years.

Public funding and government obviously because they were the only ones with the capability for space exlporation up until maybe 10 years ago. Now that the private sector can, it will, and much more efficiently than government ever could.

Excellent summary. Although I think you're far more likely to make Starfleet 0.5 in the private sector. This problem is too big for current governments because they can't ever agree and ideas will be weighed down by infighting/constituents. Good luck getting 5 countries to agree to anything other than not going to war with eachother these days. Compromises on ideas would be too much for such a mission.

I think the only way to solve this is private industry i.e. SpaceX IPO. Then you've got plenty of cash, fast moving ideas, economies of scale, and most importantly market incentive -> no better type of incentive.

Disease and hunger will be ongoing for as long as we continue to be human. If it's not cancer or hunger it will be something else.

Interplanetary travel is very obviously the next logical step for mankind. This doesn't have to come at the expense of biotech or medicine, and in fact would probably enhance it and accelerate discoveries across all fields of science and technology.

Just how much of a window do you think we have on this planet? It's not a free ride forever. At some point whether tomorrow or 1000 years from now things can and will go very wrong. We were not the first dominant species on earth and it's more likely that we won't be the last.

You should fear ATT & Verizon much much more.

Doesn't answer your original question but I moved to syncthing from dat. It just works out of the box, no manual setup, and a very active community around it. Also opensource and in production for years with rave reviews, and being used in plenty of big scale production projects.

Very strange indeed that people are incredulous that you don't take stims. I love stims, especially modafinil. I don't think your methods are better than mine or that you would be more productive with stims. It's personal preference so let's withhold judgment. You have your method and they have theirs. You can stop the debate right there.

It's a 20th century mechanical device and still the gold standard for transferring data from a human's brain to a computer.

Mobile is not a replacement for that, yet.

My reasoning was that those most affected by NN repeal and potential loss of access (slow access) are those who would not be able to afford ISP price increases for what most reasonable people would consider open and equal Internet access comparable to Internet for people with more means.

This would effectively discriminate against a significant percentage of the population would it not? And put them at further disadvantage.

From Wikipedia: The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.

It appears as a government agency they have acted against their legally defined mission statement by putting consumers at greater risk of discrimination.

I don't know if this is a legal argument to be made and it doesn't answer your question about Mozilla in particular but still I wonder if there is some legal standing here. The repeal seems to put them odds with their stated purpose as an agency.

I hope the Massachusetts based AG who prosecuted him rots in hell.

This. Completely agree. Google out competed established search engines when it released. AOL & Yahoo were entrenched.

History flies in the face of what this article is trying to say. Tech giants can be out competed with new and better technology. It's that simple even though it's very hard.

Google and Facebook are not the 'monopolies' we should be focused on.

Verizon and ATT own the last mile and can literally shut down traffic to a site instantly at the network level! Talk about monopolistic power. Can't exactly out compete broadband unless you figure out how to network with muons or other subatomic particles.

I don't think this is necessarily true. If proper regulations are in place Google and Facebook can certainly be out competed in some of their core services.

Verizon and ATT threaten diversity much more than does Google or Facebook. That should be painfully obvious to anyone who's done their research.

Also WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch which should also raise some flags on this article.

You do know that TCP/IP packet data delivery is handled by network protocol right? Protocol is designed to work, not to please Verizon lawyers.

Internet only works when neutral.

Here is your argument: Regulation bad - Deregulation good. Don't you think that's a bit overly simplistic?

What part of this are you missing? Either you have the Internet with protections in place or simply you don't have an Internet at all. Your world view is AOL and Compuserv. That's what a world without NN looks like.

That misses the point. NN protections were enforced even if they were not codified by the FCC, through the courts. Once they were hard coded it made it a lot harder for ISPs to cheat. That's all 2015 was about, making it harder for ISPs to throttle so we didn't have to sue every time. It wasn't about putting practices into place that weren't there before, it was about hard coding practices that were enforced for years so that it was simpler to enforce. That's all.

The new ruling by the FCC does the opposite. It encourages the ISPs to cheat in a blatantly obvious way.

My point was that the innovation from NN was a HUGE deal for the US economically and all the innovation came out of that, i.e. Netflix, Google, Amazon. If a country like yours has no NN protections then you probably won't see innovation like this in your country.

Ever heard of the prohibition? The government had supremacy there too.

Actually the voters elected a Democrat. The electoral college elected the Republican.

Not your issue? I've followed your account for years. This is exactly your issue, and everyone in this community's issue.

Without the Internet you have no chance of fighting against things like the new tax bill. It takes away your voice. It takes away all of our voices.

This might not be 'your' issue, but make no mistake, it is more important than all of the issues you mention, in that without a free and open Internet, your free speech is essentially gone, and that severely handicaps any efforts to organize and protest against the other issues you talk about.

All of the services you mention were founded in the US on NN principles. We wouldn't have services like Netflix or Facebook or Google if NN had not been in place.

What web services & startups have come out of your country recently that are house hold brand names? Can you name any?

You are missing the point entirely.

It's become clear that the Internet as we know it was too vulnerable in its current configuration. We need the Internet 2.0 that is designed to be neutral from the ground up.

No one has solved the last mile problem because everyone was content to pay the ISPs and now look what's happened.

We need alternatives and we need them fast.

I wanted to thank you for your efforts here. Would you have legal authority to stop the FCC from making this ruling? Would a judge actually be able to delay the vote?

I just wanted to thank you for your efforts here. Would you have legal authority to stop the FCC from making this ruling? Would a judge actually be able to delay the vote?

Sure, corruption there. But repealing what's in place just makes it even easier for them do things like this and get a way with it too. What legal ramifications will consumers have now that the FCC is siding with ISPs? Any? We'll have to take this to the supreme court. I think we both agree, the network should remain neutral.

So you're in favor of eliminating NN rules?

TCP/IP is optimized for neutral nodes in a network, sure you're doing traffic engineering, throttling is already happening. At a network level this makes sense, doesn't make sense that we give ISPs carte Blanche to openly start filtering traffic based on any rules they see fit. The people who want to repeal NN are the suits, not traffic engineers and techies like yourself. Obviously