This is exactly why an entirely encrypted internet would be desirable. ISP's won't be able to track or throttle since they won't know who's connecting to what.

Or your ISP would just MITM everything and provide their own CA you must accept to use their service.

It would need to be like TOR - if you just encrypted then they'd see who you were talking to, just not what you're saying.

That would stifle development in its own way. We haven't repealed net neutrality yet. Let's keep at it and see where this goes.

Taking him out would remove an easy political scapegoat. Better to keep him as an enemy to sabor rattle against.

Those at the top play games, those at the bottom die for it. It's all a way to strengthen the loyalty of voters.

Those at the top play games, those at the bottom die for it. It's all a way to strengthen the loyalty of voters.

You aren't taking into account the degradation sea water has on infrastructure. The pounding waves and salt would most certainly make the buildings unsafe.

Well, the concrete that actually takes all the load would be safe; that's how pretty much any caissons or foundations in water are built anyway. Electrical delivery would have to be completely re-thought and redeployed. There wouldn't be 'pounding waves' since the rest of the city would be diffusing large waves.

Legalization and regulation would help move the market away from operations like this to sustainable farmland operations

I'm honestly not sure that's true. Legalization and regulation will make it easier to grow legally, but it's hard to undercut someone who isn't paying for the land they use. This is similar to how cheap ASICs and electricity haven't pushed out botnets mining bitcoin - free is still cheaper than cheap.

When was the last time you went looking for moonshine or had moonshine offered to you?

If you know the right people - or are in the right areas - it's not unusual or even uncommon. I know people who make moonshine in California.

I think the vast majority of people DON'T know the right people.

Probably true! But I stumbled into it in Oakland without even trying, and large swaths of Appalachia have longstanding moonshining traditions.

moonshine isn't even the write analogy. When was the last time someone offered you home-grown tobacco?

Within the last five years, when a retired co-worker came through. (I guess that working on old cars didn't fill enough of his time.) Actually, he didn't offer it to me, but another guy in the office got a jar.

The problem is that, at least in Humboldt County, the legalization is designed to allow existing growers to continue to profit, while preventing new comers from getting started.

The impact of illegal grows in CA has worsened since legalization.

There is no "alternative". Government can be approached from a million different ways. To say it's black or white (capitalism vs communism) is completely self-serving and offers no real insight into the fundamental complexity of human civilization.

Use a service that respects that then. Lyft.

If an advertiser doesn't want to reach viewers on the largest and most concentrated video market on Earth then that's their own internal problem they need to deal with.

This is the brave new world. The free-market of information is beginning to show its teeth for better or worse and those who shy away from it will lose market share.

Yeah but gp is talking about "flipping the bird to censorship", it isn't censorship to not buy ads. That just isn't what censorship is.

No, he isn't. He said the advertisers should decide what they spend money on, so Google doesn't have to care about what other people might consider offensive (i.e. 'flipping the bird to censorship')

Exactly. Google doesn't realize that it wields an incredible amount of power in this situation. If these guys don't advertise than someone else will. They will win, these idiots will lose.

Advertising is a surprisingly concentrated market, with five or six conglomerates making most of ads you see (WPP, Publicis, Mccain, etc.)

In fact this whole brewhaha was started because the current head of the WPP said he wanted Google to do something about his ads showing up next to extremist videos. It's not inconceivable the article on The Times that started it all was made as part of WPP's strategy to make Google kowtow to them on this subject.

Basically don't underestimate the power of advertising agencies. They can produce news cycles at will.

But most advertising (especially video) is not particularly well-measured, and all of the money is in the hands of the brands.

Philosophically, I agree with you, but I'm not sure if it really will work that way.

Broken for me on Stable Firefox (52.0) as well

Been an hour.. wow. Is this a ddos on their auth services?