georgie01

So what is with this article saying how the Pixel had the top activations?

http://bgr.com/2017/12/27/pixel-2-vs-iphone-x-christmas-sales/

For those who want net neutrality gone, please stop believing the lies that say the government is controlling the internet with net neutrality. Those who tell you that are either naive or trying to manipulate you. The government is not controlling the content on the internet, except to make sure all content has the same priority and that those with commercial interests can’t prioritise some content over other content.

I am all for small government and lean toward conservative ideas, but I’m extremely disappointed by the naievety of the ‘right’ in commercialising the internet and those who are deliberately misleading people in order to accomplish it. The internet has come a long way in its technical foundation, and it is only a matter of time before people with money making interests and no respect for anything but their wallet will take advantage of it. It’s not a theoretical possibility that ‘the market’ will fix, its guaranteed. 

AppleInsider said:

"About 2 weeks ago, we recommended that only very important people such as national leaders, large corporation leaders, billionaires, etc. should be cautious when using Face ID," said Ngo Tuan Anh, VP of cyber security at Bkav. "However, with this research result, we have to raise the severity level to every casual users: Face ID is not secure enough to be used in business transactions."

This is revealing about Bkav. They certainly aren’t providing a public service, and their lack of transparency and overstatement of the scope of the security issue is suspicious. And $200? Right... As long as you have already invested in a sophisticated 3D scanner and a 3D printer and whatever other equipment is necessary and have the time to invest in developing a ‘hack’ and also have the means to get such a scan of the person who’s phone you want to get into. That doesn’t cost $200, and this company knows it. So what’s their motive in trying to make FaceID seem so insecure? What do they have to gain from it?

lkrupp said:

Net neutrality is an Obama era invention. How did we ever get along all these years without it? Before net neutrality was AI ever blocked by some Windows person at a carrier? It didn’t happen before the government’s power grab and it won’t happen after either even though it is ‘theoretically’ possible. Labeling Internet service as a utility no different than natural gas or electricity so the government could control it was a mistake and I’m happy it’s going away.

The only restrictions I remember from the days before net neutrality was that websites told me to go away because I was a Mac user and wasn’t running IE as by browser. The government didn’t fix that, competition and innovation did.

Why don’t you look at this from the perspective of internet capabilities? The internet continues to get faster and more capable and there are increasing opportunities in internet monetisation. The internet has stayed neutral despite commercial interest. There is no reason at all to think the internet will continue to remain neutral. As the capabilities increase the business opportunities increase, and even well-meaning entrepreneurs will seek out opportunities unaware of the effect of their actions. And, of course, there are plenty of people who will happily screw their customers and ruin anything if they can get away with it. As much as I did not like Obama policies in general the idea of net neutrality is vital in keeping the internet the way it is—it might be the one thing Obama’s administration did that I liked!

The internet is bigger than a commercial venture. While much of it is entertainment, that’s not its philosophy and shouldn’t be. It’s the easy and free distribution of information and communication. It’s more like utility services than it is like a television network.

kerpow said:

I think its going to be fine and look forward to watching the companies who try the things you've described fail.

I’m all for small and limited government, and there are elements of net neutrality I don’t like, but in the absence of a replacement it needs to stay. We cannot have content in the hands of ISPs unless we also want the content to become profit driven.

Changes to the Internet, based on profit motivation, will likely be brought about in small doses, things that don’t seem too bad, or are at least tolerably bad. Then there will be another step. Rinse and repeat. And like any clever business tactic, by the time the changes have reached a level of ‘Oh wait, this sucks’, things will have already reached a level of near irreversibility. And the average person won’t really care anyway because they’ve become accustomed to it.

This approach happens endlessly in business, and government, and politics, and it happens because people are selfish and most people do things for themselves and will happily exploit others if they can. Very few people are there to serve others and do what’s best for them when it means a pay check is at stake.

So for something that is a national and even global service, to have decisions in hands of people who will take advantage of customers at every opportunity is a disastrous idea. The internet will change, guaranteed. If you’re saying you want these changes then fine, but it’s naive to think everything’s going to stay the same.