What would you think if it was instead popular to segregate women or race? Their favour for religiously harsh revenge-justice for insignificant crimes? Just a con to majority is right mentality. Not justifying Eich or discrimination but it could work against us if it becomes law in a world that is obsessed with exploiting/exposing private matters.
"they refused to disable is saying it was a service to the public, bla bla bla."
I know how much your country (rightfully) hates Comcast but this should be a good thing. Take off your blinders for a second and look at the good things an Opt-Out Guest (my assumption) WiFi network could do.
1. Adoption of ubiquitous internet hotspots by customers for public use. It shouldn't affect your personal bandwidth because you'd be getting priority over guests.
2. Accessibility of potential emergency services without cellular networks. Which provides an option not to use a carriers service. More choice and competition could be amazing.
3. Lowering the legal barriers of opting into being a public hotspot (many ISPs are against it)
4. New potential developer opportunities like updating maps and such for travelers.
5. Herd Immunity when it comes to flimsy IP Address based legal attack vector. Fighting this in court is a huge pain/cost.
6. It could be more economic for customers to distribution their internet for a fee? Which would enable higher quality while the cost is distributed.
7. Provoke more conversation about emphasizing internet privacy/security without using locked routers which doesn't protect users from determined local attackers.
I don't know if this is what they're enabling or not but it's food for thought.
Can we stop already with this fat is bad for you? There is so much nutrition misinformation that no wonder there is an obesity epidemic... Fat is not bad for you, in fact it's critical to living a healthy life. Sugar is much easier to abuse because it's absorbed too quickly (which is why fruit juice is bad, no fiber slowing down the absorption) and provided in such vast quantities.
We need to real governance here, bring back some real nutritional science in to the consumers attention and make organisations legally liable for spreading dangerous misinformation. It could save more lives than stopping smoking/alcohol/drugs, gun violence, wars and car accidents combined.
Go get the current issue of Tine Magazine[1]. This thinking was never backed up with good science 40 years ago and has been totally debunked in literature in the last decade. Saturated fat is very much a part of a healthy diet.
1. No, I don't consider that the "literature", but it's a good jumping off point to start learning what is true in nutrition versus what is dogma.
Dietary Fat is not bad for you, neither is it the same thing as body fat which is an indicator for excessive energy intake (most often from sugary drinks) and being generally misinformed (99% Fat Free? Awesome! Nevermind that added sugar to cover the lack to flavour we took out). What is bad for you is too much, EXCESS. Except this goes for everything. Such as too much sugar, protein, hormones, almost any drug & water can be a detriment, even lethal to you. I'll only give you that trans-fat is terrible.
The market hasn't and never will teach you that moderation is healthy because it's against their business model of selling excess. See meal portion sizes and how they have increased over the last few decades. I hope you're not taking fish oil supplements as well. Anything with this much marketing behind it should be cautioned with much skepticism.
Edit: I stand behind my criticism of anti-fat culture.
It is more likely that you are down voted as you went on a rant about fat to a parent who was talking about consumer tastes I the 80s and 90s. It would feel that both these replies are likely noted as off topic to the general conversation going on here.
