That act literally sabotaged the operation. On purpose.
Except the network was already off, he refused to switch it on for a foreign country's operation without his own country's approval. On purpose.
I don't understand why Ukraine didn't ask the US government for this and instead asked Musk directly. Ofc he wouldn't do it unless pressured by the government.
Was the usage according the network terms of service?
Let's see... he allowed the Ukrainian military to use Starlink but put it in the ToS that they couldn't actually use it in any military operations.
Yes, that sounds very plausible. Very plausible indeed.
It's quite possible the internet was intended to be used for communication proposes. For instance, civilian GPS chips shut down themselves if high enough velocity is detected to prevent usage in rockets.
Feel free to present even a shred of evidence that supports this idea. Because as far as I can tell, all you have is "he didn't sabotage it because maybe they violated the TOS" when he admits to sabotaging the operation.
Evidence of what? I don't know what was the agreement between Musk and US military, but I'm sure if Musk violated it he'll be liable for it.
As long as you're sure.
ITAR look it up. Starlink cannot be used in military applications if it's being used in a commercial application. Musk didn't pull the plug on this, lawyers and the laws did. I don't care for the guy either but get your facts straight before believing what CNNs CEOs book tells you.
Do you have any actual evidence that Isaacson, in his authorized biography of Musk, is lying? Wouldn't Musk have something to say about that since he authorized the biography? Has he denied it? He's pretty quick to tweet all sorts of other things.
That tweet you posted to another person is literally that, ITAR. I'm guessing you still haven't even looked into what it is.
Please explain why the DoD negotiated a contract to use Starlink in Ukraine if the Ukrainians couldn't use it in a military capacity.
They specifically used it for civilian applications and communications. ITAR specifically forbids a company to allow their commercial products while they are supplying a service to be used in a military capacity.
That act literally sabotaged the operation. On purpose.
Except the network was already off, he refused to switch it on for a foreign country's operation without his own country's approval. On purpose.
I don't understand why Ukraine didn't ask the US government for this and instead asked Musk directly. Ofc he wouldn't do it unless pressured by the government.
Was the usage according the network terms of service?
Let's see... he allowed the Ukrainian military to use Starlink but put it in the ToS that they couldn't actually use it in any military operations.
Yes, that sounds very plausible. Very plausible indeed.
It's quite possible the internet was intended to be used for communication proposes. For instance, civilian GPS chips shut down themselves if high enough velocity is detected to prevent usage in rockets.
Feel free to present even a shred of evidence that supports this idea. Because as far as I can tell, all you have is "he didn't sabotage it because maybe they violated the TOS" when he admits to sabotaging the operation.
Evidence of what? I don't know what was the agreement between Musk and US military, but I'm sure if Musk violated it he'll be liable for it.
As long as you're sure.
ITAR look it up. Starlink cannot be used in military applications if it's being used in a commercial application. Musk didn't pull the plug on this, lawyers and the laws did. I don't care for the guy either but get your facts straight before believing what CNNs CEOs book tells you.
Do you have any actual evidence that Isaacson, in his authorized biography of Musk, is lying? Wouldn't Musk have something to say about that since he authorized the biography? Has he denied it? He's pretty quick to tweet all sorts of other things.
That tweet you posted to another person is literally that, ITAR. I'm guessing you still haven't even looked into what it is.
Please explain why the DoD negotiated a contract to use Starlink in Ukraine if the Ukrainians couldn't use it in a military capacity.
They specifically used it for civilian applications and communications. ITAR specifically forbids a company to allow their commercial products while they are supplying a service to be used in a military capacity.
Then why did the DoD negotiate a deal with them?