"Rushed" clearly means "worked with the ISP, legal and public communities for several years to craft a fair but underpowered set of rules and recommendations as a first step".
Any odor present is Marsha herself. Someone should pull the flush handle.
I think you might be overestimating the capabilities of the US government. Filtering/scanning is one thing; Storage of everything is an entirely different matter.
Re: Yet again advocating "private" censorship. Quite blatantly.
A BUSINESS CANNOT ARBITRARILY REFUSE SERVICE. PERIOD.
You're wrong, of course. The entire foundation of your argument is wrong. Your argument is factually wrong and your rambling, incoherent posts are ethically wrong.
Try this: Start a blog that allows public comments. Let us know where to find it and then never remove or alter a single public comment regardless of its content. We'll see how long it takes you to retract all of your garbage posts here on TD.
An Onymous Coward (profile), 10 Jan 2018 @ 12:20pm
Re: Re:
So Hammer Fiber is going to compete with all of the incumbents everywhere in the US? You did say "all of America." That's great news! A duopoly is sometimes even better than a monopoly. Now all we need is a 3rd competitor and a strong dose of "I'll believe it when I see it."
An Onymous Coward (profile), 10 Jan 2018 @ 10:32am
Re: Re: So what if a few guilty persons are let off rather than one innocent convicted?
> Just take a look at that phrase next time you're cheering (as will be soon) when drug mules and motorcycle thieves are let off.
That's precisely how our legal system is supposed to work. If your crime cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt then you are set free. It is better to set many criminals free than to imprison a single innocent.
An Onymous Coward (profile), 10 Jan 2018 @ 10:08am
Re:
Politicians back these programs because they think it looks good when trying to get reelected. If they voted to kill these programs they would be lambasted in attack ads during the election cycle for being "soft on terrorism".
Despite their utter uselessness these programs have to do something to "justify" their existence as an organization. The more they can appear in the news the better for them, good or bad. All this security theater is little more than "Look! We're working hard to keep you safe!" Nevermind that you've sacrificed liberty for that.
Re: Now, now, kids: relying on technicalities likely means DOOMED.
Criminal or not, simply writing malware or even selling it is not (currently) illegal. If your entire argument rests on that then you have no argument. Malware is a crappy thing to release into the wild but it's going to happen and in the US, at least, it's not a crime. Unless the FBI decides it doesn't like you.
If he had planted it himself and caused destruction of property in some form then that's illegal and he should suffer the consequences. If you can manage a few minutes of critical thinking and reading comprehension you'll see that's not what this article describes.
Since when was telling a lie illegal (apart from doing so to a LEO)? Why should any diatribe be labeled as "opinion" or "fake"? If the reader isn't sharp enough to understand that:
A) Not everything they read will be truth B) The thing they're reading right now might be fake and C) A smart person looks for corroborating evidence before even approaching any conclusions
then it's really hard to sympathize with their plight when they repeat the fake news to their friends and family and are laughed out of the room.
Likewise there are plenty of people on both sides who think that anyone labelling Trump critics as "hardcore super-liberal", are the ones who are undiagnosed retards.
It explains a lot about those who too-readily jump down the throat of anyone perceived to be a Trump defender, too, regardless of whether they really are.
Not being a hardcore super-liberal does not automatically mean that person is a Trump supported. There are plenty of people who think both sides are undiagnosed retards.
The above is probably the primary motivator for approving patents regardless of merit.
I have to challenge the early assumption in the article that approving lots of patents earns more revenue. A rejected patent will be modified or updated and then resubmitted, with another fee attached. This can continue for the same patent many times until it is either approved or given "final rejection" status. For this reason, rejecting patents (however flippantly) would earn more application fee revenue than approving them would.
However, if they earn huge fees from reviewing bad patents then there you have your fiscal impetus for mass approvals.
In one respect at least, China's embrace of digital technology is far deeper and arguably more advanced than that of the West.
Once this has been rolled out nationwide, it will form one of the most effective means of control available to the Chinese government, especially if combined with a similarly comprehensive plan to collect everyone's DNA.
I'm having a hard time reconciling these two statements. Oppressive control == more advanced?
On the post: Blackburn Doubles Down On A Decade Of Lies As She Pushes Fake Net Neutrality Law
Re: Something stinks here
Any odor present is Marsha herself. Someone should pull the flush handle.
On the post: Scammy Lawyer Award Company Sends C&D To Website For Pointing Out Its Scammy Behavior
Re:
On the post: Chinese Internet Users Start To Rebel Against Lack Of Online Privacy
Re: We are right there with them
On the post: Nebraska The First 'Red' State To Craft Its Own Net Neutrality Law
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Chuck Johnson Sues Twitter, Copying Dennis Prager's Lawsuit Against YouTube
Re: Yet again advocating "private" censorship. Quite blatantly.
You're wrong, of course. The entire foundation of your argument is wrong. Your argument is factually wrong and your rambling, incoherent posts are ethically wrong.
Try this: Start a blog that allows public comments. Let us know where to find it and then never remove or alter a single public comment regardless of its content. We'll see how long it takes you to retract all of your garbage posts here on TD.
On the post: AT&T, Huawei Phone Partnership Killed At Last Second By More Unproven Accusations Of Huawei Spying
Re: Re:
Just sayin'.
On the post: Trump's New Rural Broadband Executive Order Doesn't Actually Do Much Of Anything
Re: Re:
On the post: Jury Awards Couple No Damages For Bungled Marijuana Raid Predicated On Wet Tea Leaves
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Jury Awards Couple No Damages For Bungled Marijuana Raid Predicated On Wet Tea Leaves
Re: Re: So what if a few guilty persons are let off rather than one innocent convicted?
That's precisely how our legal system is supposed to work. If your crime cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt then you are set free. It is better to set many criminals free than to imprison a single innocent.
Our nation would be well served to remember that.
On the post: CBP Warrantless Device Searches Continue To Increase And New DHS Guidance Isn't Going To Bring That Number Down
Re:
Despite their utter uselessness these programs have to do something to "justify" their existence as an organization. The more they can appear in the news the better for them, good or bad. All this security theater is little more than "Look! We're working hard to keep you safe!" Nevermind that you've sacrificed liberty for that.
On the post: NSA Denies Prior Knowledge Of Meltdown, Spectre Exploits; Claims It Would 'Never' Harm Companies By Withholding Vulns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: can't we all just - just get along
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or is this the only thing you could latch onto to start an internet argument?
On the post: MalwareTech Prosecution Appears To Be Falling Apart As Gov't Plays Keep Away With Documents Requested By Defense
Re: Now, now, kids: relying on technicalities likely means DOOMED.
If he had planted it himself and caused destruction of property in some form then that's illegal and he should suffer the consequences. If you can manage a few minutes of critical thinking and reading comprehension you'll see that's not what this article describes.
TD defends rights, not "feels".
On the post: The Gorilla Channel Satire Demonstrates The Ridiculousness Of Banning Fake News
Re:
Especially those people.
On the post: The Gorilla Channel Satire Demonstrates The Ridiculousness Of Banning Fake News
Re: dONT MIND FAKE..
A) Not everything they read will be truth
B) The thing they're reading right now might be fake
and C) A smart person looks for corroborating evidence before even approaching any conclusions
then it's really hard to sympathize with their plight when they repeat the fake news to their friends and family and are laughed out of the room.
On the post: By Complaining About US's 'Very Weak' Libel Laws, Trump Is Actually Shitting On Our 'Very Strong' First Amendmet
Re: Re:
Thanks for the laugh, it's been a rough morning.
On the post: By Complaining About US's 'Very Weak' Libel Laws, Trump Is Actually Shitting On Our 'Very Strong' First Amendmet
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, then it's a good thing I didn't do that.
On the post: By Complaining About US's 'Very Weak' Libel Laws, Trump Is Actually Shitting On Our 'Very Strong' First Amendmet
Re:
Not being a hardcore super-liberal does not automatically mean that person is a Trump supported. There are plenty of people who think both sides are undiagnosed retards.
On the post: Shocked, Shocked To Learn The Patent Office Is Structurally Designed To Approve Shit Patents
Re:
I have to challenge the early assumption in the article that approving lots of patents earns more revenue. A rejected patent will be modified or updated and then resubmitted, with another fee attached. This can continue for the same patent many times until it is either approved or given "final rejection" status. For this reason, rejecting patents (however flippantly) would earn more application fee revenue than approving them would.
However, if they earn huge fees from reviewing bad patents then there you have your fiscal impetus for mass approvals.
On the post: China Plans To Turn Country's Most Popular App, WeChat, Into An Official ID System
I'm having a hard time reconciling these two statements. Oppressive control == more advanced?
Next >>