They are certainly meant to interpret, or reinforce proper interpretation, of laws. Instead they find technicalities to address which somehow also let them pass on the question at hand. Procedural and other questions can be important, too, but merely in the name of efficiency, if not protecting rights and enforcing proper criminal sanctions, they should be handing down fully clarifying rulings. But too often they seem to seek one reason to dismiss and done. Here they ruled on the application of one law without wider guidance on whether or when that law and similar laws should be applied at all. That isn't "making law". (Never mind that all three branches can and do make law, as intended.)
This is just out and out tinfoil hat conspiracy theory territory from people who see "Google" behind any policy they dislike.
Tinfoil is always the way to go even when something deserves a ton of legitimate criticism. It think part of the tinfoil has to do with projection; either directly projecting behavior and motive, or picking some weird made up thing to go after because you agree with the behaviors someone or something could be legitimately criticized for. Or i suppose sometimes it is because one won't state directly what the real issue is so one uses dogwhistles and the like which can hilariously take on a life of their own.
Supporting someone who failed to do any further work or innovate in the public email space. Complete non-entrepreneur except in the common space of being a professional troll and egomaniac.
Yeah, many people don't get what zero-rating does or will do in the market, especially when they have awful caps and data pricing already. They haven't come to see it as some insidious thing, or it doesn't have a high conspiracy theory entertainment value rating yet, to gain much attention. And it seems enough of them "get what they want" out of it so far. Same goes for media. plus they probably hope not to hurt themselves for zero-rating if they figure that no one will effectively fight it.
I rather imagine they know that hardly anyone will be aware of this. I bet that if every site operator actually (re)registered, the db couldn't handle it, if it didn't just effectively DDoS their site in the first place. I honestly doubt they could even serve their informational video effectively if the actual traffic even approached a small percentage of the theoretical.
It seems more like a simple plan to strip most of the net of safe harbor via "It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"." Yes, in the basement with no lights or stairs. I really don't imagine a page of the Copyright Office site and a mention in the Federal Register is as broadly far-reaching as your average FBI "leak".
Stupid indeed. In fact, it makes no sense. Which is why i suspect they would go after cord cutters for "changing their input", without uh... licensing. Heck, why not go for every television that does this internally? Or something remotely more realistic than this, anyway.
Yeah after a lot of lobbying and whining the FCC allowed telcos to call G/LTE "4G" because reasons. Which is sort of what i would expect the nature of 5G to be like in the States. 3.8G or something.
Makes one long for the days of the original real AT&T, not just a Baby Bell that ate other Baby Bells and other things then was somehow allowed to buy the AT&T LD and the use the name. The old AT&T at least had high quality service and equipment and provided the world with tons of amazing basic research. It's almost the saddest thing, the lingering death of what was once Bell Labs. I am still not sure about the trade-off (which could have been had another way) that gave us cheaper long distance calling-code companies and the ability to buy and use cheap crappy phone equipment for a few years before everything changed anyway.
And yes, if they can merge with Verizon one can have the most nearly complete evil zombie resurrection of the former AT&T.
Can't make any claims what AT&T I might have become, but i suspect their culture would have made for better stewards of telcom and internet than the fragmented Bells that simply fed the merger and growth by acquisition craze and the mentality that goes along with that.
(Oh. The original AT&T also gave us hilariously bizarre educational films.)
Sorry for the tealdeer but after seeing the original AT&T mentioned yet again, i was compelled to braindump.
One could remove the word "all", but i suspect it is merely super-mild hyperbole. Also, "financial ties" doesn't mean one directly receives money, but that the result and general climate fostered by these things suits them.
Sure there are hardcore believers and those committed to the sets of ideals that make these things seem like a good idea regardless of the repeated demonstrations of these experimental outcomes through history. Either way, there is some heavily enforced cognitive dissonance about what they think should be and what happens in reality that makes them essentially lie in their pro-position statements. But often enough those sorts have some direct or indirect remunerations for their efforts. All that lobbying cash gets spent on something. Whether it's in the form of entertaining politicians or those doing the writing, or donating funding to the institutions or paying for "studies".
Yeah, one can never prove "all". And there is hardly a point to doing so.
> The Commission said sharing the legal reflections would undermine its negotiating position in trade agreements.
First off, what may or may not be legal should be something examined at the outset in any good faith and above board endeavour (which some of us know that this is not, already).
But i immediately imagined more absurd examples, such as delaying legal reflections for 8 years on a section of a trade deal involving, say, coca or opium products.
On the other hand, i suppose it would be funny (not that i would expect it of the EC) if they indeed used something of this part of CETA as a bargaining chip, then suddenly "find" it illegal, null, and void in the process of signing. Oops we can't implement that provision, sorry.
(I really don't know how that would work, but pardon my excursion into an alternate reality.)
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates 'True Threat' Conviction Supreme Court Overturned, Still No Answers On First Amendment
Re: Re: I see a pattern here
On the post: Conspiracy Theories Run Amok Over Copyright Office Executive Changes
Tinfoil is always the way to go even when something deserves a ton of legitimate criticism. It think part of the tinfoil has to do with projection; either directly projecting behavior and motive, or picking some weird made up thing to go after because you agree with the behaviors someone or something could be legitimately criticized for. Or i suppose sometimes it is because one won't state directly what the real issue is so one uses dogwhistles and the like which can hilariously take on a life of their own.
On the post: Ridiculous: Nick Denton Settles Remaining Charles Harder Lawsuits, Agrees To Delete Perfectly True Stories
Re: Entitled, much?
On the post: Hey, You Can Hack Your Car Without Violating Copyright Law (For A Little While)
Or, you know, demonstrate that some purported environmental protection is a lie...
On the post: Only Thing 'Exposed' By Bad Reporting About Russia/Trump Link Is Malware Researchers' Unethical Behavior
Re: Calling ISPs
On the post: Canada To Debate Banning 'Zero Rating' This Week
On the post: Legislators Demand Answers From DOJ On Expanded Hacking Powers It's Seeking
But have you seen the ads from the military? Sexy.
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Changing The Channel
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
On the post: Copyright Office Fucks Over Thousands Of Sites With Plans To Remove Their DMCA Safe Harbors
It seems more like a simple plan to strip most of the net of safe harbor via "It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"." Yes, in the basement with no lights or stairs. I really don't imagine a page of the Copyright Office site and a mention in the Federal Register is as broadly far-reaching as your average FBI "leak".
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Changing The Channel
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
On the post: AT&T's Already Making Things Up To Get Its Massive New Merger Approved
Re: Harold Greene is rolling over in his grave
On the post: AT&T's Already Making Things Up To Get Its Massive New Merger Approved
Re:
On the post: AT&T's Already Making Things Up To Get Its Massive New Merger Approved
Re: Wait, 5G?
On the post: AT&T's Already Making Things Up To Get Its Massive New Merger Approved
Re: One Ring to rull them all.
And yes, if they can merge with Verizon one can have the most nearly complete evil zombie resurrection of the former AT&T.
Can't make any claims what AT&T I might have become, but i suspect their culture would have made for better stewards of telcom and internet than the fragmented Bells that simply fed the merger and growth by acquisition craze and the mentality that goes along with that.
(Oh. The original AT&T also gave us hilariously bizarre educational films.)
Sorry for the tealdeer but after seeing the original AT&T mentioned yet again, i was compelled to braindump.
On the post: AT&T's Already Making Things Up To Get Its Massive New Merger Approved
Re: Seems like a broad accusation
Sure there are hardcore believers and those committed to the sets of ideals that make these things seem like a good idea regardless of the repeated demonstrations of these experimental outcomes through history. Either way, there is some heavily enforced cognitive dissonance about what they think should be and what happens in reality that makes them essentially lie in their pro-position statements. But often enough those sorts have some direct or indirect remunerations for their efforts. All that lobbying cash gets spent on something. Whether it's in the form of entertaining politicians or those doing the writing, or donating funding to the institutions or paying for "studies".
Yeah, one can never prove "all". And there is hardly a point to doing so.
On the post: Canada Copyright Troll Threatens Octogenarian Over Download Of A Zombie War Game
Re: Fire up the fax machine
On the post: Canada Copyright Troll Threatens Octogenarian Over Download Of A Zombie War Game
Re: What about non-seniors?
On the post: Canada Copyright Troll Threatens Octogenarian Over Download Of A Zombie War Game
Re: Perhaps....
For $5k, that better be a pretty fkn awesome game.
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Changing The Channel
Re: Seriously?
On the post: EU-Canada Trade Deal Dodges Belgian Veto For Now, But Faces Multiple Legal Challenges
First off, what may or may not be legal should be something examined at the outset in any good faith and above board endeavour (which some of us know that this is not, already).
But i immediately imagined more absurd examples, such as delaying legal reflections for 8 years on a section of a trade deal involving, say, coca or opium products.
On the other hand, i suppose it would be funny (not that i would expect it of the EC) if they indeed used something of this part of CETA as a bargaining chip, then suddenly "find" it illegal, null, and void in the process of signing. Oops we can't implement that provision, sorry.
(I really don't know how that would work, but pardon my excursion into an alternate reality.)
Next >>