Re: Do you think a MONTHLY 'Unlimited' plan isn't LIMITED?
@Duke
Ya know buddy, some of us are reaching for the Troll button right about now....
It might be a sign of good faith on your part if you were to not set up Mike as a straw man for ad hominem attacks, and instead present arguments that go directly to the point of the current discussion. My mouse finger might stop twitching so violently as I desparately want to hit that magic red button.
It's called "positive reinforcement", but in the collective opinion of the majority of the world (and particularly the USA), it will be of a negative nature. That will serve only to point out all the more easily just exactly who failed to grow up and learn to think for him/herself.
The platform's mission will be to instill an even stronger sense of community, and reinvigorate the call to "restore the real president to his rightful seat", etc. yadda yadda, so on and so forth. Under current Twitter/Facebook rules, that's not a likely scenario, hence the annoucement - to whet appetites of the mental-toddlers for yet more bullshit..... errrr, conversations about how to put their Beloved Leader For Life back on his throne.
And what will the hackers do? Anything they might do would be an improvement, I'm sure. After all, how can you "deface" a site that already has the world's most ugly face??
the next time Congress calls "Internet companies" to DC to sit in front of some Committee that doesn't understand shit...PLEASE DO NOT MAKE IT THE SAME GAFA COMPANIES
Do recall that because these companies are the only ones that donate to political campaigns, they are the only ones on any senator's radar. Moral of the story: if you don't give them cash, they won't know you exist. Further moral: stay small, and/or hide your profits so that they don't know how big you actually are, and thus will escape their notice.
Re: Couldn’t Websites just put there servers in other countrie
In a word, nope.
As written, if you're living within the confines of American soil, then it doesn't matter where any servers sit - if you are in control in some fashion, whether by actual and direct administration, or merely as a financial underpinning, you are required to obey the laws of this land. And it doesn't matter if you're a citizen or not, You Will Obey.
I don't have any sites to add, indeed I'm surprised at just how many I've never heard of before, and seemingly more than one person here regards them as a viable candidate for test purposes. But I do want to say that this is going to drive into full fruition Mike's plea for moving to protocols instead of services. I think he's on the correct track with that idea.
Oh, and remember Steve Case, know who he is/was? That's right, he was the head honcho of AOL, and now you'll recall that once upon a time, AOL thought to induce people into thinking that they were The Internet, full stop right there. When people figured out what he was up to, that came crashing down in a record 15 or 20 microseconds of Internet time, which equates to perhaps half an hour in real time. This new idea of regulation will involve "Government Time ", which as we all know is about 200x slower than real time, so the crap will last for perhaps 6 months, but rest assured, it won't ever get on a good solid footing, too many lawyers will see to that in innumerable court cases... for the reasons mentioned above.
And offshore websites will have to toe the line as well, because American sites have to fall in line with any EU regulation governing the Internet. Tit for tat, and all that. (Me personally, were I an American-based site, I'd tell the EU to get bent. But that's just me.)
All I can say is "fun and games for everyone!". But in the end, the only ones who will profit are, of course, the lawyers. Jesus Christ on a jumped-up Pogo stick, how did we ever come to this state of affairs?
Sorry, somehow the above reply got posted as a standalone reply to the article, and not as a reply directed towards to Koby - my fault, I'm sure. But the message of the post stands.
No, "big tech" is not monopolizing our public discourse, unless you consider some news media sites to be "big tech". Though I'll grant you that "big tech", as a topic of discussion, is sure as hell taking the majority of time in our daily discoursing, that's true. But if you look at it carefully, you'll soon realize that some people are very cunningly not including "big media" in the "big tech" discussion. Such willful distraction is exactly why folks like you have made the statement you did.
Don't worry, I don't blame you a bit, it's just a natural reaction when skilled operators are steering the discussion. A hint: always look for the hidden agenda behind the curtain. That's where you'll always find the little man, and you can be sure that his agenda will not coincide with yours.
Only 50,000? You are generous to a fault, I must say. I'd make it 2 orders of magnitude greater, and even then, I'm pretty sure that number would fall short.
Parts of it, yes. But if it's crafted like most bills, any parts that are struck down by the courts will still leave the rest intact and enforceable. Witness the CDA and Obamacare, for two recent examples.
How about we have NO internet regulation, and the bad actors can just keep on pissing, whining and moaning when the rest of us call them out. Either they'll eventually get the memo, or else they'll be shut out of society's advancements, and to my way of thinking, they'll have only themselves to blame. This is one time that Government, big or not-so-big, won't be able to save them from their own stupidity, no matter how hard they might try.
The beauty here is that because there was no "split second to make a decision", and in fact there's a long trail of habitual behavior, these factors will add up to there being reason to grant "Qualified Immunity" to these ass-clowns. And to do it right, the suit needs to include current and past County Council members who also knew about this, and did nothing about it. That would be accountability.
Just because they've also had more than a decade of abusing broken software, that doesn't mean that you should be bringing Microsoft into this discussion, eh?
It's nice to see that you've learned how to turn on AutoCorrect, because your spelling is quite on target. Too bad your content, however, is so far off base as to give me pause for consideration - do I really want to ask you for the name of your drug dealer, because he's definitely doing right by you.....
If the prosecution really paid for testimony, somebody should be going to jail for that alone, whether they told the jury about it or not (of course, yes they should)
This points to the original defense attorney/team being lazy, and therefore not presenting a proper defense. IOW, the first question out of his/her/their mouth should've been: "And how much were you paid for this testimony today?".
I'm kind of amazed Hertz still had 7 year old records at all.
Remember, the IRS can come after you for suspected cheating/fraud, and can look at the previous 2 years of returns, beside the current one (that's under investigation). But, and this is the biggie, if they think they've found evidence of wrongdoing in that period of time, then they can go back an additional 4 year beyond, for a total of 7 years. Moral of the story: Keep Everything. It's not a matter of IF, only a matter of WHEN they pull your name out of the hat for "random sampling" to ensure that the people are playing by their rules.
Well, I think we've all been going down just one path to create a solution, so I'd like to throw this out for your consideration:
The name of the game is profit, yes? That is the ONLY thing that gets a company's attention, like it or not. So instead of mandating the connection speed, mandate the cost per Kb/Mb/Gb delivered. And you get results by tying that price per bit delivered to what the same speed would cost in, say, South Korea. If the company wants more money, then they'd better deliver more speed, simple as that.
Obviously this will require on-site metering, no provider has proven themselves trustworthy to report correct numbers, but just how good will such a meter have to be, and what steps do we take to prevent tampering... lots of details to work out here.
On the post: Despite A Decade Of Complaints, US Wireless Carriers Continue To Abuse The Word 'Unlimited'
Re: Do you think a MONTHLY 'Unlimited' plan isn't LIMITED?
@Duke
Ya know buddy, some of us are reaching for the Troll button right about now....
It might be a sign of good faith on your part if you were to not set up Mike as a straw man for ad hominem attacks, and instead present arguments that go directly to the point of the current discussion. My mouse finger might stop twitching so violently as I desparately want to hit that magic red button.
On the post: If Trump Ever Actually Creates A Social Network Of His Own, You Can Bet It Will Rely On Section 230
Re:
It's called "positive reinforcement", but in the collective opinion of the majority of the world (and particularly the USA), it will be of a negative nature. That will serve only to point out all the more easily just exactly who failed to grow up and learn to think for him/herself.
The platform's mission will be to instill an even stronger sense of community, and reinvigorate the call to "restore the real president to his rightful seat", etc. yadda yadda, so on and so forth. Under current Twitter/Facebook rules, that's not a likely scenario, hence the annoucement - to whet appetites of the mental-toddlers for yet more bullshit..... errrr, conversations about how to put their Beloved Leader For Life back on his throne.
On the post: If Trump Ever Actually Creates A Social Network Of His Own, You Can Bet It Will Rely On Section 230
Re:
And what will the hackers do? Anything they might do would be an improvement, I'm sure. After all, how can you "deface" a site that already has the world's most ugly face??
On the post: Cricut Hastily Walks Back Plan To Charge Cutting Machine Owners $10/Month To Fully Use Their Purchases
Re: Re: Cricut?
The OP meant a lawsuit over the name - Cricut vs. Cricket.
On the post: The Internet Is Not Just Facebook, Google & Twitter: Creating A 'Test Suite' For Your Great Idea To Regulate The Internet
Re: Banking, Netflix, & Chill
Do recall that because these companies are the only ones that donate to political campaigns, they are the only ones on any senator's radar. Moral of the story: if you don't give them cash, they won't know you exist. Further moral: stay small, and/or hide your profits so that they don't know how big you actually are, and thus will escape their notice.
On the post: The Internet Is Not Just Facebook, Google & Twitter: Creating A 'Test Suite' For Your Great Idea To Regulate The Internet
Re: Couldn’t Websites just put there servers in other countrie
In a word, nope.
As written, if you're living within the confines of American soil, then it doesn't matter where any servers sit - if you are in control in some fashion, whether by actual and direct administration, or merely as a financial underpinning, you are required to obey the laws of this land. And it doesn't matter if you're a citizen or not, You Will Obey.
On the post: The Internet Is Not Just Facebook, Google & Twitter: Creating A 'Test Suite' For Your Great Idea To Regulate The Internet
I don't have any sites to add, indeed I'm surprised at just how many I've never heard of before, and seemingly more than one person here regards them as a viable candidate for test purposes. But I do want to say that this is going to drive into full fruition Mike's plea for moving to protocols instead of services. I think he's on the correct track with that idea.
Oh, and remember Steve Case, know who he is/was? That's right, he was the head honcho of AOL, and now you'll recall that once upon a time, AOL thought to induce people into thinking that they were The Internet, full stop right there. When people figured out what he was up to, that came crashing down in a record 15 or 20 microseconds of Internet time, which equates to perhaps half an hour in real time. This new idea of regulation will involve "Government Time ", which as we all know is about 200x slower than real time, so the crap will last for perhaps 6 months, but rest assured, it won't ever get on a good solid footing, too many lawyers will see to that in innumerable court cases... for the reasons mentioned above.
And offshore websites will have to toe the line as well, because American sites have to fall in line with any EU regulation governing the Internet. Tit for tat, and all that. (Me personally, were I an American-based site, I'd tell the EU to get bent. But that's just me.)
All I can say is "fun and games for everyone!". But in the end, the only ones who will profit are, of course, the lawyers. Jesus Christ on a jumped-up Pogo stick, how did we ever come to this state of affairs?
On the post: PACT Act Is Back: Bipartisan Section 230 'Reform' Bill Remains Mistargeted And Destructive
Re:
Sorry, somehow the above reply got posted as a standalone reply to the article, and not as a reply directed towards to Koby - my fault, I'm sure. But the message of the post stands.
On the post: PACT Act Is Back: Bipartisan Section 230 'Reform' Bill Remains Mistargeted And Destructive
BUZZZT Wrong answer.
No, "big tech" is not monopolizing our public discourse, unless you consider some news media sites to be "big tech". Though I'll grant you that "big tech", as a topic of discussion, is sure as hell taking the majority of time in our daily discoursing, that's true. But if you look at it carefully, you'll soon realize that some people are very cunningly not including "big media" in the "big tech" discussion. Such willful distraction is exactly why folks like you have made the statement you did.
Don't worry, I don't blame you a bit, it's just a natural reaction when skilled operators are steering the discussion. A hint: always look for the hidden agenda behind the curtain. That's where you'll always find the little man, and you can be sure that his agenda will not coincide with yours.
On the post: PACT Act Is Back: Bipartisan Section 230 'Reform' Bill Remains Mistargeted And Destructive
Re: section 230 aka section 420
Only 50,000? You are generous to a fault, I must say. I'd make it 2 orders of magnitude greater, and even then, I'm pretty sure that number would fall short.
On the post: PACT Act Is Back: Bipartisan Section 230 'Reform' Bill Remains Mistargeted And Destructive
Re: Question for Mike:
Parts of it, yes. But if it's crafted like most bills, any parts that are struck down by the courts will still leave the rest intact and enforceable. Witness the CDA and Obamacare, for two recent examples.
On the post: PACT Act Is Back: Bipartisan Section 230 'Reform' Bill Remains Mistargeted And Destructive
Re:
Say the fuck WHAT?!?!
How about we have NO internet regulation, and the bad actors can just keep on pissing, whining and moaning when the rest of us call them out. Either they'll eventually get the memo, or else they'll be shut out of society's advancements, and to my way of thinking, they'll have only themselves to blame. This is one time that Government, big or not-so-big, won't be able to save them from their own stupidity, no matter how hard they might try.
On the post: Florida Sheriff's Office Sued For Using 'Predictive Policing' Program To Harass Residents
The beauty here is that because there was no "split second to make a decision", and in fact there's a long trail of habitual behavior, these factors will add up to there being reason to grant "Qualified Immunity" to these ass-clowns. And to do it right, the suit needs to include current and past County Council members who also knew about this, and did nothing about it. That would be accountability.
On the post: Florida Sheriff's Office Sued For Using 'Predictive Policing' Program To Harass Residents
Re: Re:
Just because they've also had more than a decade of abusing broken software, that doesn't mean that you should be bringing Microsoft into this discussion, eh?
On the post: Man Sues Hertz For Not Turning Over A Receipt That Would Have Cleared Him Of Murder Charges Until After He Spent Five Years In Jail
Re: "Law enforcement loves loves LOVES" GOOGLE'S SPYING.
It's nice to see that you've learned how to turn on AutoCorrect, because your spelling is quite on target. Too bad your content, however, is so far off base as to give me pause for consideration - do I really want to ask you for the name of your drug dealer, because he's definitely doing right by you.....
On the post: Man Sues Hertz For Not Turning Over A Receipt That Would Have Cleared Him Of Murder Charges Until After He Spent Five Years In Jail
Re: Re: I'm probably naive
This points to the original defense attorney/team being lazy, and therefore not presenting a proper defense. IOW, the first question out of his/her/their mouth should've been: "And how much were you paid for this testimony today?".
Remember, the IRS can come after you for suspected cheating/fraud, and can look at the previous 2 years of returns, beside the current one (that's under investigation). But, and this is the biggie, if they think they've found evidence of wrongdoing in that period of time, then they can go back an additional 4 year beyond, for a total of 7 years. Moral of the story: Keep Everything. It's not a matter of IF, only a matter of WHEN they pull your name out of the hat for "random sampling" to ensure that the people are playing by their rules.
On the post: Utah Legislature Wraps Up Session By Passing Two Unconstitutional Internet Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the meme RINO - Republicans In Name Only, we now have Parents In Name Only.
Your expository does more to define this term than anything I could add to the discussion, so I'll sit down now.
On the post: Utah Legislature Wraps Up Session By Passing Two Unconstitutional Internet Bills
Re: Re:
I see what you did there.... you made the case for a new meme: PINO
Congratulations!
On the post: Utah Legislature Wraps Up Session By Passing Two Unconstitutional Internet Bills
Re:
Certainly, it's called geo-blocking.
Next up, watch for Utah to make illegal any and all VPN usage in their state. Fun and games, to be sure.
On the post: Senators Push FCC To Finally Update Our Pathetic Definition Of Broadband
Well, I think we've all been going down just one path to create a solution, so I'd like to throw this out for your consideration:
The name of the game is profit, yes? That is the ONLY thing that gets a company's attention, like it or not. So instead of mandating the connection speed, mandate the cost per Kb/Mb/Gb delivered. And you get results by tying that price per bit delivered to what the same speed would cost in, say, South Korea. If the company wants more money, then they'd better deliver more speed, simple as that.
Obviously this will require on-site metering, no provider has proven themselves trustworthy to report correct numbers, but just how good will such a meter have to be, and what steps do we take to prevent tampering... lots of details to work out here.
Next >>