"Experience teaches that this is not a bad rule of thumb"
That's backwards in some cases. For example, by that standard a guy hosting videos that he's personally curated on a small site would be more protected than a YouTube style service. Which is the wrong way round - the large service with no direct knowledge of user activity until after the fact should be more protected than the single guy who knows every video intimately. To argue otherwise is to argue for total surveillance and/or the removal of many useful and important services, since direct liability would cause YouTube to have to either shut down or vet everything.
Why is that "damning"? All I'm reading is that they think that there's enough for a trial to decide rather than being dismissed out of hand. That circumstantial evidence could simply be the same spin on perfectly normal procedures that we see here all the time if someone decides they don't like them.
"e-ventures has gone this far already in hopes of seeing its terms-violating content reinstated"
Which, presumably, would have left them competing for their own rank with a lot of news stories about the dodgy tactics they used and the fact that they use methods that are specifically opposed by Google themselves. I'm sure potential clients would have been flocking...
Because there's a massive difference between stuff you post up on a publicly available site and people spying on every private communication you have?
To use a flawed analogy - there's a big difference between getting shut down because you're shouting on a soap box in a mall and having the phone company shut you off because of the conversation you're having - even if the speech itself is the same in both of those cases.
If you can't understand the difference, perhaps consider listening to the arguments rather than justifying all sorts of crap just because you don't like the actions it's currently being sold on preventing - which, it doesn't, by the way. One of the issues here is always that these actions are utterly ineffective, but will lead to abuses in other areas once permitted.
"They report on a story and leave out crucial facts to give readers a better understanding of what they are reading."
They link to the original reporting upon which their opinion article is based, and nothing you said had anything to add to the issue at hand. Not a single word changes the point of the article you're attacking.
Which part of the article you quoted is relevant to this article? Bearing in mind that while accusing others of dishonesty, you might note that articles tend to bias their coverage toward their readership (i.e., most of what you quoted is geared toward the local area and as a personal story, whereas none of that is relevant to the tech that the audience here would want to read).
"To make it worse, they were not awarded $31,000, they were awarded £17k which comes out to around $21,000-$22,000 U.S."
The article says $21k. Can anyone else confirm if this article was edited (which is unusual without a comment from Mike to state that it has been), or is this moron hallucinating again?
Re: "What we have now is good enough, there's absolutely no need to plan for the future."
I'm reminded of discussions around the time Napster became popular. While some organisations were running around like headless chickens trying to work out what to do with digital media and piracy (as, sadly, many still are), I distinctly remember some MPAA representative commenting on the situation. Their stance was essentially "nobody really has broadband and nobody's going to download movies on a metered connection so we're not worried about it".
Of course, fast forward a few years and they joined in the headless chicken run once broadband penetration passed the tipping point. They *could* have prepared for what was obviously going to happen and profited. But, they pretended that people not doing something today means that they can plan for it after it happens. They were proven wrong. Which probably leaves innovation taking place elsewhere in areas that have the infrastructure, rather than a marketplace that can't handle the strain because someone didn't think ahead.
"Things that you can't do on 4/1 that you can barely do on 25/3"
Well, sure, you just need to think about the implications there. All of the things you mention involve getting content for free, outside of pre-approved services hosted by the media arm of your major ISP or even making your own content and bypassing the legacy gatekeepers! They can't have that.
"But 4K TV is still relatively new and is not expected to be widely adopted for years to come."
Well, that really says it all. They're more concerned about corporations profiting from the current status quo than they are from putting infrastructure in place for predictable incremental increases in bandwidth usage. At best, they're promising that they'll wait until everybody's suffering from a lack of capacity, while guaranteeing that market penetration of new tech will lag behind the rest of the world.
"Some people, for example, believe, probably incorrectly, that we are on the path to interplanetary teleportation. Should we include the estimated bandwidth for that as well?"
Why the hell would that happen on the internet, let alone be the responsibility of just American ISPs? Although, I would suggest that if everybody else is working toward it and the technology's as mature as 4K is now, they should probably be at least considering it.
I fear that he's just indicating that he believes workable high capacity bandwidth and Star Trek are on the same level of science fiction. That doesn't bode well for the US.
I've been saying this for a while, but it's telling how Trump fans never seem to be able to justify or defend his actions. They can only try to divert attention to somebody else. It's getting very desperate, since now they're reduced to trying to deflect from his very real actions to a fantasy version of what they think his former opponent might have done.
If you're referring to net neutrality regulations, the regulations are there to *protect* what was there before, not to create something new. Without such regulations, the neutrality that allowed the growth you refer to will be no more. That's the problem.
Sadly, what will actually happen is that a handful of people decide not to travel to the US at all, a majority will sheepishly agree to hand over their details, and the actual terrorists make innocent dummy accounts while plotting elsewhere.
"Nah they (the left) want this stuck down for all the cheap foreign labor, Real americans cost too damn much....."
Trump, who has been known for outsourcing his labour and hiring illegals, is on "the left" now? Do you have a list of the 5 or so people who are still on "the right", just so we can keep track of who is pure enough for you?
"So. which side will have blood on their hands first"
Trump already botched a raid in Yemen that was delayed by Obama because he knew it was too risky. Trump decided to dive straight in, and caused the deaths of numerous locals, a Navy SEAL and an 8 year old American girl. He's started washing his hands in blood, and that is just the beginning.
"(she lost, get over it)"
This isn't about Clinton, so stop the deflection. This is about the direct actions of the orange muppet. Time to man up and own the crap you voted for.
It's always telling when the major complaint about an article is "stop writing about what I don't want to read!". To me, it indicates that not only do they lack the maturity to simply skip over articles they find distasteful (or read a different site), but they have no actual argument against the points raised in the article itself.
"Hmmmm, I'm not a serious student of history, but I'm pretty sure all the elections were won that way... what is your point, exactly?"
The point is likely that most previous presidents won both the EC and the popular vote. This is the first time a candidate was utterly defeated in the popular vote, but still won because of the EC. Is that too complicated?
"Trump does something terribad regarding a tech topic? I wanna hear about it!"
Cool. Because, as other articles here articulate very well, this order is directly affecting the tech industry. Glad you're on board.