Re: "It's not my fault for stealing the cookies, it's your fault for catching me."
While he may have sped up things and the intel folks are to blame for it I wouldn't place all the blame on them. At least not if restricted to the US. There are plenty of help from abroad and I'm not talking about US allies. That said, the contribution of China and the likes is smaller for sure.
And the arms race with malicious hackers out there (remember hacking is not always bad per se) also isn't guilty alone. There's a lot of people wanting to protect their devices from plain old theft of data. Remember our phones now carry a great deal about our lives.
So in the end Clapper is giving too much importance to Ed while leaving other factors out.
That. It's actually sensible to leave less unused capacity than the actual size of pipes you are providing exactly because most people will not need it. But even then it should be said and agreed upon.
I would go for a tiered system as he said. If you want to have full speed, all the time, you are a tier 1 user otherwise you are a tier 2, 3 and on user that gets the speed limited by a percentage depending on the tier. So you get X speed, tier 1, 2 or up. The first will always get full pipe. The second will be shaped as the network load goes up during peak times up to a y% of the speed. The third z% and so on. It still needs to be regulated to a sane amount of possible tiers but it is feasible.
“people who are consuming the most should carry more of the bill rather than raise everybody’s bill by the same amount,”
No. You have to pay to keep their pipe up regardless if they use it 10% of the time or only with 10% of its capacity. I pay for you to keep my pipe up, the size I hired. The added cost for using 100% of the capacity in this case is small enough that it can be ignored.
It's crystal clear that caps are anti-competitive behavior because they can. Except if you intentionally turn a blind eye.
Oh, come on. These people passed all sorts of outrageous laws. Even going to the point of violating the Constitution. Like 'social norms' will deter anybody. And remember, many things that are very common are still criminalized or have an incredibly hard time getting a green light from the legislative. See marijuana, homosexual rights (including marriage) etc etc etc
You are right. But I suspect there will be more blood before this gets sorted out.
That's what I thought. And even if all countries happen to be sane, the costs of defending on each country are an unreasonable burden. And it wastes taxpayer money on all those countries. These clauses are nothing but trouble.
It could be that the IFPI has nothing to do with the thing and are a bunch of assholes. Not that they have a long history of being assholes, wrong and abusive, no. In case you didn't notice this is sarcasm.
And issuing a DMCA over Creative Commons released music seems like a good test case, yes? I'm guessing that IFPI will take back its bogus takedown notice
Can't CC request the courts to examine this case to protect them from future annoyance (ie: if it happens again they can automatically go for 512(f) or simply disregard the takedown notice)? I mean, this is a case I'd throw my money to help set a good precedent.
There are plenty of ways to fix most problems you mentioned. And some can't be fixed so the solution is: deal with them. Simple as that. There are investments that the private sector won't do because it means losses in the long run. But the govt can go ahead and do it because overall everybody is better with said investments. Accountability is one good example.
As one example, you can make the camera have a temporary off buttom (ie: turns it off for a determined amount of time). It can be automatically off if the cop checks out to have lunch for instance. And you can set operational standards giving more freedom to the officers while making it harder on them if the camera is off in case their conduct is brought into question.
There's no excuse for pulling the plug in the body worn cameras.
So the FBI would rather have criminals accused of abusing children or contributing for such acts go free than provide details to the justice about how they got to those people. This is sickening. Unless, of course, they just wanted some high profile convictions to entertain the media and the evidence wouldn't self sustain when scrutinized.
Some people here seem to think that the judiciary has no fangs but actually forcing the cases to be dropped because of the lack of cooperation from law enforcement is part of the punishment if you think about it. Of course it should go further than that unless the people accused haven't suffered damages because the social "guilty upon accusation" mindset nowadays.