T-Mobile doesn't have a hard cap, though. They have a data amount above which they may, at their discretion, slow down your connection.
If their "cap" is intended to be enforced against people who are trying to cheap out and use their phone as a mobile hotspot to support a full time business, then the average user using a larger amount of streaming data may not be what T-Mobile is targeting anyway.
Because internet service is becoming recognized as an fundamental human right by the UN and others
Always amusing when people act like mentioning UN recognition of a thing is supposed to be a convincing argument to anyone, anywhere. (It's an appeal to an authority where the authority in question is not even remotely convincing as a source, even if someone were to miss the obvious fallacy involved).
Do you want
There's a lot of stuff I want, and a lot of stuff I don't want, and the answer to those questions are not correlated with what the law should be.
Re: Re: WWhy Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
Clearly, any opposition to Obama must be racism because the Republicans were totes cool with Bill Clinton as prez and would never have obstructed, disagreed with, or impeached him. (And don't blow your load so soon; the election isn't for two more years! You've got plenty of time to spread your very reasonable "DAE republicans are evil and I hope they all die?? lolz!" opinion before you activate The Misogyny Card.)
She was not seven years old for all of the scenarios she wrote about. The pattern of creepiness apparently continued until she was 17.
Hiding behind the veil of "I never said that" or "thou hast said it", not me... is disingenuous lying. If you're not impugning motive, why bring it up at all?
Again: Disclosed Fact vs Undisclosed Fact
"Based on your publicly-made statement, you are a child molester" is a protected opinion, since it's based on publicly disclosed facts. There's nothing "disingenuous" about it, and no one is "hiding behind a veil" that I can see.
Privacy constitutes a compelling government interest when the privacy interest is substantial and the invasion occurs in an intolerable manner. We agree with the State that substantial privacy interests are invaded in an intolerable manner when a person is photographed without consent in a private place, such as the home, or with respect to an area of the person that is not exposed to the general public, such as up a skirt.
But § 21.15(b)(1) contains no language addressing privacy concerns. The provision certainly applies to situations in which privacy has been violated, but that is because the provision applies broadly to any non-consensual act of photography or visual recording
I mean, seriously, it's right there. The court specifically acknowledges that there could be a law to protect privacy in places where privacy is expected, but that this one is over-broad.
Court: "This law not only criminalizes actions unprotected by the first amendment, but also actions protected by the first amendment. Narrow it down a bit." Mouth-Breathing Peanut Gallery: "OMG THEY THINK TAKING UPSKIRT PICTURES OF CHILDREN IS OKAY!"
They already do, in fact. There are laws out there to limit what the police can keep in civil forfeiture cases, as a (failed) attempt to keep police from seizing anything and everything in sight for personal gain. In practice, it becomes:
"What? We aren't keeping all this loot, we're giving it all to the feds! We can't help that they donate 90% of it straight back to us, can we?"
I'm not sure it also wasn't the past of journalism, except that now it's easier to debunk garbage like this and get the word out about it to others.
I'd certainly rather us not go back to the days when a person's two sources for news were a talking head on the TV and some guy at the local newspaper. If this series had been written back then, who would have been there to correct them?