Imaginary Newsie: "Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Chile, Slovenia, Estonia, Japan, Finland and now potentially Indiahave all passed neutrality rules banning zero rating of apps. Don't you think that this will interfere with your plans for internet.org?"
Imaginary Zuckerberg response: "No worries: we'll resolve all those nuisance laws just as soon as TPP is signed."
You're missing the point; don't get distracted by Sauron's so-called "person-hood". This is about the rings...I mean, keys.
There might be multiple keys, but I bet among those will still be just one key, that does the work of all the other keys. One key to rule them all. Because otherwise DEA might get possessive and refuse to share it's key with FBI, and we all know how bad that will be.
So this promise of key splitting is just nonsense--no matter what, there will be one key that rules them all.
I was told a story once by someone who worked for the government, reviewing food at port of entry to the United States. He related what happened one time, when he rejected a shipload of orange juice because it was contaminated. The administrator's first move was to yank him off the case. Then, they ordered test after test after test--according to him, sixteen tests in all--until they finally found a test that was bad enough to pass the orange juice. Then they approved it for entry. He, of course, was cashiered for his temerity, sidelined to the point that he finally resigned.
See, the reality was: his job was not to evaluate and approve or reject food at the port of entry. His job was to evaluate and unconditionally approve it.
So you might think a patent examiner's job is to evaluate a patent, and approve or reject it. But God help any examiner who might be so bold as to reject a patent.
I agree. The claim should have been filed against the assets of the drug lords.
No doubt, there has already been a "U.S. against A Bunch of Assets" case, and the assets are in the hands of the DEA, but I don't see that as a problem. First his truck was damaged, then there was a forfeiture case; so his claim is antecedent to the forfeiture claim.
That is: I think he can make a case that he should have been recompensed out of the assets before the government forfeited the residue. As an non-ally party of the drug lords he is certainly entitled to that recompense, and his claim comes first.
Of course, that will have a negative effect on the DEA, since they won't get to keep all those cool assets; they'll have to fork some back to him. Does anyone outside of DEA have a problem with that?
I should think that spelling out the exceptions and exemptions is better.
It depends on how those exemptions are spelled out. In actual practice, in this country right now, the exceptions aren't in the law, but the courts have a reasonably clear set of principles to apply.
What concerns me about Manne's exceptions, more properly the exceptions being created by big content, is that the exceptions will be preclusive. Such as, in geometry: Anything square is exempt but never anything rectangular (squares are rectangles, so the exemption for squares is meaningless in this construction).
E.g., pretend rules that rule against everything and pretend exceptions that except nothing.
I don't see the argument as one between big content, trying to protect their interests in content, and everyone else trying to protect their interest in free speech.
It looks more to me like big content is trying to establish rules that will make it the official only source for content; that will bar all competitive content sources. Elimination of competition is nothing new, and big companies of any flavor hate it (whatever they might say in Congress about free markets).
"May" implies (to a reasonable person who understands what the word means) that it could happen under certain specific, hopefully extraordinary, circumstances. It's used by lawyers to cover their client's butt.
More properly, the word is the "permissive" form of "may"..."we are allowed". Since this is an "agreement" between "you" and the "chain" as defined by the chain, allowing itself to perform the act, the permissive form in this usage is best expressed as "we reserve the right to". As in:
We reserve the right to disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation, pursuant to a court order, or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule or ordinance.
"the confidential informant's report that the defendant 'keeps his door locked and admits only people whom he knows,' 4) the fact that the defendant sold drugs to the informant only after arrangements were made by telephone,"
The spoke in the tires of the argument is the report by the confidential informant. No matter how we try to beat the "no justification" argument, the presence of that report, and that, evidently, the defendant sold drugs to the informant (a sale was arranged after all).
It is a validly controversial whether or not the warrant should have been no-knock; but there seems to me to be no disputable issue at all about whether there was probable cause for a warrant.
If the university is instituted by the state, and funded by the state, it is the state. If that were not so, then we would have no rights at all. Every aspect of government that we deal with--every agency--is instituted and funded by the state.
Take the state police, as a gross example. Under the theory you propose, even though the police were instituted by and funded by the government, they would not "actually be a part of the government" and so would not have to respect your rights.
"Liberal," to many conservatives, is like in meaning to "Pandora's box": the cause of all the world's problems. Whether it's taxes, regulation, or a violation of rights, it is the fault of liberals; because conservatives cannot do wrong.
So, according to Verizon, the majority of users won't even come close to using "unlimited"* data. So they've just argued that unlimited data plans will not cause network overload.
It's not a matter of whether they will or won't use unlimited or too much data. It's a pure marketing scheme, which starts with Verizon selling you X data for $50/month.
Next year, they'll come out with a 2X plan. Now, you never used X in the first place, mostly because the link speed is too snail-like for you to use all your limit. But you'd like to get a faster link and the only way to do that is to buy the 2X plan--which is $66/month.
And the year after that, 3X, for $87/month; and the then the year after that, 4X for $115/month. Notice that you're still using the same data, but over a three year period, your monthly outlay has increased by 130%...a 33% increase every year.
There's nothing more precious to a company like Verizon than being able to jack up your monthly payments by 33% a year. But the marketers don't know how to do that if the customers have unlimited plans; the company can't "double" unlimited. Imagine hearing this ad: "Verizon is giving you an even more unlimited plan..."
I think I've seen this story somewhere. Let's see, where there were many keys...hmmm....and one secret one...hmmm...
Oh, right, Lord of the Rings:
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne, In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie, One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. —The Lord of the Rings, Epigraph
And it worked out so well back then, too, those multiple keys...oops, I mean, rings.