>>>If I'm a musician playing at a venue, I expect to be paid by my fans who show up to listen to me. If you enjoy listening to me, and I make my living this way, then you will pay me so I can continue to bring you entertaining music.
If I was that one fan who paid to see you, because I enjoyed listening to you, and as your FAN I recorded your performance and shared it on you tube, even if everyone hated it, I would still be your Fan. I would also still be your Mom and I would pay to see you again next time even if I was the only one there.
It's interesting that you complain about the decline of traditional media as if to defend traditional media but then you argue that few people take Mike seriously. If your complaint is that no one cares for traditional media anymore then clearly it appears everyone sympathizes with Mike more than you and hence they take him more seriously than you.
If Techdirt is the one telling readers what they want to hear, and not you, then how can you argue that few people take Techdirt seriously.
If you think you somehow have a better understanding of truth than the rest of us then please share. Because all I see out of you is an arrogant appeal to your own superior authority and your allegations that you are somehow more enlightened on matters of truth than the rest of us.
Actually, the Ostipows should sue the Sheriff's Office -- Not the Sheriff, the BUILDING.
Under asset forfeiture theory, any property used to aid in committing a crime is guilty until proven innocent, and not only that, but the owner must prove they deserve the property on top of that. Since any violation of constitutional rights by a group that you can win a federal rights violation lawsuit over is also a felony under federal criminal statutes, and without the building, cars, guns, etc certainly aided them in committing those felonies.
The FBI has the power to do so (they have the responsibility of investigating criminal violations of the constitution) but are generally too busy framing the mentally disabled for terrorist plots these days.
"Criminals like that get what they deserve, but that would never happen to me..."
But there will always be people who want to believe that the police keep them safe and are virtuous above reproach.
... right until they're on the receiving end of police abuse of power/lawbreaking, and they look around proclaiming their innocence and wondering why no-one believes them, instead brushing aside their claims of innocence as baseless attempts by a criminal, attempting to tar the good name of the paragons of virtue that are law enforcement.
in practice, there can be some degree of flexibility to allow for traffic shaping, so that e.g. data which needs fast response (e.g. realtime communication) can be given lower ping times at the expense of also getting lower throughput.
Do you have any references for how that tradeoff works? Personally I wouldn't mind if ISPs shaped traffic based on type - prioritize latency on streams (this would cover everything from Netflix to VOIP) and gaming, and deprioritize bittorrent, email, etc. if necessary. That gets some peoples' panties in a twist though, not sure why.
The virtue of a gun is that someone twice your size can't have his way with you, and that your rival's two buddies will think twice before backing his play.
It's not protection against a posse comitatus, unless you can muster one of your own. So no, our freedoms are not safe when our law enforcement are willing (eager, even) to gun down their fellow Americans.
Zero rating an internal service (because it's sourced inside their own network) doesn't violate the rules of net neutrality.
The source of the data doesn't matter; "inside the network" is still on the network, and the network needs to treat all data passing over it neutrally, regardless of where that data comes from or where it is going.
As soon as your network equipment starts paying attention to things like where the data came from originally, or where the data's ultimate destination is - much less what the actual content of the data is - beyond the bare minimum needed to perform proper routing, you are violating the principle that the network should be (content-, provider-, and recipient-)neutral.
Now, that's an approximation of the absolutist version; in practice, there can be some degree of flexibility to allow for traffic shaping, so that e.g. data which needs fast response (e.g. realtime communication) can be given lower ping times at the expense of also getting lower throughput. That's the absolute farthest that it can go, however, and even that needs to be based on explicit user request for this particular traffic to be handled differently; ideally this would be done by something like an optional label, which the network is explicitly permitted to look at if it is present.
Oh, I took your meaning to begin with. I understand your use of the word, "lords" was technically accurate. However, the nuance I was attempting to relate was that you do yourself, and all of us, a disservice by using such labels in this context.
Just as it might be technically accurate to describe the sheriffs in this article as 'heroic' or 'public servants' when they prevent a murder or otherwise act to thwart those that seek to harm the public, in context of their actions described here, they are acting as criminals. What good they might otherwise do, and whatever labels we might use to describe them in context of performing that good, does not apply in this case. Using words like "lords" - that also imply a certain dignity and refinement (as not all acts of lords involve stealing from the public at the point of a sword) - distracts ever so slightly from the specifics of the issue and therefore the specifics of possible solutions.
Regardless of whether you accept my nuance, it's easy for me to see we share a very similar sentiment. It's also apparent you possess an above average command of the written word. All writers are propagandists whether they appreciate it or not. And all sorts of very different words can be used to describe a given situation accurately. So, given your sentiment, I encourage you to select your words carefully so as to not only convey your meaning accurately, but also frame them in a way that does the greatest service to your sentiment.
So, 'yes', I get it, many affluent people/groups abuse their power and they've been doing it for a long time. But now let's take it to the next level and frame those bastards in the worst possible light possible at all times (of course, whilst remaining accurate and refraining from outright hyperbole). Make every attempt to refrain from using their labels/framing when equally accurate terms apply. Terms that better describe them for the immoral human waste they've become. ...is the point I'm trying to make here.
The criminal plutocrats/oligarchs do everything they can - all day, every day - to control the narrative. They choose their words carefully so as to convey a certain meaning. It's up to us to take back that narrative.
Keep fighting the good fight. Stay strong brother.
The justice system doesn't even use forensics to detect culprits.
They choose their culprits and then seek out evidence to convict them. When a suspect is acquitted, they assume he escape justice through a technicality. It doesn't even occur to them that they got the wrong guy in the first place.
They certainly don't re-open the case and look for other suspects.
So why do we regard acquittals as false and evasion, but regard convictions as absolute, enough that we can doom them to a heinously cruel penal system?
We need to completely change how we investigate, and then refine our forensic science accordingly.
Pirates and emperors: Our state policies are more monstrous than the crimes of those trapped in the system.
And we need to change our penal system to include the presumption we probably got the wrong guy and he's there to be reformed and contained, but doesn't necessarily deserve punishment.
"While you are one of the idiots that are often wrong about everything I think the point is that it's easy for me to tell. Your posts come off as arrogant, putting yourself 'above' anyone as if you somehow have a superior understanding of what's right and wrong than everyone else when clearly that's not the case at all. Even when people point out how wrong you are you absolutely refuse to acknowledge it, ever. But people see right through your nonsense."
Slow clap. You almost had some valid points and then you destroyed it with a massive, hateful personal attack.
"Techdirt, OTOH, exists in a much more organic environment where competition thrives and it still retains viewership."
By telling the read what they want to hear, and not worrying about the fuller truth. Your long rant pretty much missed the point entirely, but hey, after the personal attack, I didn't expect any less.