Sadly, the "all cynical, all the time" stance (as, your post) almost always proves correct.
For those celebrating the FCC vote seemingly for no other reason than that it discomfits corporation and Republicans, I'd ask you to review previous expansions of government power and judge the results (hint: DHS, DEA, NSA, National Zinc, Weasel and Hydrogen Reserve, etc).
I have the uncomfortable feeling these are the same folks who, while proclaiming to champion reason, logic and fact, disregarded all precedent and historical fact in committing to the absolute belief that Obama was that rara avis, the "honest Chicago politician".
Not saying Obama's really worse than any other politician in regard to lying, misleading, flowery, obscurantist pronouncements. Just pointing out that he has PROVEN to be no exception to our well-founded doubts about the veracity of politicians in general.
Lotta comments, and good ones. I doubt this is a sudden epidemic of LEO abuse of citizens, rather an artifact of near-universal reporting.
One thing I notice not one single person has said anything about is how police operate in full knowledge that their union (like, sadly, other unions) will back them up 100%, to the point of fighting for their continued employment no matter the facts of a case.
And don't EVEN go the "That's what unions are supposed to do!" route. Really? Support cops who murder citizens, who throw flash-bang grenades in a baby's crib, who terrify and abuse people who are not charged with any crime?? REALLY?
Fuck that. I know that's what police unions do, and it's a huge factor in the us-vs-them mentality of LEOs and their expectation that they can get away with anything. And, of course, since nobody even dares to bring it up, who's to say they're wrong?
The "Grand Narrative" to which all right-thinking people are expected to adhere says "Unions=good", but come the fuck on...with regard to cops, the union /= good.
per Neo: "...they do play an important role in ensuring that big companies can't abuse the little guy"
"...many in our society are simpletons,...never think deeper into implications..."
"You may want to think about the implications to patent protection and IP in general..."
"...rather than discussing legal and technological implications of a decision..."
Cases are not, and cannot be, decided based on such down-the-road effects as you promote here. They are decided by law. Period. Not to serve some "little guy vs. big guy" rooting interest. Not merely to thwart Big Corporation A.
And also, a judge damn well better be able to disregard "...multiple reviews by the USPTO, a District Court Judge, a jury" if the results have been uniformly stupid, as here.
Still, kinda cute how you went with numbered points to make it look like you're presented a large number of "proofs", when the Commutative Property of Bullshit shows that 4bullshit+3bullshit=bullshit, same as 10bullshit+4bullshit=bullshit. Nice try.
IF, as you imply, you have suffered from this condition, you should be first in line to decry said condition being used to redefine the normal activity, attention span and behaviors of little boys as medical conditions requiring drug treatment. Whatever you suffer from, this ongoing redefinition requires ADHD and hyperactivity being used as "fake ass shit".
If you think that hasn't been happening...well, then, don't knock knowing what you're talking about till you've tried it.
People who think comparing the US Government and Google or Facebook should thank God, or the power of evolution, for the existence of the medulla, which controls autonomic systems like breathing and heartbeat. Because clearly they don't have enough intelligence to maintain those activities on their own.
I mean, you are passing this off as "thought"??
"Google gets my info." "NSA gets my info." "Therefore the threat from each is the same."
The compared things (Google=NSA) are not alike enough for the comparison to be useful. When Google has SWAT teams, courts and prisons, THEN maybe your bullshit 'argument' would be worth examining, but not until.
Till then, good luck remembering to breathe you fucking idiot.
Hide and watch. Someone obliquely responsible for hiring Johnson and funding his efforts as a lobbyist against patent reform will be appointed. Someone more prominent than Mr. Johnson, who has never gotten his* hand dirty. Of whom it can be said "He* brings a uniquely wide experience in the field and correspondingly impressive expertise."
Because we need that kind of expertse.
*-Sorry bout the "incorrect though statistically defensible"...errr...misogynistic pronoun. I hope the usage didn't trigger anyone. It's like the War on Women all over again. Times a thousand.
"Only Obama has ever done this sort of thing. All prior occupants of the whitehouse and halls of congress have been pure as the driven snow. This makes it much more difficult to bear, it's terrible."
*sigh* You know it's really sad when Obama supporters have to point to the fact that all other politicians have been (mostly) corrupt to assuage their bitter, bitter disappointment.
We're too far into his presidency for 'But...but...BUSH!!", and Reid and Pelosi have too much power to say 'But...but...CONGRESS!'. So now, all they're left with is "Well, historically, he might not be the worst!". A ringing endorsement indeed.
I knew they (Obama supporters) were in trouble when, faced with the clear fact that for many of his supporters, getting the DEA off the backs of marijuana users was a primary concern, he literally laughed at them. The fact that many of them voted for him again in 2012 was a clear sign he knew he only had to be "better than the Republican candidate" to win.
Only in that roundabout way can we blame the Republicans for the duplicity exhibited by our POTUS.
I have to think it's doable, ideally in a manner that would allow those motivated and tech savvy enough (a modest level?) to circumvent it, but creating backlash from everybody else, hopefully a considerable amount. That judge may already be getting pounded, possibly by his own family, which must number among them some people under the age of 60 screaming "WTF you fucktarded looser?? What were you thinking??"
Maybe Google is concerned people would start using all those other search engines, like...ummm...Bingo? Is that one??
Whatever else Eugene has accomplished, it's certainly motivated more than a few people to WD-40 those rusty Rhetoric class and Philosophy 210 skillz and bring them to bear on Mike's common sense explication of this story. These comments have only succeeded in sharing their authors' opinion of their own intelligence and analytical ability. Sadly, this does little to answer the question of whether or not this 'Eugene' device satisfies the conditions of the Turing Test.
More importantly, such respondents do not deal with the question of whether software like Eugene (and predecessors) is not more a "program designed to imitate human conversational function", manipulating symbols and text of which it has no real understanding, than an actual "thinking machine". (This was Searle's objection to the test in his 1980 paper, Minds, Brains, and Programs.)
When a computer/program can incorporate prior content of a conversation into an original thought or proposition, it will be somewhat convincing, and might actually win the Loebner Prize. (Not to say that's ever a motivation for such research.) Indeed, the 'winner' of the first Loebner competition (Weintraub's PC Therapist) did so by the programmed emulation of pauses and misspellings common to human respondents, not by 'intelligence'. Unless you want to argue that our intelligence is defined by it's limitations and inefficiencies.
I doubt Turing would consider Eugene a "thinking machine", or an example of "artificial intelligence". Now, when a software/hardware construct can misconstrue obvious common sense objections such as Mike has raised here and then respond as if he had instead presented a tightly-reasoned, peer-reviewed thesis...THEN I'll be impressed. Because choosing the response "Let me show off how smart I am." rather than, you know, actually contributing something, really does demonstrate (the misuse of) human intelligence; as well as some other, less commendable human traits.
In the example you present (NDA), you've sold off your RIGHT TO UTILIZE your free speech(and only about a very specific subset of well-defined things), but you haven't "exchanged it for money" in the sense that your hypothetical Chinese employer can use it and you no longer can.