If there is a minor grammar or spelling error on TD, then TD has no credibility and can safely be dismissed as a bunch of thieving pirate kids and labeled as 'pirate central' facilitators, enablers and 'piracy apologists'.
Re: Re: A Patent Licensing company *IS* a Patent Troll
Your premise, which I am skeptical of, is that such a thing exists as "solid patents".
I believe there may have, at one time, been such a thing, but I am even somewhat skeptical about that.
Regardless of the past, at present, if there are any "solid patents" they are vastly outnumbered by the ridiculous variety.
Finally, Intellectual Vultures could not and would not ever be licensing "solid patents". If someone owned one of these hypothetical solid patents, they would be making use of it, licensing it, but not selling it to Intellectual Vultures.
> I think the biggest reason they are planning this is that > from what I've read the old cable has degraded and now they > can only use it for phone communications.
Do taps on undersea cables cause degradation?
> The US is very capable of putting a tap deep enough that > Brazil isn't going to be able to reach it if they could find it.
That is what cryptography is for. This may presently be impractical on such a large scale, but it won't be forever. Suppose all packets on the wire were encrypted from well within the borders of both the sending and receiving country.
> The end result could be a fragmenting of the net globally.
Having more routes is not necessarily fragmenting of the net. It could be a good thing that most of the world's traffic doesn't have to flow through the US.
Having more email servers is not fragmenting the net either.
However you make a good point that the repercussions of the Snowden revelations would result in other countries taking measures to make parts of the net more independent of the US.
> no matter how tight your security it is going to get out.
And that is a very good point. The clowns at the NSA should have known this. None of this could remain secret forever. What would happen once it goes public? Furthermore, knowing it would not be forever secret should have been an incentive to not go too far. But instead, the short term secrecy seemed to make them think they could spy on everyone with impunity.
Typical of the copyright maximalist crowd. Completely fail to understand the issue. It's not about stealing anything. It's about market competition and preventing what has happened with inkjet printers.
Once upon a time, Inkjet printers were a great idea. Now they are completely unattractive due to the ridiculous price of ink. What was it again, $8000 a gallon? That must be some mighty fine ink.
Now the exact same thing is happening to coffee and a coffee maker.
Maybe they should also DRM it so that you can only drink the coffee out of Keurig brand cups that they can sell at an extraordinarily high price? Would you also be in favor of that? Would you then like to be name calling of people who complain about the abuse?
Intellectual Vultures activities are the very definition of a patent troll. Hey, that's a nice business you've got there, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it. But you could buy my Patent Lawsuit Protection license.
A patent licensing company *is* a patent trolling company. The very definition of such. Just as a copyright licensing company or "collection society" is a copyright troll (can you say Righthaven, Prenda, Voltage, etc).
Google glass? That's like worrying about people with bluetooth headsets.
Or people using cellphones to surf the web, watch videos, or text each other. Or people with cellphones held up to their head. Or people with mp3 players. Or people with small CD players and headphones. Or people with small cassette tape players . . . . . .etc . . .
Shouldn't these people worried about SkyNet or something?
> They care if you make a pileup on the motorway, slowing everyone down, > or cause an accident that kills their loved one.
Go further. ...or cause an accident that kills anyone. Or even injures them.
Most people care even if the innocent victim is a complete stranger to them.
> the distracted driving laws are for > the benefit of others more than yourself.
Most laws are directly for your benefit. Someone cannot rob you. Assault you. Kill you. Or hurt your feelings. (Oh, wait, nevermind that last one.)
But distracted driving laws fit this. They are for YOUR benefit to protect YOU from distracted drivers.
It would be like saying drunk driving laws are for the benefit of others more than myself. I don't drink, let alone drink and drive. But I consider drunk driving laws to be directly for my benefit. And since it protects everyone, not just me, this law is for everyone's benefit.
Just keep the internet going, the reality TV going, the mindless talking heads on the infotainment 'news' channels going, and most people will stay asleep. Keep most people a little bit above starvation level and they don't have time to rebel. Instead of the old Soviet style queues and waiting for hours for basic supplies like razor blades or toilet paper, keep everyone busy with government paperwork. Anyone who complains can be labeled as terrorists. The police need to maintain their proficiency at beating up citizens and watching for unwanted and dangerous cameras pointed their direction.