"Were you really planning on staying at a Motel 6 before this article came out?"
I don't know if many people actually plan to stay at a Motel 6 -- but I have stayed at many of them nonetheless. For example, when I'm on a long road trip and stumble into a town at 2am and I just need a bed, I tend to gravitate towards Motel 6 (or HoJo's, or other national chains of similar status) for the same reason that people eat at McDonald's: what you get may suck, but it's cheap and you know what it will be. Joe's Random Fleabag Motel could very well be a lot worse.
(No, I'm not going to pay for a good quality room when I'm literally going to just be using the bed for a few hours.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, "teh internets" has matured and will be regulated.
I agree. In fact, I would consider this to be one of the minimum requirements. It's beyond insane to expect anyone to be able to determine copyright status when there is no requirement to maintain a registry of copyright owners.
I've heard lots of people say that organic food tastes better, fresher, etc. Usually along with claims of it being more nutritious. However, it's very solidly established that neither of those things are actually true.
As near as I can tell, the only claim that is made about organic food that seems to hold up is that it is better for the environment to produce.
"I'd venture they are multiple orders of magnitude better qualified than Mr. Roberts and other commentators in the matters of avionics, flight management computers and in-flight entertainment systems."
Perhaps so, but what Mr. Roberts was talking about was security, which is something that he is qualified to discuss.
I think that comparing guns with encryption is disingenuous from the start. Guns can cause physical harm to innocent people and their property, so some amount of regulation to further public safety seems reasonable. Encryption presents no such threat.
"I can think of another circumstance off the top of my head: When violent resistance is reasonably anticipated regardless if any warrant is served."
I disagree. I don't think that should justify it at all. Before no-knock was a thing (remember that it's fairly recent), cops had plenty of ways of dealing with the situation without getting shot in the face. "Knocking" by the way, doesn't have to be an actual knock on the door. It could be a cop crouched behind a car with a bullhorn.
In fact, the entire rationale for "no-knock" in the first place has nothing to do with officer safety. Which makes sense, because "no-knock" reduces officer safety. It had to do with stopping suspects from flushing drugs down the toilet.
"How about determining jurisdiction according to where the content is hosted?"
A few years ago, I would have said that since this is an easy and common-sense solution, it would never happen. However, in this age of "the cloud", it's no longer so easy to know where the content is hosted.
I'm sure that Perry's lawyers disagree, but she has missed an enormous opportunity here. She could have ridden this Left Shark thing to its end and gained a huge amount of benefit from it through the association. Done right, she could have endeared herself (perhaps ironically, but still...) to an audience that currently sees her as a target of ridicule.
Instead, she decided to waste her time, money, and the attention Left Shark gets by putting it all into pointless court cases.
Thank you, Cal. This is 100% correct. The talking point about how the main job of the federal government is to keep us safe drives me crazy.
National defense is an important part of protecting our freedoms, but if that is thought of as the only or most important part, that's a path that leads directly to the wholesale destruction of our freedoms.
I don't know about the veracity of that, but let's say it's true. I would respond with two things:
First, meeting frequently with the head of the AFL-CIO doesn't automatically mean that they are in agreement. It could very well be that they are not, and Trunka is trying hard to change that. (To be clear, I'm speaking purely from logic here. Frequent meetings like that certainly do suggest an amiable relationship.)
Second, Trunka is the head of one specific union. That Obama may be representing the interests of that union in no way suggests that he is representing the interests of unions generally.