... then there's this nitpicky overwrought discussion into minutae that makes me just give up caring. This is an academic exercise. Applying it in the real world is a waste of resources, and it's jerkoffs like you that actually perpetuate it by discussing it seriously.
"Most robocallers make heavy use of number spoofing technology, meaning that fighting robocalling will always be a massive game of Whac-a-Mole no matter what."
It's like that because Verizon, among others, makes money by supplying the arms in this arms race, Once CallerID was out in 1985, the next step was charging fees to block it, then fees to reveal it, then additional fees to SUPERBLOCK it. Also, telcos created CID, and they can certainly provide ANI instead and allow you to block that... but why stop the gravy train?
These are the same people that charge you a fee to pack data into signaling packets that they are shipping whether you use them or not. I hope the FCC goes after that next.
India and China and Brasil won't care, they'll just use your tools and dare you to do something about it. They realize that you can't actually get everyone to agree to your asinine patent schemes and copyright limits.
If you own a locked-down VZW phone -- and by locked down I mean no root access possible via encrypted bootloader -- there's nothing you can do to avoid it. The APN configuration that's made possible by Android is removed by VZW... so you can't route your mobile traffic to an on-system proxy to protect yourself.
And, of course, you can't unload all of the modules and such to eliminate the root cause(s) either. All the more reason to stick with Developer Models where possible.
GSM, or any radio, should be part of the modularity. You get a phone that by virtue of the module, works on any carrier. You need a new screen, swap it out. Memory? Go for it. My gosh, someone can bring back keyboards!
It's not about NJTA (which manages NJ TPKE and GSP) fighting another pizza competitor. It's about borrowing a logo in existence for 50-60 years to sell pizza, in effect trading on the national recognition of one entity to promote your business.
Whether that has legal merit or not, whether they then choose to go the copyright route (where I suspect they will enjoy more success) is left to be seen. To characterize this disingenuously as "pizza versus highway" is lazy high school writing.
"Earlier this week, the A Good Cartoon tumblr first posted a bunch of ridiculous and misleading political cartoons about net neutrality that showed zero understanding of net neutrality. And then the person behind the site remade many of those cartoons, but replaced the words in them with "the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works!" "
So the admission of error counts for nothing here? How about amending the article to call this out?
Fifty years ago, before SWAT: -cops carried nightsticks and used them; -bulletproof vests weren't available; -cops carried way more than six rounds, as they had dump pouches, speed loaders, even ammo belts. Only a desk officer carried a moldy six-gun with no reloads. Any patrol officer carried as many rounds as possible, and backup weapons if they could afford them; -no civil service protection existed; -no medical benefits, no insurance, five days sick time; -pay was about the same as an entry-level manufacturing job; -patrol cars were not the overwhelming norm in cities, foot patrols were; -rural towns had shotguns or deer rifles for deputies of elected sheriffs; -prosecutors were even more likely to take an officer's word over a suspect; -no-knock warrants happened then, too, but good luck finding as many stats on them.
It's a better job than it was then. However, an officer had a pension and respect, was taught restraint because the dangers were more immediate and fatal, and had the backing of most of the population because of this. Debatable? Sure, but it fits the overall pattern of the job in 1965.
I know many, many people who were there. I'm all for thought experiments, but first-hand accounts trump them.
... why JetBlue is now constricting seats and introducing fees for bags. JetBlue isn't intentionally trying to make lives miserable, but their shareholders will take away their capital if they don't. Can JetBlue tell them to GFY? Sure, but it won't be long before an activist shareholder pulls a stunt to force JetBlue's compliance.
The 1% are immune to these things, of course, which is why they are always implemented by them.