Whoooa! Damn! You are REALLY fucking out to lunch!
> Again, that does not appear to be the case with either of the two candidates, who (at best) might just be described as agnostic to/indifferent to new technologies and somewhat ignorant on what that might mean from a policy perspective.
> and, like Clinton, he often relies on staff to print news articles off the internet.
> These are two candidates who don't have their hands on the technology
Apparently, Senator Chuck Grassley thinks so. And, hey, bad luck for, well, everyone, because Grassley just happens to be the guy in charge of moving the bill forward on the Senate side.
Is that for real? Is it really possible for a single man to block legislation in this way? On one hand it wouldn't surprise me that our corrupt system is so severely flawed, but on the other this is not the way it SHOULD be.
My apologies. I thought you were being sarcastic. It was the same time I was reading the comment above that basically said, "Lewis was the other person DA Brockler was chatting with. Duh!" as if that explains anything.
Again, my apologies.
Funny that we *still* don't know who this Lewis is. I suppose I could Google it and find out, but should I really have to? I don't think so.
Is it the Lewis of Lewis and Clark? No, not hardly. But it very well could be, as the first mention of a Lewis in this article is
... but did not disclose the circumstances or content of his conversations with Mossor or Lewis.
Shortly thereafter we get this mention of Lewis:
... both Mossor and Lewis had told him they would not support Dunn’s alibi ...
But that doesn't clear it up at all. And then the final mention:
... Brockler’s deceptions and misrepresentations in his contacts with Mossor and Lewis resulted in multiple violations ...
Which also doesn't shed any light. If I was forced to guess, mine would be that Lewis is the actual person that DA Brockler was imitating with his "Taisha Little" persona, but that's complete speculation
This is not the first time I've noticed names being dropped into stories on TD with no reference to who they are / what they have to do with the story. You can do better.
How quickly you erase the MEANS of promoting the progress under the Constitution.
If you had ANY idea of what you're talking about, you would know that Mike and other TD writers frequently discuss how copyright is the means. This is almost always in reaction to those who claim that the purpose of copyright is to create income for creators. So right off the bat your whole premise is wrong.
Your incessant whining, and inability to give meaning to the entire Copyright Clause, is embarrassingly silly.
No, it's YOUR whining about a subject you are CLEARLY wrong about is what is utterly, amazingly, shockingly silly. It's especially silly that there isn't even anything in THIS article that "erases" the means (to put it in your absurd phrasing); just because he doesn't bend over backwards to frame the argument in the way YOU prefer doesn't mean he's "erasing" anything.
You clearly haven't done your homework, otherwise you would know that the means are a very, very common topic that Mike and TD address.
Wow! That's an impressive amount of dancing around and avoiding the central question:
What is keeping you "decent" other than the expectation of divine reward?
If your answer is "nothing" then I have news for you: you are a piece of shit. I'm glad we got you out in the open. Brother.
For me and rational people, the answer is simple: treating others well helps ensure that I am treated well. I don't have to look to some imaginary "Sky God" to tell me that's OK; I KNOW it's OK because the evidence is in: species who cooperate fare better as a species than those who don't.
That's a morality that makes sense. That's a morality that is logical. What does your morality have? A fairy tale telling you to do things a certain way?
There's no question in my mind that the end result of widespread cable cutting will be broadband connection pricing going through the roof. It will be inconceivable to those running the cable companies to have their profits be reduced by even the smallest of margins ("I MUST have that 3rd yacht, dammit!")
Comcast has already started on this path with their usage caps and extra charges. It will get much, much worse.