This seems like a bit of a cheap shot. Sure the language in their TOS is laughable, but I'd bet it's some boilerplate language from whatever cheap way the managed to come up with a TOS. I doubt they sat around and talked about anything in there.
This would be a much more interesting article if we had some response from them about that section, or if they had actually tried to enforce that part of their TOS against somebody.
You mean 'only the abuses the NSA has voluntarily admitted to, while our only means of verification is leaked documents.'
Given that congress is only getting what information the NSA deems it needs, and the FISC is only getting the information the NSA gives it, there is (as far as I know) no oversight to the NSA that actually has access to information on the NSA that doesn't come from the NSA.
I'm not sure where all this USTR bashing is coming from. We are all aware that these TPP negotiations are taking place. We are usually aware of where they are happening and some of the groups participating. We even know the general topic of the treaty.
How can you just discount all of that information being shared and not see that as the transparency it is?!?
We didn't just call him, we started a petition that he had to respond to.
He thanked us all for our concern, expressed that he shared the same concerns, checked his wallet for which businesses had given him large checks, and then said he would look for broad bi-partisan solutions.
As bad as I think this kind of fee/tax would be i'd enjoy seeing some country actually put this in place and then see a court case ruling that files over that network are not infringing as the license has been paid.
I know it'll never happen, but it'd be fun to watch.
One thing is missed at first that exaggerates the problem. The width % is not of the longest bar, but of the enclosing element. The max-width: 300px actually cuts the bars down so that they hit their longest length somewhere around width: 55%.
If I were him my next blog post would be something along the lines of...
Apparently The Observer Dispatch believes that have a trademark on the name, The Observer Dispatch, grants the right for The Observer Dispatch to have complete control of all uses of the name The Observer Dispatch. They appear to believe that any use of The Observer Dispatch that is not officially approved by The Observer Dispatch violates their trademark on the name The Observer Dispatch. What the folks at The Observer Dispatch seem to not understand is my use of the name, The Observer Dispatch, is not in a manner that could be found confusing by those looking for The Observer Dispatch and in no way does my use of The Observer Dispatch constitute trademark infringement.
The Observer Dispatch has no legal authority to force me to stop referring to The Observer Dispatch as The Observer Dispatch. All my uses of the name The Observer Dispatch are done in reference to The Observer Dispatch and in no way imply that I represent The Observer Dispatch.
They were AAA rated because everybody 'knew' they were guaranteed by the US government (which turned out to be true) even though all parties would publicly deny that. This was because of the government run institutions (fanny/freddy) that issued them wouldn't be allowed to fail.
Without that government guarantee they wouldn't have a AAA rating.
You can put all the restrictions around getting money to congress that you want, but like water flowing through a sponge it will find it's way there. The government simply has too much power such that it is still worth pushing millions (billions?) of dollars there.
These contribution laws are like the contraband screening of a prison, except these are designed by the prisoners.