The problem isn't so much the rules as enforcing them. The best consumer-protection law in existence doesn't mean squat if the ones in charge of enforcing it are looking the other way when it's violated, and alternatively even a weak consumer-protection law can be sufficient if it's enforced well and consistently.
"should not unreasonably interfere with the access to someone who is trying to get to an edge provider and an edge provider who is trying to get to a consumer.
'Pay to bypass the completely unnecessary cap/limit' should absolutely be seen as violating the above for example, as it introduces obstacles in the path of both customers and service providers that exist solely for monetary gain, and have nothing to do with keeping the network clear.
The problem is that the FCC apparently sees caps as a good thing, rather than a blatant cash grab by introducing an artificial and entirely greed-based limit. If you see caps like that, then of course anything that allows customers to 'bypass' the artificial obstruction is going to be seen as a good thing.
It's helping people avoid the (completely unnecessary) caps, what's not customer friendly about that? /s
If I can't use an adblocker on a site, I don't turn off the adblocker, I stop visiting the site. I imagine a good number of other people do the same, so by trying to keep adblockers from working on their site, all they're doing is giving people yet another reason not to go there.
Only if you're the police. People in the military seem to actually respect the weapons they use, and realize how much damage they can cause. Police on the other hand seem to treat them as toys, something flashy they can use to get the 'respect' they so desperately demand.
Lose a weapon? Problem, it needs to be found now before it falls into the wrong hands and someone is hurt, accidentally or otherwise.
Lose a toy? Eh, no big deal, there's always more where that one came from.
On the other hand, the police officer is presumed innocent until theft is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ah, but you see, in an armed robbery at badge-point/'asset forfeiture' case, the officer(s) involved aren't the ones on trial, the stolen property is, and it is automatically assumed to be guilty. It's up to the former owner of said property to prove otherwise if they want to recover their stuff.
Is it really so much to ask for politicians to actually understand technology before they go off on ridiculous, ignorant, uninformed rants about it -- often leading to even more ridiculous and dangerous legislation?
You mistake 'malice' for ignorance. She knows exactly what she's saying here, and while she's dishonest when she talks, she is consistent. She was for CISA because it would expand the ability of the various government agencies to spy. She's against encryption and security for the same reason in reverse, because it makes it more difficult for government agencies to engage in mass, indiscriminate spying on the public.
B: Right, no need to panic, let's think about this logically. You're sure it was here when you went off your shift last night? You can't think of any reason for why it might be missing?
A: ... uhhhh.
B: What did you do?
A: I... may have had a few drinks that night.
B: How many is 'a few'?
A: ... two?
B: Two beers? That's not too-
A: No, two... uh... six-packs.
B: Two six- where did you go that you drank twelve beers?!
A: Well you see, a friend was throwing a party, and I thought, 'You know what would really impress people? If I showed them the humvee we've got.' One quick requisition later-
B: No, just stop. I don't want to know. So after you downed all that beer, and showed off the humvee, then what?
A: I... think I remember a few people asking me what it was like riding in it, so I decided to give a few rides, give people something to remember. Not really sure what happened after that, next thing I knew I was waking up with a pounding headache at home, with a sloppily scrawled 'invoice' for a dozen burritos, with '1 hmvee' written at the bottom where the price would have been.
B: *Sigh* You know what, screw it. We'll tell them we lost it, leave it vague and hope no-one asks for details.
Second: as noted by many who applied, any religious personal text plates, which aren't under this "god", have been wholly rejected. The reason: it's considered inflammatory (most likely to their religion).
'The state is allowed to shove the preferred religion of those running it down the throats of everyone else, but you're not allowed to even attempt to do the same with another religion'.
'The global tech industry made around $3.7 trillion last year. They employ some of the brightest people on the planet.'
Now let's add the logical extension to that:
So when those bright people tell you something is impossible, maybe listen to them.
On one hand they claim the tech industry employs countless brilliant people, highly skilled on the subject. On the other hand they completely dismiss what those brilliant people are saying, insisting that despite knowing nothing at all on the subject they're sure that something that countless numbers of those people have claimed is impossible can be achieved if they'd just 'try harder'.
For heaping praise on the skills and knowledge of those employed by the tech industry, they sure seem to hold that very same knowledge in contempt.