Those that insist that the patent system is all sunshine and roses, without any downsides, will either just ignore the issue, pretending it's not happening, or find some way to claim that while this is an abuse of the patent system, when applied 'properly'(that is used against small companies/inventors rather than large companies) the patent system is infallible, and nothing but good.
The problem isn't incomplete online records. It's that people will link to the arrest or accusation story - and ONLY to the arrest or accusation story - but not to the exoneration story from weeks or months later.
Which would be sleazy to be sure, but I think I'd prefer that over the alternative, that of forced speech, where if you don't want to be on the hook for linking to potentially damaging speech, you have to post any 'updates' or 'corrections' that pop up later on.
I'd prefer someone being able to be scummy, over people having to worry about legal threats should they not post the 'correct' info, whether intentionally or not.
Everyone knows the proper way to object to bad patents and/or the crappy patent system is to say that there are bad patents in general, without actually pointing out any specific examples to support your claim.
Pointing out specific examples of failures of the patent system is completely uncalled for. Issuing vague, non-specific claims that it's bad in general is both more professional, and more likely to get people to agree.
FCC needs to be passed through Congress, not a fucking regulatory agency where shit has even less of a chance of sanity.
If it were up to congress to write the rules, I can guarantee you that if the rules were written at all(given how much they bicker like children), they'd have been tailor made by and for the cable companies, with utterly useless 'rules' and 'limits.
In case you thing that's unrealistic, it's pretty much exactly what they tried to do when the whole Title II shenanigans were going on, proposing laughable rules that would have been even more pathetic than the previous ones.
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.