Well now that you mention this, I hear that a few near monopoly ISP's are guilty of facilitating sex trafficking in violation of a new FOSTA/SESTA law...
I hear they're also guilty as hell of a boatload of copyright infringement on the Internet...
We did vote in favor of the party of Net Neutrality. They stole the presidency away from our candidate and gave it to the 2nd place candidate.
As someone who buys subscriptions of HBO Go only for Game of Thrones, trust me, HBO already did a good job of ruining that.
Too expensive for one, and also has a habit of failing or taking forever to load things, including at crucial hours (when new Game of Thrones episodes come out).
I tried to watch another series at HBO before my subscription expired last time. I gave up a couple of minutes into the first episode of that series because the video was nearly unwatchable from all the server issues they were having.
Yeah, it's actually insanely difficult to get a conviction for perjury.
See the baseball player who clearly flat out lied to Congress under oath about not doing steroids who was found not guilty.
By your logic then Prohibition was a huge success, and the War on Drugs should also be a huge success based on the large number of people prosecuted for it.
Just because you outlaw something doesn't mean that you can stop everyone from doing that thing, no matter how much enforcement and money you throw at it. Prostitution & sex trafficking are one of those things.
As a guy who's never even drank alcohol his whole life despite being an atheist in his 30's I'd love it if alcohol and all the illegal drugs never existed. But I know that's not possible. Since I live in the real world and know the cause and effects on this issue I oppose the war on drugs, I'd also oppose bringing back prohibition, because I know both were miserable failures that just created more problems then they solved.
The same is true with FOSTA/SESTA, it fails miserably and creates more problems then it fixes.
This is sadly not new. Texas is the state that pretty unambiguously murdered an innocent man for the crime of setting his own house on fire and murdering his kids in the fire. His name was Cameron Todd Willingham.
There were some major problems with virtually all the evidence used to convict him, including the fact that forensic science for fire investigations advanced a ton from when he was first convicted to when he was executed. Yet Texas courts ignored the experts and the serious doubts they raised and executed him anyway.
If you've heard the name Cameron Todd Willingham before, that's probably because he's become a rallying cry for anti-death penalty advocates ever since his execution. He's frequently cited as evidence for why the death penalty should be abolished.
I think murdering unarmed black people and acting like oppressors with things like stop and frisk does a much better job at that then trying to censor a few books.
The SCOTUS has changed it's mind before.
Read up on Plessy vs Ferguson, and Brown vs Board of Education. They're two rulings decades apart that each ruled the exact opposite on the same issue of if separate but equal was constitutional.
The 14th amendment referenced in Brown vs Board of Education decision already existed when Plessy vs Ferguson was made, so they don't have the excuse that an amendment changed the ruling.
So yes, they could flip flop on this, or anything else in the future.
(not saying it will on this, just that it has changed it's mind and made completely contradictory rulings when absolutely nothing in the law/constitution changed to justify it)
Maybe you should actually read a few stories about DotCom if you honestly believe people see him as a hero.
DotCom long had a reputation as an arrogant asshole before the legal trouble. People are rallying behind him as a victim of two over reaching governments violating his rights constantly (and yes he has won some court cases in his home country that ruled this way), not as a hero.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 'study' they were enrolled in without their consent wasn't actually a study, but just a way to try to bill more to their insurance company.
I've actually seen this practice with my brother. When he was in the hospital for something else.
The insurance company called their bluff by paying them $0.00 for the 'study', and the hospital suddenly forgot about the 'follow up' that they said was required for the 'study'.
Well then, either we all go back to un-intuitive numbers for our URL's, or we need sites to use complete nonsense URL's. Like 'definitely-nothing-bad-about-cats' for the URL that links to today's weather at a weather site.
And how many people who lose $50 would be able to recite the serial number?
Zero that's who. No one obsessively writes down or memorizes the serial number of their cash.
To 99,9 per cent do I assume that they have not once read article 2 and article 13 together. Then I have to say if you don’t pay attention to what we do here, then I have to declare it as nonsense. When you take a look at what we try to achieve, to apply after all copyright, if we want to abandon this or if the German colleagues want to abandon this all, so they need to say so, but only to harp on about it, because it is now ‘en vogue’ to use that word, this I think is wrong.
The problem with this is that it's often quite difficult to read many proposed laws even if you try to.
Politico wrote an article about this years ago. Many laws the US congress writes don't actually contain the full text of the law. Instead it contains a ton of references to section #, paragraph # of other existing laws. Hence if you want to read a proposed law, you first have to gather the text of 30+ different existing laws already on the book first.
And then even if you try to read the whole text of the law, if you aren't a lawyer, good look understanding a lot of parts of it.
And yes, this means that if you amend an existing law you can also amend a boatload of other existing laws by accident if you aren't careful.
(Note: Yes the US and EU are different countries, but I'm sure the same issue exists in the EU in a lot of legislation).
Outlawing image searches?!?
I thought it was bad enough when someone sued google to get rid of the 'View Image' button on their image search page.
Wall Street investors are often short sighted greedy morons who want the opposite of what's best for them long term.
As seen by them cheering on Verizon canceling a bunch of infrastructure spending on FIOS, despite how it fucks over most of their other investments and the entire economy long term.
Even if they found $50, how would they know it was the $50 they were looking for?
$50 is $50, no one would be able to identify it from any other pile of $50 in cash.
And what if they found multiple people had $50 on them?
Contrary to what power hungry school staff might think, it's not illegal or suspicious to carry money on you.
I'm going to guess it actually happens when many Americans are at work. And they'd rather air it in the evening instead.
Just yesterday EFF posted something about rethinking antitrust law to take away Google's dominance.That will never work. Search engines are an area where natural monopolies tend to form no matter what the government does. If I want to find something online I want the best search engine at it. And that's Google, not even Bing can come close to it (believe me, I've tested it). And because me and everyone else keep using Google, Google will collect more data to help them improve their search results even farther, thus giving me even less of a reason to use another search engine. The only real reason to use a non-google search engine is if you want one that brags about not collecting data, because you don't want them having a record of what you look up. And that's too small and niche a group of people to make a serious Google competitor. (believe me, I've tried DuckDuckGo that brags about this, it fails miserably at finding stuff compared to Google). We COULD break up Google for anti-trust reasons, but one of the new smaller Googles will end up assuming dominance over the search engine market all over again and render the others into obscurity. Probably whichever gets the Google.com domain would be the winner I bet.
Why did it take so long to file this lawsuit? SESTA was passed months ago, and plenty of people have been acting like it's already in effect for just as long.
How is this not grouds for removal from office?
Seriously, how is this judge's actions not grounds for immediate removal from office for so blatantly violating an order from the SCOTUS?
Roy Moore got removed from office as Chief Justice of Alabama's State Supreme Court TWICE for this kind of stuff. The last time he was removed he openly defied the SCOTUS's ruling legalizing same sex marriage nationwide, when he ordered Alabama clerks to not issue them to same sex couples.
I don't see how this blatant violation of the SCOTUS on cell phone warrants doesn't warrant the same removal from office for violating people's civil rights guaranteed under the US constitution.