I felt this was as good a place as any to discuss my plans. I'm currently on a 2 year contract with Comcast that will expire in a few (long?) months. I have a bundle with TV, internet and phone. Unfortunately, I have 2 cable boxes from them because, as we all know, there is no alternative. They do, however, have the option to let you purchase your own cable modem for $10 a month. I opted instead to purchase my own for $150. over 24 months, I'll save at least $90 in rental fees. Or so I thought.
I've had Comcast service now for nearly a year and a half, and the cost of that modem has paid for itself in money saved in rental fees. I'm at the point where I'm finally making money back on the modem. Evidently Comcast decided this wouldn't do, and last month I was billed $10 for a modem rental fee. Comcast decided suddenly that they owned my modem (honest, I went to one of the service centers and talked to the people there who showed me on their computer where the modem I purchased, was labeled "Comcast Owned" when they put in the S/N from my modem). Fortunately, I was able, thanks to Amazon, to pull up a receipt showing I had purchased the modem. They did, without media intervention, adjust my bill. However, they also told me that I will probably have to do this every month from now on because even though I bought it, they still own it.
Unfortunately, I'm stuck with them. They are 1 of two options, the other of which has internet speeds so slow as to be useless in this age. But, I totally plan to get rid of my bundle and just keep the internet and stream all the other content. And it will still be cheaper than what I pay now. This business with the modem issue pushed me over the edge, and I just can't give them any more money. (I have to have internet access for work, so I can't drop them completely). I'm sure my story is not unique, but it is yet another reason why people are cutting the cord. Who wants the hassles?
A friend from work shared this with me recently, and it seemed relevant to the discussion here. It's basically a short quiz (about 13 random questions) on different scenarios where the car must choose between killing pedestrians or passengers.
We're just to busy making sure transgender people can use whichever bathroom they want, gays can get married and force christian bakers to make their cakes and that women have the right to kill their unborn babies to worry about the blind. Maybe if they just put together the #BlindLivesMatter movement they could get some more attention and advance their cause.
Copyright terms are long. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly long they are. I mean, you may think it's a long time down the road for a patent to expire, but that's just peanuts to Copyright terms.
This makes me think of the Affordable Care Act, where it was once said "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". If you were right, that pile of shit wouldn't have passed either, but here we are a few years later living with the consequences of politicians voting for something when they didn't know everything that was in it.
The FBI/DOJ argument is bad and they should feel bad. This is solely about precedent, and should they succeed, it will always be about "just this one phone", every time. You'd even think by now, with the AWA being some 200 years old now, give or take, that they'd have some better case law to rely upon.
Consider this: At some point the FBI/DOJ, in an investigation, has came across documents written in code or a locked safe that might contain evidence of a crime. But when has the government tried to compel Microsoft to help them decode those documents because their software was used to write them? When have they tried to compel the makers of Liberty safes to crack open one of their safes because it might have evidence contained inside? After all, their arguments are that because they write software or created the security features that are now getting in the way, they should be compelled to assist the government. They didn't, because even though these situations aren't exactly the same, they knew it was a dead end, it would never work and they could never compel those companies to do what they now want Apple to do. There is no precedent, because they would not have succeeded before and because what they are asking for is completely ridiculous. And they should never succeed in this.
I will say however, that should the FBI/DOJ ultimately succeed, I sincerely hope that Apple "accidentally" bricks that device and triggers a memory wipe too, so that iPhone can never provide them with what they seek and to make law enforcement in general think twice before asking Apple to help them.
I think this quote from Douglas Adams is even more on point:
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
While it is limited to discussing the President, I think it applies to pretty much any elected official.
Citizens continue to allow ignorant scared people to make such blatantly bad rules because they don't know any better. They are, largely, ignorant and scared too.
Fear it seems is a good way for governments to grab more control over the people they are supposed to serve. Here in the US, we have plenty of similarly bad rules and laws bred from ignorance and fear. For example, we've been given things like DHS, the TSA and NSA mass surveillance of Americans "because terrorism". This is a problem not unique to France.
One would hope that magistrate judge Sheri Pym knows better than to give any weight to an argument that is based on magic pixie dust fantasy-land arguments.
One can hope, but lets be honest based on the already dangerous ruling issued in this case by Pym...it's much more likely that Michael Ramos has been the one supplying Pym with the Pixie Dust in the first place.
I had a similar thought. Data caps basically make it useless anyway, unless they know something we don't with regards to what the FCC is planning or they have a long term plan for slowly increasing data caps.
In any case, I voted this insightful, and I vote that you should get your own section in the weekly top funny/insightful article too. Keep up the great commentary please.
Why limit RTBF to the internet? If such a right actually exists, and has to be applied globally, then let's do it.
So all those criminals have a right to have those past crimes forgotten right? Robbed a house a couple of years ago, so what, it's old news and no one cares now, strike it from the arrest record. That murder from 15 years ago went cold, let's forget about it. I haven't heard Snowden's name tossed around as much lately as it was a couple of years ago, I guess we've moved on. He has the right to be forgotten too, and come back home and move on with his life. All those registered sex offenders who did their time in prison, let's forget about it and remove them from that list (which, can be found online).
Point is, why is it OK to be forgotten on the internet, but not in any other aspect of your life? Especially when that aspect is records kept by the government?
Your wireless mouse is surely a remote detonator, prepare to surrender it.
A wireless mouse without a readily identifiable receiver attached to the laptop will require a full cavity search.
Leftover crumbs from your morning doughnut that managed to find their way into your keyboard are probably leftover explosive residue. Any attempts to use compressed air or shake out the crumbs is a sign you are trying to hide your misdeeds and a tacit admission of guilt. You will be detained and violated, probably including forced X-Rays, MRI's and enema's.
Laptops with wireless capability are especially suspect, since we are all master hackers and could easily take over the plane and cause the engine to blow itself up. Or take over the plane and fly into something. This may only apply to first class passengers, since you probably need a bit of elbow room to do your hacking.
The first step is to admit you have a problem. It would seem our congressmen haven't made it to this point, while the FCC has. These congressmen (and women) seem more intent on acting like alcoholics begging their newly sober friends to go out and have a drink with them, rather than representing the interests of the people that elected them.