"no company anywhere else can produce the technology as good and as reliable as Huawei..."
This is a bit of. giveaway on your part. Huawei is a quintessentially Chinese company- copy other designs to create a "good enough" and much cheaper version. It doesn't help that China is pretty aggressive with forced IP transfer issues. Where does that IP go? ZTE, Huawei, etc.
Now, you're correct that the components are made in China, but components are much easier to review for security flaws than an entire system.
But in the end, nobody has presented any solid evidence of spying with their gear. Now, if that's due to the lack of transparency, that's one problem. If they've been transparent and we're still banning it on a hunch, that's another issue.
Perhaps I'm giving her too much credit, but maybe she actually knows the impact, but:
1) She thinks 230 protects conservative misinformation more than liberal misinformation and so, she thinks she can win a nuclear war. and/or
2) She thinks it will lead to better legislation. "Fine, let's repeal it. Watch what happens." It would absolutely create chaos and then there's a better window to write "good" legislation because everyone is suffering.
Looking at the list of orders they will not obey. They sure seemed to have no problem disobeying those orders during the BLM protests. It's almost as if they really don't care about tyranny unless they feel it impacts them.
How many of the standards for my high school retail job were higher than a cop. If I half-assed it, I would get a warning then fired. If I didn't help someone I didn't personally like with just as much gusto as someone I did like, same.
If someone was yelling in my face, my 17 year old self had to have more composure and restraint than a cop.
They have a few risque (relatively speaking) brands. Raging bitch is the one that immediately came to mind. They also had a "doggy style" which is no longer being made. Then there's "The Truth" that had a caricature of Donald Trump, that has since become more generic evil politician.
Competition is difficult because of the high cost of entry and because states have written legislation to prevent competition. That's why municipalities, co-ops, etc. get involved. It's also because broadband is more and more a necessary utility, rather than a "nice to have" luxury.
Municipal and coop broadband is great for last mile+, but we still need the supporting infrastructure to get good service to these ISPs. We've been throwing money at the major telco to do this for years and we have little to show for it. So unless we develop a backbone, or do the work ourselves (i.e. direct government oversight) I fear we won't get good backbones.
The problem isn't a skill set. It's that most people can't afford to go to law school, graduate and join a non-profit or government agency to advocate for "good laws."
Instead, to pay off your loans, you need to get jobs that pay well. Too often, those jobs are funded by people who want "bad laws" or for existing laws to remain so they can continue to take advantage of them. Sure, you can do pro-bono, but employers don't like it when you do pro-bono is the area you regularly work. You're a tech lawyer who wants to help convicts get their records expunged? They're proud of you. You're a tech lawyer who wants to defend fair use, when you're employer is (or represents) Disney? Nope.
By the the very nature of the use of the word Rockstar, you're conjuring up generic semiotics of bold colors, aggressive fonts, etc. (Think Kiss, Metallica, Judas Priest, ) Rockstar should have no claim to that general imagery; it's at best descriptive. It's the trademark version of scenes a faire.
This Bothsidesism is a false equivalency. Yes, both sides do sway the government towards their views, but not to this extent and in violation of the law.
It seems when conservatives don't have a good argument, they go with the "they're biased." Reporter reports that Trump didn't follow mask guidelines in NC? They're liberal, so that can't be correct. It's a variant of the- If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, claim bias.”
I'm somehow able to do my job everyday without my (liberal) political views influencing my performance or judgement. I don't think- "How am I going to force everyone to give up their property rights, today?" I wonder if this is a form of projection, where their conservative views (or at least the psychology that causes them to be conservatives- reacts to fear and anger, more subservient to authority) does influence their everyday life and so they can't imagine a world where it doesn't.
I don't think patents are antithetical to innovation. Some innovations take a lot of time and money. While first mover may provide some advantage it may not provide sufficient incentives to make the "big bets" if it can be copied quickly. The problem (IMO) that you mention is that many companies that aren't really a going concern or merely exist to extort royalties. So, how do you reshape a law that requires/incentivises actual use rather than stockpiling. Perhaps you can borrow from TM law and require or offer greater damages if there's actual or attempted use in commerce? Or, only offer injunction if there's actual competitive use? Other options: if no products/services are created using that patent within X period, it becomes dormant and only nominal damages are granted (and no injunctions). While these aren't perfect, it seems we're advocating taking a chainsaw to a scalpel problem.
It would have helped with ACA and it can help here. If states and municipalities could set up public networks, I'm sure you'd see rapid improvement from telcos in those markets. We'd also need subsidies to be fixed bid or not to exceed. Deliver X service to Y communities for Z price. If you don't you need to return part or all of the money.
"In part because clearly showing [rural] Americans that they're paying more money for slower, patchier broadband than a long list of developed countries might just drive somebody to actually do something about it."
They'll still find a way to blame "big government" for a while. Eventually, I hope they come to realize that it's the lack of regulation and government handouts to private industry for nothing in return, will spur them to reconsider the role of government in telecom generally. One can dream.
Agreed. Xfinity is one of the few providers in my area. I have the phone service because it's cheaper to get the phone service combination rather than bare internet. Is it just to drive up their phone numbers (pun intended)?
If you tell them that it's harder for the government to track you, if you wear a mask, perhaps a few more COVIDiots will wear a mask. Who am I kidding, they're not anti-government or anti-surveillance state, they're against those things for themselves- they encourage it for anyone else.
Meaning, there's a reason that Trump has stuffed the courts with minions. The lower courts will allow the FCC's crappy decisions to stand and if we're very lucky, SCOTUS will weigh in and state it is Unconstitutional. But until then, we'll might have to live with a crappy ruling from the Federal Circuit.
More than that, they couldn't play the victim. Without being able to claim that they're being censored and with no 'libs' to troll, what's the point of their (online) existence?
Re:
"no company anywhere else can produce the technology as good and as reliable as Huawei..." This is a bit of. giveaway on your part. Huawei is a quintessentially Chinese company- copy other designs to create a "good enough" and much cheaper version. It doesn't help that China is pretty aggressive with forced IP transfer issues. Where does that IP go? ZTE, Huawei, etc. Now, you're correct that the components are made in China, but components are much easier to review for security flaws than an entire system. But in the end, nobody has presented any solid evidence of spying with their gear. Now, if that's due to the lack of transparency, that's one problem. If they've been transparent and we're still banning it on a hunch, that's another issue.
Blow it all up
Perhaps I'm giving her too much credit, but maybe she actually knows the impact, but:
1) She thinks 230 protects conservative misinformation more than liberal misinformation and so, she thinks she can win a nuclear war. and/or
2) She thinks it will lead to better legislation. "Fine, let's repeal it. Watch what happens." It would absolutely create chaos and then there's a better window to write "good" legislation because everyone is suffering.
"Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey"
Looking at the list of orders they will not obey. They sure seemed to have no problem disobeying those orders during the BLM protests. It's almost as if they really don't care about tyranny unless they feel it impacts them.
I've never understood...
How many of the standards for my high school retail job were higher than a cop. If I half-assed it, I would get a warning then fired. If I didn't help someone I didn't personally like with just as much gusto as someone I did like, same.
If someone was yelling in my face, my 17 year old self had to have more composure and restraint than a cop.
Re: Flying Dog Raging Bitch beer.
They have a few risque (relatively speaking) brands. Raging bitch is the one that immediately came to mind. They also had a "doggy style" which is no longer being made. Then there's "The Truth" that had a caricature of Donald Trump, that has since become more generic evil politician.
Re: 'Look at all these legal claims(that we made up)!'
As Trump has shown, fundraising based on "doomed to fail" lawsuits is extremely lucrative.
Re:
Competition is difficult because of the high cost of entry and because states have written legislation to prevent competition. That's why municipalities, co-ops, etc. get involved. It's also because broadband is more and more a necessary utility, rather than a "nice to have" luxury.
Backbones?
Municipal and coop broadband is great for last mile+, but we still need the supporting infrastructure to get good service to these ISPs. We've been throwing money at the major telco to do this for years and we have little to show for it. So unless we develop a backbone, or do the work ourselves (i.e. direct government oversight) I fear we won't get good backbones.
Big Money doesn't want good laws or policy
The problem isn't a skill set. It's that most people can't afford to go to law school, graduate and join a non-profit or government agency to advocate for "good laws."
Instead, to pay off your loans, you need to get jobs that pay well. Too often, those jobs are funded by people who want "bad laws" or for existing laws to remain so they can continue to take advantage of them. Sure, you can do pro-bono, but employers don't like it when you do pro-bono is the area you regularly work. You're a tech lawyer who wants to help convicts get their records expunged? They're proud of you. You're a tech lawyer who wants to defend fair use, when you're employer is (or represents) Disney? Nope.
Re:
By the the very nature of the use of the word Rockstar, you're conjuring up generic semiotics of bold colors, aggressive fonts, etc. (Think Kiss, Metallica, Judas Priest, ) Rockstar should have no claim to that general imagery; it's at best descriptive. It's the trademark version of scenes a faire.
Re:
This Bothsidesism is a false equivalency. Yes, both sides do sway the government towards their views, but not to this extent and in violation of the law.
Projection and Bias
Re: voting records and liking posts.
It seems when conservatives don't have a good argument, they go with the "they're biased." Reporter reports that Trump didn't follow mask guidelines in NC? They're liberal, so that can't be correct. It's a variant of the- If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, claim bias.”
I'm somehow able to do my job everyday without my (liberal) political views influencing my performance or judgement. I don't think- "How am I going to force everyone to give up their property rights, today?" I wonder if this is a form of projection, where their conservative views (or at least the psychology that causes them to be conservatives- reacts to fear and anger, more subservient to authority) does influence their everyday life and so they can't imagine a world where it doesn't.
Intent too hard to define
I don't think patents are antithetical to innovation. Some innovations take a lot of time and money. While first mover may provide some advantage it may not provide sufficient incentives to make the "big bets" if it can be copied quickly. The problem (IMO) that you mention is that many companies that aren't really a going concern or merely exist to extort royalties. So, how do you reshape a law that requires/incentivises actual use rather than stockpiling. Perhaps you can borrow from TM law and require or offer greater damages if there's actual or attempted use in commerce? Or, only offer injunction if there's actual competitive use? Other options: if no products/services are created using that patent within X period, it becomes dormant and only nominal damages are granted (and no injunctions). While these aren't perfect, it seems we're advocating taking a chainsaw to a scalpel problem.
Public Option
It would have helped with ACA and it can help here. If states and municipalities could set up public networks, I'm sure you'd see rapid improvement from telcos in those markets. We'd also need subsidies to be fixed bid or not to exceed. Deliver X service to Y communities for Z price. If you don't you need to return part or all of the money.
Especially Rural Americans
"In part because clearly showing [rural] Americans that they're paying more money for slower, patchier broadband than a long list of developed countries might just drive somebody to actually do something about it."
They'll still find a way to blame "big government" for a while. Eventually, I hope they come to realize that it's the lack of regulation and government handouts to private industry for nothing in return, will spur them to reconsider the role of government in telecom generally. One can dream.
Re: Cord-cutting is under-reported
Agreed. Xfinity is one of the few providers in my area. I have the phone service because it's cheaper to get the phone service combination rather than bare internet. Is it just to drive up their phone numbers (pun intended)?
Co-existance Agreement
Did Stone try a co-existence agreement or are those out of fashion nowadays?
Perhaps a way to convince the Anti-government types?
If you tell them that it's harder for the government to track you, if you wear a mask, perhaps a few more COVIDiots will wear a mask. Who am I kidding, they're not anti-government or anti-surveillance state, they're against those things for themselves- they encourage it for anyone else.
It isn't Unconstitutional, until it is...
Meaning, there's a reason that Trump has stuffed the courts with minions. The lower courts will allow the FCC's crappy decisions to stand and if we're very lucky, SCOTUS will weigh in and state it is Unconstitutional. But until then, we'll might have to live with a crappy ruling from the Federal Circuit.
Re:
More than that, they couldn't play the victim. Without being able to claim that they're being censored and with no 'libs' to troll, what's the point of their (online) existence?