A Trump era Republican trying to claim that we never really needed Net Neutrality in the first place.
I'm a what now? And I made no such statement, only pointing out these caps are a result of NN, and your mental gymnastics deliberately hide the reality of why these caps exist.
NN isn't about data caps at all;
I never said they were, I said that caps were a result of it. Big diff.
it simply says that your ISP cannot specifically extort the services you use for additional income or simply block/degrade services which compete against their own.
Correct, which means...
The amount of bandwidth, both length and girth if you will, is a separate matter.
Separate only if you treat it as completely separate, and not the logical outcome of having one hand tied behind their back when trying to milk the consumer, so opting to use the other hand.
BTW, yes it does count [xfinity.com]
usage of the Netflix app on X1 and all other programming and content from the Internet on X1, as well as, the Internet apps on X1 are subject to Xfinity Internet data usage policies.
I've read the page... and you misunderstood it's meaning.
Yes, streaming Netflix or usage of another (3rd party) app which is running on the X1 traverses the internet, so they count that against your data cap.
What it doesn't say, is if an X1 streaming app, running on an phone or tablet, using the wifi which ultimately goes through a stand alone cable modem (separate from the STB) and into/through the Comcast network. Does it traverse the internet? Depends on how Comcast architected their systems. Chances are, it's not going to a datacenter sitting next to where your cable modem terminates, but if it hopes via a private circuit (physical or virtual) over to a cloud provider, or other remote data center... is that still traversing the internet?
Mighty big incentive for Comcast not to count usage even when a non STB is being used to consume Comcast provided content, which is the entire point I raised, which you completely missed.
"But Net Neutrality is about treating all services equal, it should stop this!" some will say... ignoring these very same caps came in during the NN era.
It's quite simple. The likes of Comcast being unable to throttle Netflix/etc directly, opts to put an artificial cap on it's users... then makes sure that some of their services do not eat into that cap... like any kind of On Demand streaming via an X1 console. Sure, that traffic doesn't cross the public internet, but uses the exact same DOCSIS tech in your cable modem which is capped.
Why pay for/use external services when your friendly ISP has all you could ever want/need?
One of these weeks/months I need to sit down with an iPad, streaming over the internet, only Comcast content using their app, but my cable modem... as I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't count against the cap either.
Alas for you it'll only tell you of the idiots who tell their doctor that they "drink, smoke, do drugs, and have the diabetis brought on from eating all that junk food"
I know, reading and comprehending it's meaning is so hard... must be why so many want Ivanka to go to jail but were ok with Hillary not even getting a slap on the wrist.
On the plus side, Hillary did go on to lose the popular vote for the second time (many forget the 2008 DNC primaries)... so at least we got something to laugh about.
No, I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever said I am... but I've had multiple lengthy discussions with my lawyer about this very subject. Are you? Oh right... an AC, you can be whatever you want.
Re-read the statute again, the willfully isn't there to say "willfully breaks the law"... "but "willfully engages in a certain activity"
Drug carrying person in my example willfully purchased drugs, they willfully carried it in their vehicle. They may have no intention to sell the stuff, but they are still going to get intent to distribute (oh the stories I've heard).
Ever hear the saying "ignoranceo f the law is no excuse?" In this case it actually is.
Yup. In fact I've heard a judge say it to a defendant before. It was hard not to chuckle.
The act of setting up the server, and intentionally bypassing existing document retention and classification systems was a willful act to conceal, as evidenced by later destruction in violation of a court order.
Name call all you want, people here are arguing over apples vs oranges and intentionally misrepresenting facts... just like you.
Again the moving of the goal posts. The deletion is one thing, however the simple act of setting up the server is enough to convict her, do note that you ignored the whole 'conceals' part, which oddly enough comes before 'destroys'.
Sure, you may have dozen lbs of marijuana in your trunk that you've told the cop, prosecutor, judge & jury that it was for your own personal consumption over the next few months... they are still going to convict you of intent to distribute.
Up until the 80's that was the case, with A movies & B movies, the successes of B movies like Star Wars and others through the late 70's/early 80's erased the line.
The same thing can be said for length of movie. Something like Lord of the Rings being ~3x the length of some kids film, yet the price is the same at the same theater.
Again, you are missing the point. It's not that 3d printed guns introduce a never before seen issue, they greatly lower the bar on a long standing one. Yes, it's long been legally and technically possible to build a functioning firearm at home... now it is extra easy, and suddenly very apparent to those who didn't know it up until recently... and it is those very same "OMG! this can't/shouldn't be legal!" folks who are the ones demanding new legislation to 'correct' things which were not previously wrong... as far as they knew.
Very true, and that might work for big 3d printer manufacturers who are willing to play ball with governments in making linking of printout to printer easier... however the degree of open source nature involved makes that tricky, as anyone who decides they are going to 3d print things they could get in trouble for is probably going to know to use a clean firmware.
Working for a big tech company a few years back, a person quite senior decided to leave and set up a discussion list (intended for a single use) to say good bye to everyone he'd ever worked with over the past... 21 years I think, it had people both high and low, co-founders & current CEO to rank and file... and correctly ACLed to only let him send to it.
A few months after he left, someone external (to the company) accidentally CCed that very same DL (never heard if it was similar to something they meant to include), but the external thread, shared with several thousand people at another company did contain some sensitive (to them) information which went on for a few messages, of course resulting in the normal Bedlam result of like "Remove me" "Remove me too!" style responses.
Turns out the ACLs on the DL had expired upon his corporate account, and it was only a matter of time until someone accidentally (or deliberately) hit it.
This also happens with the fun of email address reuse. At that same company, I received notification of credit card statement updates and playgroups from a few different people/companies, as the previous owner of the (work) address had used it for quite a few personal things. Thankfully I was nice and would reply with "____ no longer works here, nor has access to this address, so I'm afraid I cannot pass along your message'.
I know creating a big ole government run bureaucracy is the goal of all statists... it's sooooo much easier to simply put an unfunded mandate on (foreign) companies and expect them to comply... or block EU citizens from being able to use the services.
Nope. " " Militias to own muskets - and manufacturing them is a wholly different topic not stated directly. Also, this was pre-army and police.
It still doesn't change the fact that civilian ownership of actual weapons of war. Recall that once upon a time the federal government handed out letters of marque and reprisal... and it wasnt those that authorized outfitting a ship full of cannons.
Yes, we have police and military... the underlying laws however haven't changed. Dont like it? Win some elections, to paraphrase Obama.
the entire purpose of a political party is to keep the us vs them mentality going under the guise of strength through unity
No... the entire purpose of a political party is to more easily differentiate candidates and their views and rally together for a common cause, as (unfortunately) most voters can't be bothered to verify individual things... what you describe is an unfortunate result from government having too much power and the incentivation to hold/wield power.
Being armed... does significantly increase the odds.
[Citation needed]
It's odd isn't it... we do not simply arm our police officers with karate, or swords... but with firearms. Similarly, we do the same thing with the military, secret service, even security guards. It's as if... there is a recognition that if bad things happen... having the ability to react with lethal force which can be used over a range of space... is better than having a very short range weapon, or up close combat skills.
surrounded by 2nd Amendment activists who were all responsible gun owners.
[Citation needed]
Did you forget that Chris Kyle wasn't the only person killed there? His friend Chad Littlefield was shot 7 times.
I question whether 2A activists, and NRA members, are responsible gun owners. It seems that gun injuries go down when the NRA convention is on:
Interesting your responding with a unsubstantiated non-sequitur. Had you actually read the study (rather than just the headlines), it's pretty weak, not even suggesting A leads to B, only comparing nearest weekends and no other parts of the year. It doesn't even reliably establish correlation.
If the most gung-ho 2A folks can't operate them safely, how do you expect J. Q. Public.
Except you've not established that. Yet stronger research indicates legal gun holders commit murders at about the same rate as people in Japan.
It is uncanny in the US, those places where it is easiest to legally acquire/carry a firearm, tend to have low murder rates, while those places where it is harder, have rather high murder rates. If only everyone would adopt Chicago gun laws... then it wouldn't be a war-zone every weekend... right?
I have nothing against gun themselves, but there needs to be (a) some kind of basic competence check, (b) a criminal background check.
And states can implement such things, such things... however why do you think that would stop... anything? It is remarkable how many killers & mass shooters have not only passed background checks prior to purchase, and could demonstrate a basic level of competency... and yet they still go on to do evil. It's as if we have what you are looking for... and it doesn't do what you want.
Know what I did? I went trying to find a case which matches what you described...
Dude admits to undercover cop that selling his home made gun is not legal, and even tells cop how to claim to police that the cop made it himself. That's some nice mens rea for you right there: https://www.fredericknewspost....
Dude sells multiple undercover agents, sure doesn't sound like soly building them for personal use, then sometime later opting to sell them: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2...
Manufacturing machineguns at home is generally illegal, especially when the person involved doesn't have the right FFL: https://www.usatoday.com/story...
From the UK, making bullets at home and supplying them and illegal firearms to gangs isn't exactly a way to appear innocent: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
In many jurisdictions, rolled tobacco is taxed at a different rate as loose tobacco, similarrly, ground cofee when compared to whole beans. To skirt these taxes, some places will sell you the raw products, let you put it into a machine and out comes your less taxed result.
This last case is similar, in that it's in a gray area. Technically it's the 'buyer' who is actually manufacturing the firearm, however it seems pretty clear what the guy's game was, and depending on the degree of assistance he provided (setup for instance), he could be said to be part of the manufacturing process. Of course, he plead guilty (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/dr-death-pleads-guilty-to-making-selling-ar-15-rifle-components/) and reading some of how he was doing it, it's pretty clear he had little case.
Care to cite a single case which matches the description you made of a jury not believing them, that they built something for personal use and then later transferred it?
No, manufacturing an fully automatic weapon, or modifying a semi-automatic to be fully automatic is illegal for all non-FFLs, and even then, not all FFLs can do it: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...
The one exception I suppose... is if you've a serialized auto-sear which is properly registered with the feds... that you could drop into something new, maybe.
When filling out a 4473 and asked the question of "Are you the actual buyer of the gun"... the correct answer is "yes" if you are going to give it as a gift, but if you are going to sell it to someone because you can get a better price (or they are prohibited), then you are committing a felony.
Manufacturing a gun without an FFL is for personal use only. If you are doing so with the plan to give away or sell the result, it's illegal. If you make it for yourself, then one day decide to sell/give it, it's legal, though potentially risky.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a what now? And I made no such statement, only pointing out these caps are a result of NN, and your mental gymnastics deliberately hide the reality of why these caps exist.
I never said they were, I said that caps were a result of it. Big diff.
Correct, which means...
Separate only if you treat it as completely separate, and not the logical outcome of having one hand tied behind their back when trying to milk the consumer, so opting to use the other hand.
I've read the page... and you misunderstood it's meaning.
Yes, streaming Netflix or usage of another (3rd party) app which is running on the X1 traverses the internet, so they count that against your data cap.
What it doesn't say, is if an X1 streaming app, running on an phone or tablet, using the wifi which ultimately goes through a stand alone cable modem (separate from the STB) and into/through the Comcast network. Does it traverse the internet? Depends on how Comcast architected their systems. Chances are, it's not going to a datacenter sitting next to where your cable modem terminates, but if it hopes via a private circuit (physical or virtual) over to a cloud provider, or other remote data center... is that still traversing the internet?
Mighty big incentive for Comcast not to count usage even when a non STB is being used to consume Comcast provided content, which is the entire point I raised, which you completely missed.
"But Net Neutrality is about treating all services equal, it should stop this!" some will say... ignoring these very same caps came in during the NN era.
It's quite simple. The likes of Comcast being unable to throttle Netflix/etc directly, opts to put an artificial cap on it's users... then makes sure that some of their services do not eat into that cap... like any kind of On Demand streaming via an X1 console. Sure, that traffic doesn't cross the public internet, but uses the exact same DOCSIS tech in your cable modem which is capped.
Why pay for/use external services when your friendly ISP has all you could ever want/need?
One of these weeks/months I need to sit down with an iPad, streaming over the internet, only Comcast content using their app, but my cable modem... as I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't count against the cap either.
Alas for you it'll only tell you of the idiots who tell their doctor that they "drink, smoke, do drugs, and have the diabetis brought on from eating all that junk food"
I know, reading and comprehending it's meaning is so hard... must be why so many want Ivanka to go to jail but were ok with Hillary not even getting a slap on the wrist.
On the plus side, Hillary did go on to lose the popular vote for the second time (many forget the 2008 DNC primaries)... so at least we got something to laugh about.
No, I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever said I am... but I've had multiple lengthy discussions with my lawyer about this very subject. Are you? Oh right... an AC, you can be whatever you want.
Re-read the statute again, the willfully isn't there to say "willfully breaks the law"... "but "willfully engages in a certain activity"
Drug carrying person in my example willfully purchased drugs, they willfully carried it in their vehicle. They may have no intention to sell the stuff, but they are still going to get intent to distribute (oh the stories I've heard).
Ever hear the saying "ignoranceo f the law is no excuse?" In this case it actually is.
Yup. In fact I've heard a judge say it to a defendant before. It was hard not to chuckle.
The act of setting up the server, and intentionally bypassing existing document retention and classification systems was a willful act to conceal, as evidenced by later destruction in violation of a court order.
Name call all you want, people here are arguing over apples vs oranges and intentionally misrepresenting facts... just like you.
Again the moving of the goal posts. The deletion is one thing, however the simple act of setting up the server is enough to convict her, do note that you ignored the whole 'conceals' part, which oddly enough comes before 'destroys'.
Sure, you may have dozen lbs of marijuana in your trunk that you've told the cop, prosecutor, judge & jury that it was for your own personal consumption over the next few months... they are still going to convict you of intent to distribute.
Usually... yes, however the statutes Hillary violated has no mens rea requirement: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
So nice of you to try to move the goal posts.
What's next? Screams of "but they weren't classified at the time"?
Up until the 80's that was the case, with A movies & B movies, the successes of B movies like Star Wars and others through the late 70's/early 80's erased the line.
The same thing can be said for length of movie. Something like Lord of the Rings being ~3x the length of some kids film, yet the price is the same at the same theater.
Also to you.. thank you for confirming you didn't read or understand the article.
Thanks for confirming you didn't read the article.
Again, you are missing the point. It's not that 3d printed guns introduce a never before seen issue, they greatly lower the bar on a long standing one. Yes, it's long been legally and technically possible to build a functioning firearm at home... now it is extra easy, and suddenly very apparent to those who didn't know it up until recently... and it is those very same "OMG! this can't/shouldn't be legal!" folks who are the ones demanding new legislation to 'correct' things which were not previously wrong... as far as they knew.
Very true, and that might work for big 3d printer manufacturers who are willing to play ball with governments in making linking of printout to printer easier... however the degree of open source nature involved makes that tricky, as anyone who decides they are going to 3d print things they could get in trouble for is probably going to know to use a clean firmware.
Nope, they help demonstrate the issues with federal gun control laws: https://www.wired.com/story/de...
Because you don't understand the underlying issue at hand.
This is the best write-up I've seen as to the reasoning: https://www.wired.com/story/de...
Working for a big tech company a few years back, a person quite senior decided to leave and set up a discussion list (intended for a single use) to say good bye to everyone he'd ever worked with over the past... 21 years I think, it had people both high and low, co-founders & current CEO to rank and file... and correctly ACLed to only let him send to it.
A few months after he left, someone external (to the company) accidentally CCed that very same DL (never heard if it was similar to something they meant to include), but the external thread, shared with several thousand people at another company did contain some sensitive (to them) information which went on for a few messages, of course resulting in the normal Bedlam result of like "Remove me" "Remove me too!" style responses.
Turns out the ACLs on the DL had expired upon his corporate account, and it was only a matter of time until someone accidentally (or deliberately) hit it.
This also happens with the fun of email address reuse. At that same company, I received notification of credit card statement updates and playgroups from a few different people/companies, as the previous owner of the (work) address had used it for quite a few personal things. Thankfully I was nice and would reply with "____ no longer works here, nor has access to this address, so I'm afraid I cannot pass along your message'.
I know creating a big ole government run bureaucracy is the goal of all statists... it's sooooo much easier to simply put an unfunded mandate on (foreign) companies and expect them to comply... or block EU citizens from being able to use the services.
Mikey Powers... is that you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It still doesn't change the fact that civilian ownership of actual weapons of war. Recall that once upon a time the federal government handed out letters of marque and reprisal... and it wasnt those that authorized outfitting a ship full of cannons.
Yes, we have police and military... the underlying laws however haven't changed. Dont like it? Win some elections, to paraphrase Obama.
What limits on the second amendment are you rooting for exactly that the lawsuit relates to?
No... the entire purpose of a political party is to more easily differentiate candidates and their views and rally together for a common cause, as (unfortunately) most voters can't be bothered to verify individual things... what you describe is an unfortunate result from government having too much power and the incentivation to hold/wield power.
It's odd isn't it... we do not simply arm our police officers with karate, or swords... but with firearms. Similarly, we do the same thing with the military, secret service, even security guards. It's as if... there is a recognition that if bad things happen... having the ability to react with lethal force which can be used over a range of space... is better than having a very short range weapon, or up close combat skills.
Odd, isn't that?
I question whether 2A activists, and NRA members, are responsible gun owners. It seems that gun injuries go down when the NRA convention is on:
Interesting your responding with a unsubstantiated non-sequitur. Had you actually read the study (rather than just the headlines), it's pretty weak, not even suggesting A leads to B, only comparing nearest weekends and no other parts of the year. It doesn't even reliably establish correlation.
Except you've not established that. Yet stronger research indicates legal gun holders commit murders at about the same rate as people in Japan.
It is uncanny in the US, those places where it is easiest to legally acquire/carry a firearm, tend to have low murder rates, while those places where it is harder, have rather high murder rates. If only everyone would adopt Chicago gun laws... then it wouldn't be a war-zone every weekend... right?
And states can implement such things, such things... however why do you think that would stop... anything? It is remarkable how many killers & mass shooters have not only passed background checks prior to purchase, and could demonstrate a basic level of competency... and yet they still go on to do evil. It's as if we have what you are looking for... and it doesn't do what you want.
Know what I did? I went trying to find a case which matches what you described...
Dude admits to undercover cop that selling his home made gun is not legal, and even tells cop how to claim to police that the cop made it himself. That's some nice mens rea for you right there:
https://www.fredericknewspost....
Building SBRs & supressors without first aquiring tax stamps is a big no no: http://gunsandrifles.com/2018/...
Dude sells multiple undercover agents, sure doesn't sound like soly building them for personal use, then sometime later opting to sell them: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2...
Manufacturing machineguns at home is generally illegal, especially when the person involved doesn't have the right FFL: https://www.usatoday.com/story...
Not US based, but advertizing ones manufacturered guns for sale, not smart: https://www.illawarramercury.c...
From the UK, making bullets at home and supplying them and illegal firearms to gangs isn't exactly a way to appear innocent: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
The one case which I do recall, is this one: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
In many jurisdictions, rolled tobacco is taxed at a different rate as loose tobacco, similarrly, ground cofee when compared to whole beans. To skirt these taxes, some places will sell you the raw products, let you put it into a machine and out comes your less taxed result.
It's a clever and legal loophole, until the politicans close it: https://lacrossetribune.com/ne...
This last case is similar, in that it's in a gray area. Technically it's the 'buyer' who is actually manufacturing the firearm, however it seems pretty clear what the guy's game was, and depending on the degree of assistance he provided (setup for instance), he could be said to be part of the manufacturing process. Of course, he plead guilty (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/dr-death-pleads-guilty-to-making-selling-ar-15-rifle-components/) and reading some of how he was doing it, it's pretty clear he had little case.
Care to cite a single case which matches the description you made of a jury not believing them, that they built something for personal use and then later transferred it?
No, manufacturing an fully automatic weapon, or modifying a semi-automatic to be fully automatic is illegal for all non-FFLs, and even then, not all FFLs can do it: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...
The one exception I suppose... is if you've a serialized auto-sear which is properly registered with the feds... that you could drop into something new, maybe.
Not in this case.
When filling out a 4473 and asked the question of "Are you the actual buyer of the gun"... the correct answer is "yes" if you are going to give it as a gift, but if you are going to sell it to someone because you can get a better price (or they are prohibited), then you are committing a felony.
Manufacturing a gun without an FFL is for personal use only. If you are doing so with the plan to give away or sell the result, it's illegal. If you make it for yourself, then one day decide to sell/give it, it's legal, though potentially risky.