That is a pretty big conspiracy . Title 2 has both good and bad aspects, letting the ISPs fark us over is just 100% bad. Claiming the purpose behind it is differnt then all the stated purposes is just for that one is pretty silly..
In fact the FCC did not even need title 2 to do so, they did it in 2005 and the courts agreed that even though they were not title 2 carriers they could still fall under CALEA, so moving them to title 2 is not an issue with that.
You, and he are the idiots. We are not fighting for facebook, google, twitter, we are fighting for ourselves. we do not want our ISP, which in 100% of the cases we have no control over to be able to censor us, or other groups. We also do not want the next big idea to be prevented because they need to pay rent to the ISPs. We pay for access to the internet, not for access to the part of the internet they want us to see.
He is using the past argument about Obama's administration was not as transparent as Trump wanted them to be so Trump will be 100 times less transparent.
Twitter blocked the alt right so we will block everyone from everything...
The problem is twitter is a message board, they can regulate that board as they see fit, especially when free, but pipes are not the same thing. I dont pay TWC to access only the internet content that they want me to see, typically only their other paid content.
Who says they are claiming any ownership rights? They are getting an injunction from them using their technologies to create the film, until they are paid for their use of the technologies. this is no different then you creating a processor and me putting putting it in computers and selling those computers.
I am typically critical of IP laws but this seems pretty cut and dry.
To use your analogy:
"The author of a word processor does not get royalties on the book you wrote"
If the word processor application was stolen then the author would be liable for theft and the works he written possibly not sell able until that is settled.
you should look into the visa, that is not how it worked. The investment had to come from a US source qualified, you had to own 10%, and be a managing parterner, and it had to have been started within the last 5 years.
This one not so much. It required actual investment from other parties (in the US) not from the person itself, meaning that you could not buy your way, and they had to be qualifying investments, not just give your buddy money from him to invest.
That requires at least a 1m investment of your own money into any business, not just your own.
The new one stated that the buisness that you have a substantial role in managing and own at least 10% of, must have started in last 5 years, have growth potential and have received investment from US lenders of at least 250k or 100k from federal grants.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a pretty big conspiracy . Title 2 has both good and bad aspects, letting the ISPs fark us over is just 100% bad. Claiming the purpose behind it is differnt then all the stated purposes is just for that one is pretty silly..
In fact the FCC did not even need title 2 to do so, they did it in 2005 and the courts agreed that even though they were not title 2 carriers they could still fall under CALEA, so moving them to title 2 is not an issue with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I am pertty sure reddit bans would not have affected the study, they could have used the data gathered before the bans,
They knew they were being studied (it was done by a voluntary browser plugin) but didnt know what specific habits they were studying.
You, and he are the idiots. We are not fighting for facebook, google, twitter, we are fighting for ourselves. we do not want our ISP, which in 100% of the cases we have no control over to be able to censor us, or other groups. We also do not want the next big idea to be prevented because they need to pay rent to the ISPs. We pay for access to the internet, not for access to the part of the internet they want us to see.
He is using the past argument about Obama's administration was not as transparent as Trump wanted them to be so Trump will be 100 times less transparent.
Twitter blocked the alt right so we will block everyone from everything...
The problem is twitter is a message board, they can regulate that board as they see fit, especially when free, but pipes are not the same thing. I dont pay TWC to access only the internet content that they want me to see, typically only their other paid content.
Yes, lets get them out of clean water, water, let the companies poison you with immunity.. Wait, you want them regulating those?
I would take that bet since these are anonymous and could be, and probably are, members of the alt right.
the iphone 7 cost $5 to put together according to apples own estimates.
I am pretty sure it has more to do with your racist epithets than your question.
No, he is just asking for all the profits made from its use.
Who says they are claiming any ownership rights? They are getting an injunction from them using their technologies to create the film, until they are paid for their use of the technologies. this is no different then you creating a processor and me putting putting it in computers and selling those computers.
I am typically critical of IP laws but this seems pretty cut and dry.
To use your analogy:
"The author of a word processor does not get royalties on the book you wrote"
If the word processor application was stolen then the author would be liable for theft and the works he written possibly not sell able until that is settled.
That works already, why would they need need a rule for it?
you should look into the visa, that is not how it worked. The investment had to come from a US source qualified, you had to own 10%, and be a managing parterner, and it had to have been started within the last 5 years.
Except there is nothing in the current immigration law that says "have something good to offer, become a citizen" That is what this did though.
by little to no verifification you mean the investment had to come from an approved source?
how does that one person get on the qualified investor list?
Are you one of the "qualifying" investors?
Except this was not a regulation, this was a way to increase jobs in the US by encouraging investment.... This was actually around red tape.
This one not so much. It required actual investment from other parties (in the US) not from the person itself, meaning that you could not buy your way, and they had to be qualifying investments, not just give your buddy money from him to invest.
In what way is this a victory? It limits job growth for no reason other than !SCREW YOU OBAMA!
You had to own atleast 10% of the company and have a managing role.
Have either 250k investment from US investors, or 100k in federal grants.
That requires at least a 1m investment of your own money into any business, not just your own.
The new one stated that the buisness that you have a substantial role in managing and own at least 10% of, must have started in last 5 years, have growth potential and have received investment from US lenders of at least 250k or 100k from federal grants.
hey start your business in the US, and keep it, you are just not allowed to be here to manage it!