How did this idiotic comment get rated 5 Insightful?

Reading comprehension not up to par?

Did you miss the fact that Apple was trying to convince developers to NOT charge subscriptions and NOT pay fees on a regular schedule into ANYONES coffer. They were arguing for a one time purchase.

This isn't even a change, its a discussion, but the change is EXACTLY OPPOSITE of what you say it is. Developers have been offering apps as subscriptions. Apple thinks that's bad.

Obama didn't specifically introduce NN, but the FCC's three democrats did, and he supported it and he appointed his Chairman (I forget who) who everyone knew supported it.

The law in this area is all... old. Title II covers "telecommunication services" and has strict regulatory requirements. The FCC has authority to make rules for Title II telecommunication services, but not information services. That, the FTC (a much weaker agency) can sort of police not by setting rules by buy suing companies if they mislead consumers.

But this law wasn't passed when there was anything like what the internet is, and in the days of the likes of AOL and CompuServe and such, it made sense for the internet to be looked at as an information service.

But the internet is a whole lot more now, and most of the country has access to it via state-granted monopolies, there's no competition in it. So Obama's FCC ruled that it was a Title II telecom service. Some people claim that was an overstep of their authority, but that's questionable -- the law doesn't define what a telecom service *specifically is*, see. Its sort of up to the FCC to define what exactly qualifies as a Title II service.

Now this could all be fixed by Congress passing a law that actually made sense for the modern internet, buuut, the Republicans want no regulation on it at all so they get what they want this way.

Ajit Pai is neither ignorant nor incompetent; what he is, is just about the most corrupt person we've seen in a long while. Its not like these arguments he's making are things he is mistaken about: he's **lying** and he damn well knows it. But it fits his politics and his friends at Verizon's agenda to make some vaguely plausible excuse the courts or ignorant politicians will accept.

I swear, Ajit Pai is trying to earn his place as literal devil. He is evil and every thought he's ever had is to hurt people.

You do realize that Time Warner sold its cable business?

'Time Warner' makes content. That's it. They don't compete with AT&T, which delivers content.

What?

Seriously I can't make any sense of what you said.

What?

No one said they were unique.

However, Britain is named because in the UK the burden of proof is opposite. In the US, to sue for defamation you have to *prove* that someone knowingly lied. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation. In the UK, you use for defamation and the guy you're suing has to *prove* they told the truth.

British law leans towards protecting reputations; US law leans towards protecting speech.

In the US, most defamation suits go nowhere. In the UK, most are won. There's 'libel tourism' where people actually try to buy a book in the UK (even if it was not intended to be sold there exactly for this purpose) just to fall under UK's laws exactly because the standard of proof is also reversed in libel cases compared to the US.

It had this turbo button on it that fascinated me, I couldn't figure out why I would ever want it off.

Windows 3 took up half the hard-drive space, so like, first thought? Hey look nothing has changed.

I had a computer magazine (I forget which), that introduced me to BBSs, MUDs, then FreeBSD, and I was amazed how fast my computer ran when Windows wasn't taking up half my harddrive and being slow.

(Today: I am a mac guy with a windows gaming auxiliary machine, but that's now and the question is about then)

Why is this being portrayed like she did it because she had something to hide?

This is the responsible thing to do.

Apple has had an enterprise mechanism for installing custom apps for years now, completely bypassing the store. This has been the case almost as long as there's been an a store.

With the right management software, the apps can even be loaded and updated automatically. All without Apple ever seeing them.

There's only three levels (at least in Article III judges; magistrate judges and administrative judges are different, but since FISA uses district judges those aren't relevant): District Court judges, Appellate Circuit judges, and the Supremes.There isn't really a migration path between these. The vast majority of people who are appointed to a judgeship have it for life and never advance up a tier.

And there's no evidence at all that those that do advance up a tier do so because they "play ball". There's lots of judges who are very big on civil rights and look askance to police powers who advance: there's four of them on the Supremes right now. Who is appointed up a tier is a political question, and rarely has anything really to do with their judicial record -- especially not on their record of approving warrants.

The issue with FISA is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who picks its membership, and there's no review, no political process involved -- so whoever is President, or who controls Congress, is irrelevant to who ends up on FISA.

And since the FISA court has existed, the Chief Justice has always been a conservative Republican with a neocon tilt (as opposed to the libertarian tilt).

Derp. That second "all the time" was supposed to be "Not every single time".

Nonsense. Federal judges refuse government requests all the time. Not all the time, no, but that's because warrants just require probable cause, not conclusive proof.

They get that salary no matter what: they get that salary if they never serve on FISA at all. They get that salary if they reject every request. They have a lifetime appointment at that salary. Their benefits are exactly the same as every other judge at their level: FISA membership or payment doesn't offer extra benefits as far as I can tell.

Since their rulings are classified, if they rule all for or against the government, they get the same spot on their resume, I see no incentive. There's no way to remove them from the position, and the Executive (and Legislative) doesn't even have a say in appointing them.

There's something wrong with the system, and that something is likely the fact that they are appointed on the sole discretion of a single member of the Supreme Court with no review or consultation with the President or the Senate, but there's no financial incentive for them to support the government.

The FISA Court judges are Federal District judges and make the same salary as any district judge, they serve on the FISA Court in addition their normal duties. Every few months some of the 11 judges go to Washington to serve FISA, on what I believe is a semi-informal rotating basis.

They serve seven year terms, and are appointed (without review) by the Chief Justice -- which means for as long as there's been a FISA Court, its been conservative Chief Justices appointing its membership.

Its notable they've picked one and only one Democrat in the entire history of the Court.

That said, they are appointed only for seven years and can't be appointed a second time. There is no mechanism for removal (short of impeaching their judgeship entirely), but there's really is no financial incentive to them support the government.