What an original argument style, fabricate your opponents case then refute it.
As said above this is done in many other cases, why should copyright infringement be any different? Oh right, you dont agree with the copyright laws.
props on the car analogy
NERA recommended making information available so that the masses can match the numbers reported to the SEC, the numbers reported to clients, and the numbers disclosed by custodians, or financial institutions that hold the securities for investment advisors.
The goal is to check if all the numbers are consistent, if properly formatted this is easy for a computer. The problem is that the data isnt nicely formatted, so netflix = fail. Mandating a format is the way to go.
When someone disagrees with you there are too choices:
Glad to see slashdot has a healthy portion of the latter.
Not necessarily easy. With no quams about ethics, $20 game = hours of work for most people.
There's a finite amount of room at Verizon's data centers, so I imagine they'll be able to charge plenty of money for this, and that smaller providers will be locked out (or will have to pay fractionally, e.g., through an already-colocated service like Akamai). Verizon gets a new profit center and Verizon users pay for it invisibly through advertising and the cost of any services that Google eventually offers for pay. Which is the truly worrisome aspect of net non-neutrality.
This argument is essentially
We should be equal, but you have something shiny. Destroy it, destroy it now!
it appears from experience that they rarely do this voluntarily.
From watching the news, I would never have thought crime was decreasing. People are generally good, let that be the assumption till proven otherwise.
sign a 'smiling deal' with our arch enemies
Someone should really get the word out, there is ~10 billion dollars of trade. I'll update wikipedia then we can get this war started.
I have lost all respect for RIM
Rockefeller advanced medicine, RIM built perimeter. A little perspective please, the world has enough drama.
A truth can misrepresent the truth. My favorite example, since voters reacted to the lie, is George Bush's "No new taxes", which he then claimed was kept as he only extended an existing tax. Even if you determined how to classify truths, the analysis is still fatally flawed. Not all promises are equal, not all people value promises the same.
Blaming Obama for lying is like blaming Obama for being a good negotiator. The fact that he has managed to not lie on 90% of his campaign promises is not just remarkable, it's incredible. In fact, it is so good that Republicans have voted against bills they sponsored to try to decrease his approval rating. They then use that "evidence" as a weakness of the Presidency, knowing full well that the public doesn't associate the passage of laws with Congress, they "feel" the President does it all.
A key part of this argument is that voters dont understand and therefore to help them we must lie to them. This line of thinking leads to many layers of assumptions and inferences. Social sciences have little certainty as such logical rube goldberg machines rarely have their intended consequences. KISS.
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!