If a computer is temporarily storing data in order to make responses faster, exactly where is the delineation that makes the cached data something illegal?
Perhaps where the computer in question is owned by an entity that is paid by the infringer to cache said content? I'm no lawyer, but I don't see CloudFlare's arguments holding up real well in front of a judge. Perhaps they are doing this to show that they just won't rollover over takedown requests and that they will require court orders to do so. They may need that to legitimately void the contracts without prejudice.
If I'm willing to pay £700 for a device I expect the fucking thing to work as advertised.
And you bought a Samsung anyway?
First: The AMA is not a labor union. Also, as the years have gone by it has been gradually morphing into a political group. Most doctors are smart enough not to form/join a labor union and are smart enough to know that political goals can be achieved better by political organizations.
Second: Contrary to popular opinion, most doctors do not belong to the AMA.
Particularly if you create the organizations yourselves to give yourself meaningless credentials! Right Dr. Paul?
Artificial intelligence has the same relation to intelligence as artificial flowers have to flowers. -- David Parnas