Use of the p-value gave us conclusions that weren't politically correct. We have corrected the issue by banning the use of the p-value so that only True Science may be published.

Complaining is only considered valid work in meetings.

It wasn't all so friendly to the Byzantines. The 4th crusade didn't help them much.

It's still legal. The airlines are using civil thuggery to protect an obvious flaw in their business model, when the real solution is to just fix that particular problem.

I think proving tortious interference is impossible as well. The airline suffers no harm when a passenger doesn't show up for a flight (if anything this is a benefit), so why would a passenger not showing up for a leg of a flight be any different? Even if the ticket, terms, or anything in the relationship, constitutes an arrangement where tortious interference applies, proving that harm comes from the breach seems impossible.

The point I'm making is that people who pirate games were probably never going to buy at any price in the first place, so instances of pirated games do not represent much lost revenue. Yes, of course 1 cracked game gets downloaded 100k times probably at a minimum, but what is not happening is 100k people who were going to buy the game stole it instead of buying.

I think the reason companies include the nuclear, always-online, DRM model, is because they are under the mistaken assumption that 1 pirated game = 1 lost sale. This is almost certainly not the case, or even close. I'd wager it's more like 1 pirated game = .01 lost sale.

TripAdvisor and platforms like it are almost ransomware. You, a customer, will make a review for an establishment and then they will e-mail that establishment with a notice "Hey you got a 5 star review, wouldn't it be great if someone could see it?" or better yet "Hey you got a 1 star review, (which is up right now for everyone to see) don't you want to respond to it or how about you buy our executive-platinum-double-gold package to manage your review section for only $300 a month?"

I think a useful clarification is never to speak to the police about anything outside of an actual deposition, or any other context in which you are under oath. Police might be able to get away with anything in an interrogation room, but there are rules in a Grand Jury and a deposition. People are under oath, and there are procedures which benefit you. The deck is stacked against you in the interrogation room, but it is much more even in an official proceeding.

It is to your disadvantage to speak to any law enforcement outside of these proceedings, or without an attorney present, in any situation. If you do, you're basically just trusting the cop not to mess with you, because just about anything is illegal these days since there are too many damn laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This is a useful lecture at Regent Law school was illuminating to me a few years back. Basically, your 5th amendment rights are also designed to protect you against answering any questions which may in any way incriminate you, even if those activities are not the subject of a particular police investigation.

Unless you are actually under oath, you have exactly zero reason cooperate with law enforcement.

Not mutually exclusive

Actually I think it's easier to successfully sue for slander or libel in the UK than in the US if I understand the appropriate laws correctly.

That's where we're just going to disagree. I don't see Title II as a starting point. I think we all want net neutrality in essence, but I don't believe Title II is the way to achieve it.

But my core claim here is that the AT&T is behaving rationally due to regime uncertainty. I don't disagree that the ISPs are up to no good, but at the same time they do what they are allowed to get away with by us and the government. But most of all, businesses respond to incentive structures. So I say let's force that.

The kind of legal action I would be in favor of would be breaking up these telco/isp/content-provider cartels. The cable companies in the United States were, initially, the only game in town with the infrastructure pre-existing that could handle moderate broadband access. This met the needs of the general public until about 2006-ish, the speeds were OK, and cable TV wasn't competing with cable internet in essence, because streaming wasn't that big yet.

This is no longer the case, and people are opting more and more to cut the cord and just get internet access for the content needs. So now the cable companies are going to try to get up to mischief because one of their services directly competes with another, or you can access competitor-cartel content with their access and they want you to stay with their sphere of influence.

I believe the solution is to make it so that ISPs can only be ISPs. We're reaching a level of cartel like behavior that provoked the anti-trust backlash of the gilded age; and I think it's time to sharpen up the Sherman Act for a new millennium. While Title II would enforce utility like behavior on the ISPs, it would still allow them to be connected to their parent institutions, and they would still have incentives to get up to mischief. I say remove the incentive to do mischief rather than make it illegal to get up to it. Then we can get truly competitive behavior from people who are fundamentally in the businesses of providing you the best internet.

So when I say that Title II isn't the right way to achieve net neutrality it is because I think incentive structures are a more powerful way of influencing behavior than regulation. Title II provides an incentive to be a utility company; and I don't remember the last time my utility company did anything except raise my rates for the exact same service.

No, no one knows whats going on now legally speaking, that's why we're having this discussion. The Verizon vs FCC decision removed that certainty. They know what the regulatory regime might be, but they don't know what it is going to be. The FCC chair is looking at splitting the baby which doesn't really sound like a clear indicator of what he's going to do from a legal perspective. It appears that the FCC chair wants to allow ISPs to prioritize certain traffic for security and use (e.g. e-mail traffic doesn't need the kind of priority as streaming video) because not all traffic deserves the same level of attention from the ISP, but not do so for business reasons (e.g. Time Warner shouldn't be allowed to hobble Netflix streaming service). But at the same time, he appears to be distancing himself from Obama's plea for Title II.

Writing this into law is more complex than simply saying what the FCC chair said he wanted: "What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business."

While it is very easy to poke at AT&T for this decision, it is also a very understandable position to take. AT&T doesn't know what the laws or rules are going to be after the fact. We are probably not going to get true Title II net neutrality, and quite frankly, 80 year old law really shouldn't apply to something that is fundamentally more complex than a telco or OTA network, and applying the same kinds of laws to the internet providers is legally and technically stupid. There are a variety of very good reasons why Title II, or Title II-like laws are a very, very bad idea for the internet.

But basically AT&T's logic is sound. They don't want to roll out a huge upgrade when they have no idea of the legal regime they will be operating under. And there decision is understandable and rational.

Yes, if only we could outlaw crime. Surely that would solve the problem.

Gonna get eaten by this snake.