You know it's bad when Comcast says something
For the first time in history, I'm actually happy to admit I'm a Comcast customer.
This is a good step in the right direction. Now, if I can reach my machines on port 22 from outside their network like I can with UVerse, then I might even switch back. Comcast and Road Runner were the two worst ISP experiences I have ever had, and that includes several dial up accounts.
AT&T's connection and service were terrible in my experience. I vastly prefer Comcast. I don't exactly like them, but they're the lesser of evils, IMHO.
Having worked for them when they were SBC, there is no denying that they are evil incarnate. That said, I don't have to deal with port filtering on my connection, and Uverse TV is much better than cable. I would get a dish if I could.
It's good to see companies siding with the consumer for once. Perhaps we've changed the tides with all of this virtual protesting.
“It is evident in these cases – and the multitude of cases filed by plaintiffs and other pornographers represented by their counsel – that plaintiffs have no interest in actually litigating their claims against the Doe defendants, but simply seek to use the Court and its subpoena powers to obtain sufficient information to shake down the Doe defendants.” - This was magic for me. Let's all be honest here and admit that this exactly what's happening, but it's refreshing to see it stated so bluntly. Bravo, #Comcast !
You know, I wish he had kept it neutral and left "pornographers" out of it. Pornographers have just as much right to the legal system as anyone else. That they are pornographers is far less important to me than their mafia like tactics. Let's not get distracted by their profession, and instead concentrate on their actions.
I actually find it kind of amusing with things like Google's transparency report, that you have a couple of the really nasty media companies... and then lots and lots of porn... at the forefront of anti-piracy. It was just kind of amusing there. The most hilarious part, of course, is just how embarrassing it must be to be sued by a porn company. :P
Sure, absolutely. But, if your argument is strong enough, you attack the other sides argument, rather than attacking them personally, right?
I don't know if stating someone's profession is attacking them. I mean, if you asked those people what they do, that's exactly what they'd tell you they are.
But there is a negative general association with them. The exploit tabboos for money. This causes people to react to them negatively. It has no basis in the legal argument. It is done solely to influence the court, juriors, and people emotionally.
From everything I've seen, most of them don't care about the negative association attached to it. If you do porn, then that's what you do. It's a fact. Stating facts does not make something an attack.
Add a comment...