Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the a-better-sunday-read-than-the-times dept
The Sunday Times got hammered this week over its article that simply parroted the government's talking points, and its responses were less than stellar. After they attempted to shunt all the blame onto said government, rw won most insightful comment of the week by pointing out the other side of the complicity coin:
This is why governments want to define "Journalists" as only those working for major media outlets.
In second place, we've got a comment that brings up a point I've never really thought of (and one that I admit I'm not sure about, but need to consider more) from Lane D on the subject of biometrics:
This is just my opinion
But I wish people would stop thinking of biometrics as a replacement for passwords. Think of them as a replacement for your username, but not as a replacement for a password.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start with a comment from last week's Techdirt History post, which is technically outside the boundaries for this week, but comments on those posts rarely get a shot, so why not? After we pointed to an older post asking if intellectual property was fundamentally immoral, one anonymous commenter made a pretty excellent case for "yes":
Intellectual property must give people the brainpower of a bowl of lukewarm oatmeal.
It does. It's the word "property" that does it. It's like gold fever, but for imaginary property.
Is intellectual property immoral?
Yes it is. First of all, it misrepresents the Constitutional limits of a temporary monopoly privilege as a thing that can be owned, and should therefore be owned permanently like actual property.
Secondly, it creates a breed of froth-mouthed adherents who not only disregard everyone else's rights, they insist on getting laws passed that actively infringe upon them.
Thirdly, it facilitates theft from the public domain via expansion, locking up works that were formerly free to use.
Fourthly, it robs us of our cultural heritage by letting unprofitable works on celluloid film decay instead of enabling them to be copied and saved for future generations.
Seriously, don't get me started on how utterly offensive and morally bankrupt "intellectual property" is. You can call it intellectual output if you will but if I see anyone calling it property or describing the experience thereof as "consuming," believe me I will put you straight. Let's not be using words from the real thieves' lexicon.
/End rant
Next, we've got a comment on our cross-post from the new Copia Institute website about hacking policy through innovation, not lobbying. After one commenter suggested that was difficult verging on impossible, another anonymous commenter composed an excellent response:
The Internet upsets information monopolies. (Encyclopedias)
And yet Wikipedia has come to dominate without requiring any policy changes.
But I could also repeat: Netflix, Amazon Prime
Netflix has also come to dominate without requiring any policy changes.
Innovation like SpaceX threatens fat dinosaurs
SpaceX is doing just fine without any policy changes.
Of all the things you've mentioned, only Uber and Lyft are hindered by current regulations. Your examples most contradict your premise that "you must convince the ruling class to allow us mere peasants to create innovation."
Over on the funny side, first place comes from our post about Comcast's use of misleading polls in a misguided attempt to fix its horrible reputation. DannyB did a hilarious job of imagining what one of these polls might look like:
1. How many problems have you had with your Comcast service?
[x] Zero
[_] Less than one
2. Which of the following problems have you experienced with Comcast? (Please check all that apply.)
[_] Was unable to express in words how happy I was with Comcast service!
[_] Could not reach enough Comcast people to express my joy with Comcast service.
[_] The online payment system has a bug that will not allow me to pay more than the actual price for the service.
3. How would you rate your Comcast service?
[_] Fantastical
[_] Amazing
[_] Wonderful
[_] Marvelous
[_] Good
Thank you for your feedback. As a reward for sending us feedback, would you like to receive craptacular email offers from selected Comcast partners?
[_] Yes! Please fill my inbox to overflowing!
[_] No. (but fill my inbox anyway)
For second place, we head to a post we titled "Designer Knockoff Enthusiast Issues DMCA Notice Targeting Half The Internet, Fails To Remove A Single URL." Did you catch the error? No? Thankfully, one anonymous commenter did:
FYI, you have a typo in your headline. It should read:
DMCA Notice Enthusiast Issues Blog on Designer Knockoffs ...
For editor's choice, we return to the Sunday Times saga, where CNN asked the reporter some tough questions and got some unimpressive responses. Agonistes pointed out the other big story here:
Ubelieveable
I'm absolutely shocked that a CNN employee asked relevant and coherent questions of a guest.
(To be honest, I watch so little TV news these days that I don't even know if it's fair to target CNN specifically — but given the general feebleness of that entire journalistic medium at the moment, the sentiment seems right.)
Finally, we've got a comment in response to the news that the European Human Rights court declared sites liable for user comments. Jigsy offered up the only thing that can safely be said about this bad decision:
[ This comment cannot be viewed due to disapproval by the European Human Rights Court. Sorry about that. :/ ]
That's all for this week, folks!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Biometrics
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28201939#p28201939
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uber
Anyone calling Uber and Lyft "innovative" is referred to the concept of a minicab, as explained by Wikipedia here. The business model's existed since the Sixties, Uber just do it over the Internet.
Anyone remember a time when Techdirt used to loudly call bullshit on companies claiming that automatically made their product something new and radically innovative?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On Al Jazeera This Week ...
You can watch it here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Uber
Invention is creating something new. Innovation is creating something that people want.
Someone else invented the smartphone, or at least it's component parts. Apple innovated by releasing the iPhone.
Someone else invented the minicab and the internet. Uber and Lyft innovated by combining them in a way that people want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Biometrics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Biometrics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Amazon Is Hindered By The Government
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Uber
Right. This. I was just about to write almost exactly your comment and I see you already did it for me. Thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Biometrics
Maybe. But probably not.
As soon as you are trying to use biometrics in a digital form, you are subject to replay attacks. See also https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/1999/08/biometrics_uses_and.html (still relevant after 16 years!) for other reasons why biometrics make poor passwords.
Biometrics are only effective as both username and password in situations where you don't really need passwords at all. eg- logging on to a multi-user home computer - but not for getting access to sensitive files (eg- password safe), or at least not by itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Biometrics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Biometrics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Uber
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Biometrics
Not all biometrics are the same.
In particular the live signature biometric.
(Where you sign your name on a pad and it records not just the signature - but how you did it)
This is unique, changeable and the signing process can't be public - although the result can be.
On a trip to Norway last week I saw a terminal. that was enabled for this process - so it does exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Uber
This is a recent re-definition of the word that is not universally accepted.
In any old dictionary the two words mean the same
The meaning you are referring to was invented originally by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter - and may have become commonly understood amongst econiomists - but to the rest of the world innovation and invention are differentiated by the fact that invention requires some kind of effort whereas an innovation can be any arbitrary change in an established pattern. Most dictionaries still agree with me on this point.
In short the use of the word innovation in this sense is itself an innovation - but not one that I (and many other people) want.
I agree totally with the sentiment that you are trying to convey, that there is an important difference between creating something new and creating something new AND useful/desirable but I think it is simply confusing to try to hijack the English language to the cause.
Please try and find a word that really already means what you want and stop confusing people and creating false conflict with economists jargon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Uber
And I'll be sorely disappointed if you fail to jump all over them should they try and patent it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Uber
This is how English works. Words adapt over time. Nuances emerge between words that were once synonymous, or disappear between words that were once distinct. And the innovation/invention distinction is a very useful one that a lot of people are very familiar with, and one which is becoming increasingly more mainstream as the world of technology and economics from which it emerges becomes increasingly mainstream.
There is almost no such thing as a word whose definition is "universally accepted"
And hey, if you want to go even further, the Latin root inventio means a finding or discovery, while innovatio means to renew, restore or change. So aren't the people who believe they have the same meaning the ones getting it wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uber
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Biometrics
I remember having to sign out of a hospital after a surgery on my right shoulder. I'm right handed, but the nerve block on my right arm hadn't worn off yet, so I had to sign with my left hand. It obviously looked nothing like my normal signature, yet it was completely acceptable. So what was the point? I might as well have asked the staff member to sign on my behalf, and yet that immediately suggests ways that it can be abused. So why do we accept signatures at all, considering that very few signatures are performed live?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uber
Yes - but it only works when you are preaching to the converted - because those who don't accept your point won't accept your meaning of the word.
The problem I have is that although I totally agree with the underlying point you are trying to make I think it is foolish to hang the argument on a meaning of a word that is not generally accepted. That way you antagonise not just the people who disagree with your point - but also those who agree with your point but are unaware of or dislike your use of words. How can that be a good strategy?
And hey, if you want to go even further, the Latin root inventio means a finding or discovery, while innovatio means to renew, restore or change.
Yes that is true - although many dictionaries seem to make them the same.
In any case the difference is not your difference. I would say that the difference is that an invention is a change that required some effort to make and gives a positive technical improvement whereas an innovation is simply any change large or trivial, good or bad. This is quite close to the reverse of your version.
Also the medieval meaning where innovation==heresy is a really inconvenient for your point, in fact it plays into the hands of your opponents, and the legacy of that meaning still persists in many minds and will continue to do so because old documents that use the word that way.
In every field outside of economics/business the extra baggage of your interpretation of the word is meaningless and so the word will continue to be used simply to denote any change no matter how mainstream the technical/business world becomes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]