That's right- the issue comes down to what to do about Pence.
So far, I don't believe he's done anything that could get him impeached... but no one wants him as president.
But let's say Pelosi can start impeachment proceedings against Pence: the Republicans and the media would go nuts over the fact that a Democrat woman was trying to steal power from 2 Republican men!
This is the same reason why Pelosi never started impeachment hearings against Bush and Cheney for their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: if it worked (which again, was probably a long shot), she'd become the first female president, but by a political process, not by getting elected.
"Passing constitutional muster"? That's for the courts to decide. For now, bored, we-have-nothing-better-to-do politicians will pass "we have to do something!!!" bills just to make a name for themselves. They don't care if the bill is unconstitutional since no one else cares. Seriously- when was the last time you read about a court decision that ruled a law was unconstitutional? Okay, there are a few out there. But who was the original author of the bill? Did anyone go back to him or her and say "we told you it was unconstitutional when you wrote it!"
And of course, how much time and money will be spend arguing this case in court?
On the other hand, maybe everyone involved does know that the bill will never stand up, but look how much media coverage and attention he's getting!
I think the main lesson we're teaching kids is that they'll always be under constant surveillance. If kids learn to give up their privacy now, there will be far fewer protests over sites like Google and Facebook.
I think within a generation (or two), it'll be considered almost deviant to not share your information. After all, privacy is for those old folks who weren't raised by monitoring devices.
This sounds like a conspiracy theorist denying the facts
She says she's 19? She lied.
Ask her family about her age. They said she was 19 so they lied to cover for her.
Ask her school which has records that shows she was 19. They must have faked the records.
Ask her previous employers who have government-issued documents to prove her age. You know those foreign government- they always falsify their records.
"Bone age" shows she's around 19 years old. The scans lied: she's 15 with "old bone" syndrome.
This reminds me of investing in comics books when I was younger. I still remember a comic book shop owner telling me to invest my $50 in 1 or 2 older comics that already have a high value instead of spending it on 10 "hot" comics that came out this month.
I think Netflix is having the same issue: they spend millions on Stranger Things or the latest "binge-able" show... which only has 13 episodes! This "binge" only takes one weekend!
Yet that same millions of dollars could be spent on older shows with 6-7 seasons / 25-26 episodes per season, or about 200-250 episodes.
The reason I signed up for Netflix years ago was because they had the complete series of tons of shows from 1980's and 1990's: The A-Team, Amazing Stories, Cheers, Family Ties, Frasier, G.I.Joe (cartoon), Knight Rider, Growing Pains, Robotech (cartoon), every Star Trek series including the animated one, Transformers (cartoon), and so on. They also had all the seasons of all the CSI shows, which my wife likes.
But now, almost none of these are on Netflix, so I cancelled our subscription.
However, the issue is that there are no older shows to invest in, since they all owned by other studios who want the content for themselves.
So is Amazon a seller like Wal-Mart or more like a mall?
If they're like Wal-Mart, can they be held responsible if a Playstation melts down? Or is this the responsibility of Sony, the manufacturer? Sure, Wal-Mart will give you a refund, can can you really sue Wal-Mart if the Playstation burned down your house?
Or is Amazon like a mall, meaning you can't sue the mall for something you bought at a kiosk just because the kiosk moved to another mall. Is it different if you paid the mall to buy something at the kiosk? Maybe, but like above, shouldn't the manufacturer be the one to sue over a faulty item?
How many times have physical stores like Sears, K-Mart, and Wal-Mart been sued because of a faulty product? Or is this case another example of someone going after whoever has the deepest pockets because they can't find the sellers or manufacturer?
"Why does YouTube do more than CDA 230 requires anyway?"
Because there's a clause in the DMCA that says sites can be liable if they don't take down the accused content within a specific amount of time. Because of this, most sites have a "take down on notice" policy where they take things down while the case is being investigated. The site doesn't care how the creator is affected because they're only worrying about whether the accuser will sue them if the content does actually happen to be stolen.
Then there's the issue of major companies with big teams of lawyers filing claims versus small creators. If you were YouTube (or most sites), there's no choice- you do what the big teams of lawyers say, even if they may be wrong.
This is yet another case of the goose that laid the golden egg.
Netflix paid Warner $100 million to stream "Friends" for another year. That's a lot of money for an older show!
But the Warner executives looked at that said "well if we can get $100 million from Netflix for just 'Friends', imagine how much money we could make if we kept it on our own service". Yet part of what made "Friends" worth is so much is because so many people 1) have Netflix and 2) use Netflix to watch it.
Sorry, but I doubt a fraction of the Netflix audience will subscribe to Warner's service just to see "Friends". So now Warner loses $100 million and they don't get the subscriber base they're looking for.
Great plan!
When you mentioned the fact the a screaming drama student won't set off the detectors, it reminded me of this dialog from "The Naked Gun":
Frank Drebin: When I see 3 guys in togas stabbing a man to death on front of 200 people, I had to do something.
Police Commissioner: Frank, they were doing a production of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in Central Park.
That scene was meant as comedy, but it seems like way too people want to "do something" to be "better safe than sorry"... including companies with near-worthless products that take advantage of people like this.
1) When has any technology led to a 4 day work week? If 5G is as great as they claim, people will never stop working because they get such great coverage! Why go on a vacation when they can work anywhere, any place? Bosses will love this!
2) Why doesn't the wider media push back on these claims instead of just pushing what Verizon and AT&T say? It's great that TechDirt is doing this, but critical articles need to spread beyond just the tech-savvy.
I know this has probably been brought up before, but if law enforcement agencies are so adamant about these seizures, I say we let them. Sure, this isn't the right solution, but follow me for a minute.
The catch is that any funds they collect are sent to the state to be divided up into all of the state's law enforcement agencies. I'd be willing to bet that seizures would suddenly stop if agencies saw their funds being spread out instead of going directly into their own budget.
I think this is really the heart of the matter. I would think most people reading this site would be savvy enough to know how to install screening apps, but what about the older set? You know, the ones who are the most vulnerable to falling for robo-call scams.
Sort-of related: if this is what passes for investigative journalism at the New York Times, then I'm cancelling my subscription.
If they take one comment made 10 years ago as "proof" of a "study", then what other stories are they publishing that are bending the truth or flat-out lying?
Or do they only investigate sources and studies when it benefits their cause?
Either way, that's not good journalism.
What's next- a "study" proves the moon is made of swiss cheese because someone made a comment 10 years ago?
I thought Fox News was taken off the air in the UK because the government (rightly) saw it as opinion-based when it tried to claim it was unbiased news.
And while Trump was in the UK, did he watch any news from BBC or Al-Jazeera (the horror- a Middle East news station!)? I'd bet he'd be more than shocked to see how those stations reported the news.
Though this assumed Trump's parents, I mean handlers, allowed him to watch these station. After all, these are the same handlers who told the navy to move the USS John McCain in case the name offended Trump.
These articles don't seem to ever talk about why an ad "doesn't work". Does it mean less people click? Does it mean less people buy? Do the ads don't meet the metrics set by the executives?
What if the ad is simply for brand-awareness? Sure you just bought a hard drive and you don't need one right now, but if you get shown enough ads for Seagate, maybe you'll keep them in mind when you're ready for your next hard drive. So did the ad "work"?
Or what about TV commercials? Does anyone see an ad for a Big Mac and run out and get one? Probably not, but people see the commercial and keep it in mind for the next time they're hungry.
Like other posters are saying, cats and cat apparel have been around for hundreds or thousands of years. Why is Caterpillar suddenly interested in this coffee shop? Why do they (or their lawyers) think someone will confuse a cartoony cat with the CAT/ Caterpillar brand?
To me, this sounds like a textbook example of hiring lawyers who then need to bill some hours, so they claim "we have to enforce to trademark" by picking on the smallest target they can find. Then when the coffee shop settles or they go bankrupt, Caterpillar's lawyers will claim this as a "victory" and use it to go after more small coffee shops.
Then after they get enough wins (meaning, enough companies settled), then Caterpillar will go after larger targets, like Garfield the CAT or Felix the CAT.
So can I write some books called "StarCraft" which have nothing to do with the Blizzard video game? No? Why, because the name "StarCraft" is copyrighted and people will confuse it with the video game?
Then why isn't "RedFall" copyrighted?
Like other people are saying, there is a very real case of people thinking the book and video game are related and will get upset or confused if they're not.
In this case, I think this is exactly what copyright law was designed for: making sure the customer isn't misled by a specific title or phrase.
If this prosecutor is so sure she'll get more convictions by stealing, I mean confiscating cash, let them do it... but then all cash seized gets put into a state fund and distributed to all towns equally. Something tells me this prosecutor would quickly drop the idea if her area wasn't getting all the money.
Though this is still a bad idea since some towns could get into a competition to see who could seize the most money.
On the post: Federal Elections Committee Chair Is Sick Of Donald Trump's Bullshit: Put Up Or Shut Up About Voter Fraud
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's right- the issue comes down to what to do about Pence.
So far, I don't believe he's done anything that could get him impeached... but no one wants him as president.
But let's say Pelosi can start impeachment proceedings against Pence: the Republicans and the media would go nuts over the fact that a Democrat woman was trying to steal power from 2 Republican men!
This is the same reason why Pelosi never started impeachment hearings against Bush and Cheney for their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: if it worked (which again, was probably a long shot), she'd become the first female president, but by a political process, not by getting elected.
On the post: Gizmodo Media's Clueless New Owners Tell Reporters They Can't Use Encrypted Email Any More
Searches
So employees' purses, handbags, and cars are subject to searches, but there's no mention of Google Drive or DropBox or any other electronic storage?
On the post: Josh Hawley Wants To Appoint Himself Product Manager For The Internet
Re: Free Peaches
"Passing constitutional muster"? That's for the courts to decide. For now, bored, we-have-nothing-better-to-do politicians will pass "we have to do something!!!" bills just to make a name for themselves. They don't care if the bill is unconstitutional since no one else cares. Seriously- when was the last time you read about a court decision that ruled a law was unconstitutional? Okay, there are a few out there. But who was the original author of the bill? Did anyone go back to him or her and say "we told you it was unconstitutional when you wrote it!"
And of course, how much time and money will be spend arguing this case in court?
On the other hand, maybe everyone involved does know that the bill will never stand up, but look how much media coverage and attention he's getting!
On the post: Instead Of Parents Spying On Their Kids Online, Why Not Teach Them How To Be Good Digital Citizens
Teaching kids to lose their privacy
I think the main lesson we're teaching kids is that they'll always be under constant surveillance. If kids learn to give up their privacy now, there will be far fewer protests over sites like Google and Facebook.
I think within a generation (or two), it'll be considered almost deviant to not share your information. After all, privacy is for those old folks who weren't raised by monitoring devices.
On the post: CBP, DHS Using Quasi-Scientific Guesswork To Turn Adult Immigrants Into Minors
This sounds like a conspiracy theorist denying the facts
She says she's 19? She lied.
Ask her family about her age. They said she was 19 so they lied to cover for her.
Ask her school which has records that shows she was 19. They must have faked the records.
Ask her previous employers who have government-issued documents to prove her age. You know those foreign government- they always falsify their records.
"Bone age" shows she's around 19 years old. The scans lied: she's 15 with "old bone" syndrome.
Or, you know, she really is 19.
On the post: Netflix Sees First Subscriber Losses Ever
They should invest in older shows
This reminds me of investing in comics books when I was younger. I still remember a comic book shop owner telling me to invest my $50 in 1 or 2 older comics that already have a high value instead of spending it on 10 "hot" comics that came out this month.
I think Netflix is having the same issue: they spend millions on Stranger Things or the latest "binge-able" show... which only has 13 episodes! This "binge" only takes one weekend!
Yet that same millions of dollars could be spent on older shows with 6-7 seasons / 25-26 episodes per season, or about 200-250 episodes.
The reason I signed up for Netflix years ago was because they had the complete series of tons of shows from 1980's and 1990's: The A-Team, Amazing Stories, Cheers, Family Ties, Frasier, G.I.Joe (cartoon), Knight Rider, Growing Pains, Robotech (cartoon), every Star Trek series including the animated one, Transformers (cartoon), and so on. They also had all the seasons of all the CSI shows, which my wife likes.
But now, almost none of these are on Netflix, so I cancelled our subscription.
However, the issue is that there are no older shows to invest in, since they all owned by other studios who want the content for themselves.
On the post: The Third Circuit Joins The Ninth In Excluding E-Commerce Platforms From Section 230's Protection
Re: Re: You can't touch the money
So is Amazon a seller like Wal-Mart or more like a mall?
If they're like Wal-Mart, can they be held responsible if a Playstation melts down? Or is this the responsibility of Sony, the manufacturer? Sure, Wal-Mart will give you a refund, can can you really sue Wal-Mart if the Playstation burned down your house?
Or is Amazon like a mall, meaning you can't sue the mall for something you bought at a kiosk just because the kiosk moved to another mall. Is it different if you paid the mall to buy something at the kiosk? Maybe, but like above, shouldn't the manufacturer be the one to sue over a faulty item?
How many times have physical stores like Sears, K-Mart, and Wal-Mart been sued because of a faulty product? Or is this case another example of someone going after whoever has the deepest pockets because they can't find the sellers or manufacturer?
On the post: YouTube Finally Demands Specificity From Copyright Claimants
Re: what am I not understanding?
"Why does YouTube do more than CDA 230 requires anyway?"
Because there's a clause in the DMCA that says sites can be liable if they don't take down the accused content within a specific amount of time. Because of this, most sites have a "take down on notice" policy where they take things down while the case is being investigated. The site doesn't care how the creator is affected because they're only worrying about whether the accuser will sue them if the content does actually happen to be stolen.
Then there's the issue of major companies with big teams of lawyers filing claims versus small creators. If you were YouTube (or most sites), there's no choice- you do what the big teams of lawyers say, even if they may be wrong.
On the post: AT&T Breaks Another Merger Promise In Making 'Friends' Exclusive
The goose that laid the golden egg
This is yet another case of the goose that laid the golden egg.
Netflix paid Warner $100 million to stream "Friends" for another year. That's a lot of money for an older show!
But the Warner executives looked at that said "well if we can get $100 million from Netflix for just 'Friends', imagine how much money we could make if we kept it on our own service". Yet part of what made "Friends" worth is so much is because so many people 1) have Netflix and 2) use Netflix to watch it.
Sorry, but I doubt a fraction of the Netflix audience will subscribe to Warner's service just to see "Friends". So now Warner loses $100 million and they don't get the subscriber base they're looking for.
Great plan!
On the post: Schools Are Using 'Aggression Detecting' Mics That Are Set Off By Coughing, Slamming Locker Doors To Head Off The Next School Shooting
We have to do something
When you mentioned the fact the a screaming drama student won't set off the detectors, it reminded me of this dialog from "The Naked Gun":
Frank Drebin: When I see 3 guys in togas stabbing a man to death on front of 200 people, I had to do something.
Police Commissioner: Frank, they were doing a production of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in Central Park.
That scene was meant as comedy, but it seems like way too people want to "do something" to be "better safe than sorry"... including companies with near-worthless products that take advantage of people like this.
On the post: The Press Needs An Intervention When It Comes To Over-Hyping 5G
We'll never have a 4 day workweek
Two points to consider:
1) When has any technology led to a 4 day work week? If 5G is as great as they claim, people will never stop working because they get such great coverage! Why go on a vacation when they can work anywhere, any place? Bosses will love this!
2) Why doesn't the wider media push back on these claims instead of just pushing what Verizon and AT&T say? It's great that TechDirt is doing this, but critical articles need to spread beyond just the tech-savvy.
On the post: Here We Go Again: Trump Administration Considers Outlawing Encryption
We need to hear from everyone about this
This is just another sign of the dumbing down of society where we have to consider everyone's opinion before making a decision:
I'd say this is sarcasm, but sadly way too many people believe these things.
On the post: Study Shows Asset Forfeiture Doesn't Fight Crime Or Reduce Drug Use
Spread the wealth
I know this has probably been brought up before, but if law enforcement agencies are so adamant about these seizures, I say we let them. Sure, this isn't the right solution, but follow me for a minute.
The catch is that any funds they collect are sent to the state to be divided up into all of the state's law enforcement agencies. I'd be willing to bet that seizures would suddenly stop if agencies saw their funds being spread out instead of going directly into their own budget.
On the post: FCC Pats Itself On The Back For 'New' Robocall Plan That Isn't New, Has No Real Teeth
Re: Re: Re: I think I see the plan...
"For the flip-phone preferred by the older set?"
I think this is really the heart of the matter. I would think most people reading this site would be savvy enough to know how to install screening apps, but what about the older set? You know, the ones who are the most vulnerable to falling for robo-call scams.
On the post: NY Times Publishes Laughable Propaganda To Argue Google Owes Newspapers Like Itself Free Money
That's some great investigative journalism
Sort-of related: if this is what passes for investigative journalism at the New York Times, then I'm cancelling my subscription.
If they take one comment made 10 years ago as "proof" of a "study", then what other stories are they publishing that are bending the truth or flat-out lying?
Or do they only investigate sources and studies when it benefits their cause?
Either way, that's not good journalism.
What's next- a "study" proves the moon is made of swiss cheese because someone made a comment 10 years ago?
On the post: Trump Whines About AT&T, Ignores His FCC Has Spent Two Years Kissing The Company's Ass
Re:
I thought Fox News was taken off the air in the UK because the government (rightly) saw it as opinion-based when it tried to claim it was unbiased news.
And while Trump was in the UK, did he watch any news from BBC or Al-Jazeera (the horror- a Middle East news station!)? I'd bet he'd be more than shocked to see how those stations reported the news.
Though this assumed Trump's parents, I mean handlers, allowed him to watch these station. After all, these are the same handlers who told the navy to move the USS John McCain in case the name offended Trump.
On the post: New Study Shows That All This Ad Targeting Doesn't Work That Well
What makes an ad not work?
These articles don't seem to ever talk about why an ad "doesn't work". Does it mean less people click? Does it mean less people buy? Do the ads don't meet the metrics set by the executives?
What if the ad is simply for brand-awareness? Sure you just bought a hard drive and you don't need one right now, but if you get shown enough ads for Seagate, maybe you'll keep them in mind when you're ready for your next hard drive. So did the ad "work"?
Or what about TV commercials? Does anyone see an ad for a Big Mac and run out and get one? Probably not, but people see the commercial and keep it in mind for the next time they're hungry.
On the post: Caterpillar Inc. Bullies Cat And Cloud Coffee Shop Over Its Store's Apparel
Lawyers need to bill hours somehow
Like other posters are saying, cats and cat apparel have been around for hundreds or thousands of years. Why is Caterpillar suddenly interested in this coffee shop? Why do they (or their lawyers) think someone will confuse a cartoony cat with the CAT/ Caterpillar brand?
To me, this sounds like a textbook example of hiring lawyers who then need to bill some hours, so they claim "we have to enforce to trademark" by picking on the smallest target they can find. Then when the coffee shop settles or they go bankrupt, Caterpillar's lawyers will claim this as a "victory" and use it to go after more small coffee shops.
Then after they get enough wins (meaning, enough companies settled), then Caterpillar will go after larger targets, like Garfield the CAT or Felix the CAT.
On the post: Bethesda And Zenimax Settle 'Redfall' Trademark Dispute With Trollish Book Publisher
Can I write StarCraft books?
So can I write some books called "StarCraft" which have nothing to do with the Blizzard video game? No? Why, because the name "StarCraft" is copyrighted and people will confuse it with the video game?
Then why isn't "RedFall" copyrighted?
Like other people are saying, there is a very real case of people thinking the book and video game are related and will get upset or confused if they're not.
In this case, I think this is exactly what copyright law was designed for: making sure the customer isn't misled by a specific title or phrase.
On the post: Prosecutor On Forfeiture Reforms: Making Us Prosecute Drugs Cases Will Make It Harder To Prosecute Drug Cases
Give them what they want
If this prosecutor is so sure she'll get more convictions by stealing, I mean confiscating cash, let them do it... but then all cash seized gets put into a state fund and distributed to all towns equally. Something tells me this prosecutor would quickly drop the idea if her area wasn't getting all the money.
Though this is still a bad idea since some towns could get into a competition to see who could seize the most money.
Next >>