One wonders why when putting together a Consumer Advisory Board that anyone other than consumers are necessary? Now we imagine that there are a variety of consumers out there, but your specialty is communications. So why isn't your board made up of individuals who are customers of all the main players in those industries? ISP's, landline companies, Mobile companies, etc.. Ones that DON"T have connections to those that have connections to you?.
We also imagine that the board should discuss the lack of competition, their customer service practices, the efforts of the industry to buy regulation in their favor, and the efforts of industry to buy regulation preventing competition as a set of top priorities.
What do you mean there is plenty of competition? How many places in the US have access to more than one ISP. Please don't use information from the ISP's, they lie, try walking up to say 1000 homes in various places and states and ask. That would be a better use of your time than anything you have done since your term in office began.
I didn't and won't read that update, yet I still have my opinion. And frankly, my opinion has nothing to do with any updates. It has to do with the original action, and the original reactions. That isn't going to change, regardless of updates.
"while the EU continues to wonder why successful internet companies don't seem to ever come from the EU..."
There are three things standing in the way of the EU realizing why their actions prevent successful Internet companies in their domains. The first has to do with money. Money that comes from legacy industries that do not comprehend how to deal with the Internet in a manner that will sustain their businesses, often due to their unwillingness to change they way they do business. How does one get advertising revenue on their site along with the users to view those ads? Their past brick and mortar practices just won't work on the Internet, but changing the way they work, or to accept new financial realities are a something they just cannot accept...yet. The government entities that go along with this are impacted by money, though I have yet to see particular evidence of this (I am also not looking for it in any substantial way), it is just not possible for EU MEP's to vote contrary to what the public has demanded without such an outside influence.
The second also has to do with money. The money that is being paid to prevent non EU Internet companies from succeeding on their turf. It isn't their turf as the Internet does not have borders, though it sure seems like they are trying to create borders on the Internet. That won't resolve problem first (see above). It may cut off a huge amount of the world as a market.
Third is the attitude over control. Control of money as it is processed by the Internet (though there are other forms of control at play as well). They want a greater share of money that passes through the Internet, but are not willing or able to provide something (service or content, or a way to get hard goods that isn't non EU). They need to come up with a way to show their direct constituents (EU residents) that they have something that is different and better than offerings from someplace else. If they are not careful, it won't be Amazon, but Alibaba that fills in the gaps. They need to take some risks, and do it, try it, fix it until something works, something better. Amazon has lots of faults, it wouldn't be terribly hard to be better, but it might take some effort and investment to become recognized.
Techdirt has what, 5 regular contributors, who cover dozens of topics per week, and you want them to be on top of morning and evening editions like traditional newspapers with dozens of reporters and dozens more researchers?
So you would like them to be on top on other sites posts (pick one)
5 minutes ago
half an hour ago
half a day ago
two days ago
two weeks ago
last month
Well, it doesn't take the most recent information to develop an opinion. I developed an opinion about Epic the first time I heard about them. And that was here on Techdirt when they first pulled this scam on their previous customers with a different game.
Scam???? you say. Yeah, scam. People bought and liked the game (see the first post) on Steam and now they have to install someone else's gaming software in order to download and play the newest version of a game the already have? Yeah, that is a SCAM.
Epic is acting as a gaming platform, like Steam is a gaming platform, but new to that market. Its not that they are actually platforms, but they provide (apparently) some consistency between hardware and software across multiple situations or, it is an obtuse form of DRM. Epic, an untested newcomer to this genre seems to have purchased those 6 month exclusivity contracts, in order to make their entree into the "gaming platform" market, by dissing Steam and all the previous customers of a particular game.
What I don't understand is why those folks so pissed off cannot wait, let's say 7 months, and buy it from Steam. That is what will really stick it to Epic.
Maybe 'instant gratification' and 'shiny' and 'I got it first' are are bigger motivators than I thought. The problem I have with those is that I tried them in the past and the satisfaction is less than advertised.
"What Will Happen When Governments Disagree Over Who Is A Terrorist Organization"
That's simple, the terrorists win. If we keep fighting over who is or who is not a terrorist as well as what to do about them the terrorists achieve their goals. We are fighting with ourselves. We are depriving ourselves of our rights. We are ignoring those things that make us free to do things that make us less free in the name of fighting terrorism. And, this is exactly what Osama bin Laden predicted.
"And Who Needs To Be Blocked Online?"
No one. Let adults make decisions for themselves. Now that doesn't mean we don't need to be concerned about radicalizing people, we do. How we go about dealing with those people is the issue. What we need to do is figure out what it is about some post, or series of posts that causes people to be radicalized. Then boil those things down to addressable issues. Will we catch everyone? No. Do we need to catch everyone? No. If people become radicalized and go to help the radicals 'over there', it is simple again. Don't let them back in, or if there is a real need, let them in and prosecute them...that is if they have actually broken any laws here.
And before those inclined start screaming about domestic terrorism first look at the stats. How much actual domestic terrorism has there been? Not too much. If one looks at all the things that have been called terrorism, but actually weren't, there is even less. And second, tell the damned FBI to get off their collective tushes and rather than creating terrorist actions using marginalized people, go looking for actual threats. If they can't find any that means one of two things. They aren't looking hard enough, or in the right places, or there aren't any domestic threats. Then they could return some portion of their force back to the law enforcement regime they were enacted to pursue. If those who remain on the anti-terrorism task force continue to be effective, the domestic terrorism rate will remain static. If they become really effective, it might even go down.
To them, it's the same as campaign promises. The better liar you are, the more chance you have at winning. I am waiting for him to get caught lying in front of a judge.
Thank you for that explanation. If I understand you correctly, unless there is a direct dictionary type attack on the computer you wish to enter or many attempts to use a presumed password (which in theory would create a log of the attempts), then all of these actions would be taking place on a second or third computer.
Then, unless the prosecutors have that second or third computer with logs or the actual computations attempted, how would they know if "...crack the password stored on the United States Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network." it was actually attempted? Oh, and chain of custody intact, with nothing showing that the computer was used since that supposed attempt.
I am not presuming that you know the answer to this, I am questioning the statement by the DOJ that they have evidence that cracking the password was attempted, rather than mere accusation. Any thoughts?
There may be a problem with the 'native American' argument. If we are going to go back in history, then let's go back in history. If we go back far enough, and your not constrained by your religion telling you the world is only 6,000 years old or so, then current thinking is that from an evolutionary standpoint, we all came from Africa. Each and every one of us, regardless of current skin color, religion, ethnicity, etc..
I am gonna wait and see what evidence is presented to the court. That is if the DOJ doesn't pull out that national security crap and claim everything they say is secret.
From the statements in the article, the accused used encrypted communications, deleted their conversations, removed identifying information, and supposedly tried and failed to unhash a hash. Is the DOJ claiming it broke the encryption, recovered the deleted conversations, restored identifying information, and have some evidence of who was re-hashing that hash? We won't actually know until, and if, there is a trial that isn't confabulated with 'but this is too secret for the public to know' bullshit.
Is Senmartin or the public, or is it the city that's confused?
I am wondering which markets Marathon City Councilman Mark Senmartin claimed the trademark was for, and if he has any actual commerce in those markets? Then, since the city isn't actually involved in commerce (or are they?) they can just go ahead and use the mark because there would be no consumer confusion.
On the post: FCC Under Fire For Putting ALEC Rep On 'Consumer' Advisory Board
Dear Ajit Pai
One wonders why when putting together a Consumer Advisory Board that anyone other than consumers are necessary? Now we imagine that there are a variety of consumers out there, but your specialty is communications. So why isn't your board made up of individuals who are customers of all the main players in those industries? ISP's, landline companies, Mobile companies, etc.. Ones that DON"T have connections to those that have connections to you?.
We also imagine that the board should discuss the lack of competition, their customer service practices, the efforts of the industry to buy regulation in their favor, and the efforts of industry to buy regulation preventing competition as a set of top priorities.
What do you mean there is plenty of competition? How many places in the US have access to more than one ISP. Please don't use information from the ISP's, they lie, try walking up to say 1000 homes in various places and states and ask. That would be a better use of your time than anything you have done since your term in office began.
The Rest of the World
On the post: Game Exclusivity Wars Are Upon Us And Valve's Anti-Review-Bombing Process Is Without A Rip-Cord
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't and won't read that update, yet I still have my opinion. And frankly, my opinion has nothing to do with any updates. It has to do with the original action, and the original reactions. That isn't going to change, regardless of updates.
Re-read those last two paragraphs.
On the post: As Expected, EU Nations Rubber Stamp EU Copyright Directive
Money, money, money with apologies to The Who
There are three things standing in the way of the EU realizing why their actions prevent successful Internet companies in their domains. The first has to do with money. Money that comes from legacy industries that do not comprehend how to deal with the Internet in a manner that will sustain their businesses, often due to their unwillingness to change they way they do business. How does one get advertising revenue on their site along with the users to view those ads? Their past brick and mortar practices just won't work on the Internet, but changing the way they work, or to accept new financial realities are a something they just cannot accept...yet. The government entities that go along with this are impacted by money, though I have yet to see particular evidence of this (I am also not looking for it in any substantial way), it is just not possible for EU MEP's to vote contrary to what the public has demanded without such an outside influence.
The second also has to do with money. The money that is being paid to prevent non EU Internet companies from succeeding on their turf. It isn't their turf as the Internet does not have borders, though it sure seems like they are trying to create borders on the Internet. That won't resolve problem first (see above). It may cut off a huge amount of the world as a market.
Third is the attitude over control. Control of money as it is processed by the Internet (though there are other forms of control at play as well). They want a greater share of money that passes through the Internet, but are not willing or able to provide something (service or content, or a way to get hard goods that isn't non EU). They need to come up with a way to show their direct constituents (EU residents) that they have something that is different and better than offerings from someplace else. If they are not careful, it won't be Amazon, but Alibaba that fills in the gaps. They need to take some risks, and do it, try it, fix it until something works, something better. Amazon has lots of faults, it wouldn't be terribly hard to be better, but it might take some effort and investment to become recognized.
On the post: Game Exclusivity Wars Are Upon Us And Valve's Anti-Review-Bombing Process Is Without A Rip-Cord
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dang, I intended to mention that those five contributors all have other jobs and this blog is part time.
Come to think of it, there might be six or seven or even a few more irregular contributors who contribute regularly in an irregular manner.
On the post: Game Exclusivity Wars Are Upon Us And Valve's Anti-Review-Bombing Process Is Without A Rip-Cord
Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt has what, 5 regular contributors, who cover dozens of topics per week, and you want them to be on top of morning and evening editions like traditional newspapers with dozens of reporters and dozens more researchers?
So you would like them to be on top on other sites posts (pick one)
5 minutes ago
half an hour ago
half a day ago
two days ago
two weeks ago
last month
Well, it doesn't take the most recent information to develop an opinion. I developed an opinion about Epic the first time I heard about them. And that was here on Techdirt when they first pulled this scam on their previous customers with a different game.
Scam???? you say. Yeah, scam. People bought and liked the game (see the first post) on Steam and now they have to install someone else's gaming software in order to download and play the newest version of a game the already have? Yeah, that is a SCAM.
Epic is acting as a gaming platform, like Steam is a gaming platform, but new to that market. Its not that they are actually platforms, but they provide (apparently) some consistency between hardware and software across multiple situations or, it is an obtuse form of DRM. Epic, an untested newcomer to this genre seems to have purchased those 6 month exclusivity contracts, in order to make their entree into the "gaming platform" market, by dissing Steam and all the previous customers of a particular game.
What I don't understand is why those folks so pissed off cannot wait, let's say 7 months, and buy it from Steam. That is what will really stick it to Epic.
Maybe 'instant gratification' and 'shiny' and 'I got it first' are are bigger motivators than I thought. The problem I have with those is that I tried them in the past and the satisfaction is less than advertised.
On the post: Stupid Battle Over YouTube Subcribers Now Includes A Takedown Order From A Court In India
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can imagine a few titles he's written:
'How to find your own genitalia with an electron microscope'
'Help yourself to an orgasm without sex'
'How to feel good by writing bullshit stuff on the internet'
'The view from mommy's basement is better through your own eyes'
Funny thing though, I could not find any of those on The Pirate Bay.
On the post: Starz Really, Really Doesn't Want You To Know That TorrentFreak Wrote About Leaked Shows, Or That Anyone Tweeted About It
Re: The EFF!?
To what end? Spend money/time? As noted in the article:
On the post: AB/InBev, Jealous Protectors Of Trademark, Pretty Blatantly Committing Trademark Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
Well, Pilsner Urquell has, at times, been rated one of the five best beers in the world. I would concur with that.
That there was a Bohemian region of the Czech republic was beyond my ken, thanks for informing me.
On the post: What Will Happen When Governments Disagree Over Who Is A Terrorist Organization... And Who Needs To Be Blocked Online?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
Rant, rant. Rant, rant, rant. Rant, rant. Rant, rant, rant. Rant, rant. Rant, rant, rant, rant, RANT. Rant!
On the post: What Will Happen When Governments Disagree Over Who Is A Terrorist Organization... And Who Needs To Be Blocked Online?
Don't disagree, just ignore
That's simple, the terrorists win. If we keep fighting over who is or who is not a terrorist as well as what to do about them the terrorists achieve their goals. We are fighting with ourselves. We are depriving ourselves of our rights. We are ignoring those things that make us free to do things that make us less free in the name of fighting terrorism. And, this is exactly what Osama bin Laden predicted.
No one. Let adults make decisions for themselves. Now that doesn't mean we don't need to be concerned about radicalizing people, we do. How we go about dealing with those people is the issue. What we need to do is figure out what it is about some post, or series of posts that causes people to be radicalized. Then boil those things down to addressable issues. Will we catch everyone? No. Do we need to catch everyone? No. If people become radicalized and go to help the radicals 'over there', it is simple again. Don't let them back in, or if there is a real need, let them in and prosecute them...that is if they have actually broken any laws here.
And before those inclined start screaming about domestic terrorism first look at the stats. How much actual domestic terrorism has there been? Not too much. If one looks at all the things that have been called terrorism, but actually weren't, there is even less. And second, tell the damned FBI to get off their collective tushes and rather than creating terrorist actions using marginalized people, go looking for actual threats. If they can't find any that means one of two things. They aren't looking hard enough, or in the right places, or there aren't any domestic threats. Then they could return some portion of their force back to the law enforcement regime they were enacted to pursue. If those who remain on the anti-terrorism task force continue to be effective, the domestic terrorism rate will remain static. If they become really effective, it might even go down.
On the post: AB/InBev, Jealous Protectors Of Trademark, Pretty Blatantly Committing Trademark Infringement
Re:
Czech pilsner is better, as in Pilsner Urquell.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Joins Ted Cruz And Louis Gohmert In Attacking CDA 230
Re:
I don't know, political speech could be considered comedy. Not good comedy, but comedic no less.
On the post: Devin Nunes Admits That His Bogus Defamation Lawsuits Are Really About Phishing For Journalists' Sources
Re:
To them, it's the same as campaign promises. The better liar you are, the more chance you have at winning. I am waiting for him to get caught lying in front of a judge.
On the post: There Are Many Reasons To Be Concerned About The Impact On Press Freedoms In The Assange Indictment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Too early to tell
Isn't it time for recess?
On the post: Trump Campaign Uses 'Dark Knight' Music In Campaign Ad, Warner Bros. Says It's Looking At Legal Options
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This has what to do with evolution and migration over a 1.5 or so million year period?
I only mention religion because some teach things different than what science tells us.
On the post: There Are Many Reasons To Be Concerned About The Impact On Press Freedoms In The Assange Indictment
Re: Re: Too early to tell
Thank you for that explanation. If I understand you correctly, unless there is a direct dictionary type attack on the computer you wish to enter or many attempts to use a presumed password (which in theory would create a log of the attempts), then all of these actions would be taking place on a second or third computer.
Then, unless the prosecutors have that second or third computer with logs or the actual computations attempted, how would they know if "...crack the password stored on the United States Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network." it was actually attempted? Oh, and chain of custody intact, with nothing showing that the computer was used since that supposed attempt.
I am not presuming that you know the answer to this, I am questioning the statement by the DOJ that they have evidence that cracking the password was attempted, rather than mere accusation. Any thoughts?
On the post: Trump Campaign Uses 'Dark Knight' Music In Campaign Ad, Warner Bros. Says It's Looking At Legal Options
Re: Re: Re:
There may be a problem with the 'native American' argument. If we are going to go back in history, then let's go back in history. If we go back far enough, and your not constrained by your religion telling you the world is only 6,000 years old or so, then current thinking is that from an evolutionary standpoint, we all came from Africa. Each and every one of us, regardless of current skin color, religion, ethnicity, etc..
On the post: There Are Many Reasons To Be Concerned About The Impact On Press Freedoms In The Assange Indictment
Too early to tell
I am gonna wait and see what evidence is presented to the court. That is if the DOJ doesn't pull out that national security crap and claim everything they say is secret.
From the statements in the article, the accused used encrypted communications, deleted their conversations, removed identifying information, and supposedly tried and failed to unhash a hash. Is the DOJ claiming it broke the encryption, recovered the deleted conversations, restored identifying information, and have some evidence of who was re-hashing that hash? We won't actually know until, and if, there is a trial that isn't confabulated with 'but this is too secret for the public to know' bullshit.
On the post: Investor Lawsuit Accuses AT&T Of Downplaying Streaming Video Losses
What goes around, comes around
With any luck, AT&T will get their collective asses kicked by the people the consider more holy than their customers. Their investors.
Of course, if the SEC gets involved, we should expect nothing to happen.
On the post: City Councilman Who Really Wants His Town To Trademark Its Seal Trademarks It Himself As A Stunt
Is Senmartin or the public, or is it the city that's confused?
I am wondering which markets Marathon City Councilman Mark Senmartin claimed the trademark was for, and if he has any actual commerce in those markets? Then, since the city isn't actually involved in commerce (or are they?) they can just go ahead and use the mark because there would be no consumer confusion.
Next >>