"However, it will still have the net effect of favoring established companies who can afford to do colocate servers over startups who probably can't afford this setup."
Shock! Horror! A large company can afford to spend more money on hardware to benefit their customers than a start-up can! We cannot allow this to continue!
"I find it deplorable that Mr. Geigner would make such a comment about capital punishment because it sounds like he's never been on the receiving end of such violent crimes."
Most people in the US have not seen the victim of violent crime. Does that mean you'd find it deplorable if all those people wanted to express an opinion on the topic?
"Capital Punishment should be ever present in every state in this country because if you remove the threat of that particular form of punishment, then you have criminals who will wantonly go out and commit unspeakable acts."
So there's nobody in Afghanistan, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan or Somalia who wantonly go out and commit unspeakable acts? Really?
"Want to know what a society becomes when you remove such punishments? Ask the woman who set her daughter's rapist on fire because the police wouldn't do their job."
Nice example with no source, but if the police had "done their job" then the rapist would be in jail. The issue of capital punishment is irrelevant.
"Since Lockett ended up dead, it doesn't seem to me the execution was botched. A botched execution would have left the inmate alive."
Stupid semantics. You know exactly what was meant by 'botched'. I'm pretty sure if a plane you were on landed hard enough to rip off the wheels and wings off you'd describe it as a botched landing, despite the fact that you have in fact landed.
"And personally, when it comes to Lockett, I care more about the woman he raped, shot, then buried alive, than whether he experienced some discomfort during his well-deserved punishment."
Nobody's asking you to care as much for him as his victim, but you should care that the standards we've set as a civilised society were not met. The reason we say capital punishment should not involve suffering is that a soon as you allow some suffering the question immediately becomes how much suffering is ok. That's not a road we should ever decide to go down.
Re: So only people with money can start such a business
Stop sounding so mortally offended by this. There are many types of businesses that are subject to government regulation and oversight, and if you want to get into those businesses you need to be able to afford to be legally prepared to deal with the government.
Note that there's no indication in the story that lack of money was Levison's problem, only a lack of preparedness for what should've seemed like a possible course of events.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, this is NOT Levison's fault
"In summary, the guy gets screwed and you support the screwing because he didn't have his ducks in a row?"
Jeebers, where do you get this shit from?! Neither Mike or anyone else said anything like that. If you want to have a constructive argument, start by not making up what the other person said. It makes you look like quite an asshole.
"I think some competition would be great for the web. It would be neat to have more ad networks and more search engines."
And there is absolutely nothing stopping that from happening. If you think otherwise, please explain why.
"Giving control to artists is bad for GOOG and so it must be fought with any rhetorical tricks."
Techdirt has consistently and repeatedly supported giving more control to artists. To argue otherwise is monumentally stupid. And how is that bad for Google anyway? Do you have any rational explanations for these wild claims of yours?
"Oh, BTW, and I love your suggestion that GOOG should just censor all of Germany to show who's boss."
It's like you learnt the word 'censorship' yesterday, and have no idea what it means. If Germany was blocked from Google, how exactly are they censored? They would still have unlimited access to the entire web including multiple other search engines. I'm sure Germans would be pissed (which would be the point)but they certainly wouldn't be censored.
"Talk about power corrupting."
Wait, who's corrupted? Do you even understand what you're typing?
"Who took legal action first? Lawyers must be hired, lawyer costs money."
So what? It means practically nothing. The only reason you keep bringing it up is to make them look bad.
"I am well aware of what a declaratory judgment is, but is the public? No"
Which is exactly why people like you keep screaming "They sued first!", instead of pointing out that it's a perfectly common and sensible legal strategy. The negative portrayal works for you, because you don't like what they did.
"Some people said they stole the beastie boys song. That is not my view."
You're not very convincing on that point, but even that's not relevant when the fair use argument is so strong. If it's fair use it's not even infringement, let alone 'theft'.
"Why is this an unfortunate outcome as the author stated?"
A nice as it is that some some money will go to charity, it's being done under very unfortunate circumstances. Fair use is important to the growth and dissemination of art and culture, so having a strong legal ruling that strengthens the protection of those engaging in fair use and dissuades copyright owners from attacking them would be a much better result for society in the long run.
What really struck me looking at those two images, apart form the obvious confusion between the two statements, is the font these two newspapers continue to use for their names. It may seem like a minor thing at first, but to me the very deliberate decision to use such archaic fonts just screams "We're really old!", and instills little faith that as organizations they would have a good grasp on such modern issues. Maybe it really means nothing, but it certainly gives with the impression that I should look to a more modern organizations for news on topics like this.
As has been explained many, many times, they sued for declaratory judgment, not money. You're trying very hard to paint an inaccurate picture. Under threat of possible legal action, they simply asked a court to decide if they were right or wrong.
"They stole the song..."
Again with the simplistic and inaccurate claims. It's bad enough when you claim infringement is theft, but to make the same claim about parody just makes you look silly and ignorant of the law.
"...terrible PR and not really the image you want for a toy maker."
As an engineer with two young daughters, I thought the marketing approach they took was fantastic. Their message is a million times more useful to society than the message from the original song. I'd rather my girls be influenced by Goldieblox than any musicians getting a bit precious about a 26 year old song.
"Just another big bad company that does what it wants..."
You think these guys are "big" and "bad"? I don't think you have any idea who you're talking about.
"What is the purpose of advertisement? To convince customers to buy your product. Was this ad doing that? Quite the opposite. I doesn't matter if it was fair use or not. The ad they spent $$ on was doing the opposite of its intended purpose."
Can you explain why you think that? I can't see how this campaign could have a negative affect on their sales. The people who were getting so pissy about it are not exactly the products' target market.
"First, responding to customer demands is not caving."
"We won't do it! We won't do it! We won't do it! We won't do it! OK, we'll do it..."
That's caving.
"Second, correcting insanity is something to be lauded."
Making good decisions in the first place is something to be lauded. Correcting dumb decisions after first spending many months telling us we were all wrong is not.
"mobile gaming will put an end to this "console war" thing."
Being able to play games anywhere on a small screen is great, but it'll never replace sitting in front a of a big TV with a big sound system, maybe with a steering wheel in your hands.
None of the "pretty freaking cool" things you like about Kinect are good enough reasons to not offer your customers the choice to not have to pay for something they don't want. I have no interest in any of Kinect's features, and if I'd bought an Xbox One it'd still be in the box. Why should I have to pay for that?
I'd call this a smart decision by Microsoft, but really it's just reversing a dumb decision.
On the post: Google Fiber: You Know How Comcast Is Making Netflix Pay Extra? We Don't Do That Kind Of Crap
Re: This isn't exactly netrual
Shock! Horror! A large company can afford to spend more money on hardware to benefit their customers than a start-up can! We cannot allow this to continue!
(Sorry, I saw your username and ran with it...)
On the post: Google Fiber: You Know How Comcast Is Making Netflix Pay Extra? We Don't Do That Kind Of Crap
Re: Did I read that right ?
Nope.
"So netflix has to place their servers at every ISP ?"
Nope.
"Is _that_ the solution Google offers ?"
It's the engineering solution that most benefits Netflix, Netflix customers and Google.
So what's your problem here exactly?
On the post: Georgia To Protect Execution Pharmacists From Transparency So They Can Execute Disabled Man
Re:
Most people in the US have not seen the victim of violent crime. Does that mean you'd find it deplorable if all those people wanted to express an opinion on the topic?
"Capital Punishment should be ever present in every state in this country because if you remove the threat of that particular form of punishment, then you have criminals who will wantonly go out and commit unspeakable acts."
So there's nobody in Afghanistan, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan or Somalia who wantonly go out and commit unspeakable acts? Really?
"Want to know what a society becomes when you remove such punishments? Ask the woman who set her daughter's rapist on fire because the police wouldn't do their job."
Nice example with no source, but if the police had "done their job" then the rapist would be in jail. The issue of capital punishment is irrelevant.
On the post: Georgia To Protect Execution Pharmacists From Transparency So They Can Execute Disabled Man
Re: Botched?
Stupid semantics. You know exactly what was meant by 'botched'. I'm pretty sure if a plane you were on landed hard enough to rip off the wheels and wings off you'd describe it as a botched landing, despite the fact that you have in fact landed.
"And personally, when it comes to Lockett, I care more about the woman he raped, shot, then buried alive, than whether he experienced some discomfort during his well-deserved punishment."
Nobody's asking you to care as much for him as his victim, but you should care that the standards we've set as a civilised society were not met. The reason we say capital punishment should not involve suffering is that a soon as you allow some suffering the question immediately becomes how much suffering is ok. That's not a road we should ever decide to go down.
On the post: Ladar Levison Explains How The US Legal System Was Stacked Against Lavabit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, this is NOT Levison's fault
On the post: Ladar Levison Explains How The US Legal System Was Stacked Against Lavabit
Re: So only people with money can start such a business
Note that there's no indication in the story that lack of money was Levison's problem, only a lack of preparedness for what should've seemed like a possible course of events.
On the post: Ladar Levison Explains How The US Legal System Was Stacked Against Lavabit
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, this is NOT Levison's fault
Absolutely nobody here is doing that. Stop making up nonsense.
On the post: Ladar Levison Explains How The US Legal System Was Stacked Against Lavabit
Re: Re: Sad
On the post: Ladar Levison Explains How The US Legal System Was Stacked Against Lavabit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, this is NOT Levison's fault
Jeebers, where do you get this shit from?! Neither Mike or anyone else said anything like that. If you want to have a constructive argument, start by not making up what the other person said. It makes you look like quite an asshole.
On the post: German Official Says It May Be Time To Break Up Google... Just Because
Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
And there is absolutely nothing stopping that from happening. If you think otherwise, please explain why.
"Giving control to artists is bad for GOOG and so it must be fought with any rhetorical tricks."
Techdirt has consistently and repeatedly supported giving more control to artists. To argue otherwise is monumentally stupid. And how is that bad for Google anyway? Do you have any rational explanations for these wild claims of yours?
"Oh, BTW, and I love your suggestion that GOOG should just censor all of Germany to show who's boss."
It's like you learnt the word 'censorship' yesterday, and have no idea what it means. If Germany was blocked from Google, how exactly are they censored? They would still have unlimited access to the entire web including multiple other search engines. I'm sure Germans would be pissed (which would be the point)but they certainly wouldn't be censored.
"Talk about power corrupting."
Wait, who's corrupted? Do you even understand what you're typing?
On the post: Water Cannons Turned On Peaceful TTIP Protestors In Brussels As Public Barred From Negotiations
Re:
Clearly you're the one who needs this education more than anyone else here.
On the post: Water Cannons Turned On Peaceful TTIP Protestors In Brussels As Public Barred From Negotiations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NY Times And Washington Post Describe Yesterday's Net Neutrality Vote In Diametrically Opposite Ways
Re: Re:
http://www.nytimes.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls
Re:
So what? It means practically nothing. The only reason you keep bringing it up is to make them look bad.
"I am well aware of what a declaratory judgment is, but is the public? No"
Which is exactly why people like you keep screaming "They sued first!", instead of pointing out that it's a perfectly common and sensible legal strategy. The negative portrayal works for you, because you don't like what they did.
"Some people said they stole the beastie boys song. That is not my view."
You're not very convincing on that point, but even that's not relevant when the fair use argument is so strong. If it's fair use it's not even infringement, let alone 'theft'.
"Why is this an unfortunate outcome as the author stated?"
A nice as it is that some some money will go to charity, it's being done under very unfortunate circumstances. Fair use is important to the growth and dissemination of art and culture, so having a strong legal ruling that strengthens the protection of those engaging in fair use and dissuades copyright owners from attacking them would be a much better result for society in the long run.
On the post: NY Times And Washington Post Describe Yesterday's Net Neutrality Vote In Diametrically Opposite Ways
On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls
Re:
As has been explained many, many times, they sued for declaratory judgment, not money. You're trying very hard to paint an inaccurate picture. Under threat of possible legal action, they simply asked a court to decide if they were right or wrong.
"They stole the song..."
Again with the simplistic and inaccurate claims. It's bad enough when you claim infringement is theft, but to make the same claim about parody just makes you look silly and ignorant of the law.
"...terrible PR and not really the image you want for a toy maker."
As an engineer with two young daughters, I thought the marketing approach they took was fantastic. Their message is a million times more useful to society than the message from the original song. I'd rather my girls be influenced by Goldieblox than any musicians getting a bit precious about a 26 year old song.
"Just another big bad company that does what it wants..."
You think these guys are "big" and "bad"? I don't think you have any idea who you're talking about.
On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls
Re:
Can you explain why you think that? I can't see how this campaign could have a negative affect on their sales. The people who were getting so pissy about it are not exactly the products' target market.
On the post: Xbox One Caves Again: Console Will Now Be Offered Sans Kinect
Re: Better late than never
"We won't do it! We won't do it! We won't do it! We won't do it! OK, we'll do it..."
That's caving.
"Second, correcting insanity is something to be lauded."
Making good decisions in the first place is something to be lauded. Correcting dumb decisions after first spending many months telling us we were all wrong is not.
On the post: Xbox One Caves Again: Console Will Now Be Offered Sans Kinect
Re:
Being able to play games anywhere on a small screen is great, but it'll never replace sitting in front a of a big TV with a big sound system, maybe with a steering wheel in your hands.
On the post: Xbox One Caves Again: Console Will Now Be Offered Sans Kinect
Re:
I'd call this a smart decision by Microsoft, but really it's just reversing a dumb decision.
Next >>