We’re talking here about the captain who wrote the letter that got leaked and the fact that it got leaked. This specific conversation is not about the superior officer who fired him.
The problem with this captain is that he decided to engage in an insubordinate [pattern] of hystrionics that resulted in a massive leak.
What hystrionics are you talking about? All he did was send a letter through the proper channels about a significant (and perfectly reasonable) concern he had. The letter itself is also perfectly reasonable and measured in tone. He got fired after the letter got leaked to the press somehow, but I haven’t seen anything suggesting he was being emotional or dramatic or anything about that or the contents of his letter or anything else, at least not in public. I’m not seeing any “hystrionics” on the part of the captain here.
You do not bring problems on deployment to the public, [] you do not treat your ship as a democracy, and you do not go outside the chain of command.
Again, what are you talking about? From the article:
In the four-page letter to senior military officials […]
Crozier went through the proper channels but one copy of his letter made its way to the press. This resulted in the acting Secretary of the Navy, Thomas Modly, relieving him of command -- supposedly for not ensuring his letter was not leaked to the press.
So yeah, we don’t know that Crozier did any of what you said he did. As far as we know, he sent the letter through the proper channels and only through the proper channels. He had nothing to do with the letter getting leaked to the press. He did not “bring problems on the deployment to the public,” he didn’t “treat [his] ship like a democracy,” and he didn’t “go outside the chain of command.”
He didn't even take this up with Navy Medical. That's the only way to trump[ ]a line officer, and this was a medical circumstance.
We don’t know that, and it wouldn’t actually change our ad hoc judgment of the situation, either.
The court of public opinion is no place for this,
Debatable, but irrelevant where Crozier had nothing to do with the letter getting leaked in the first place.
that captain was grossly negligent if not deliberate in putting it there,
Again, he never put it there. He didn’t leak the letter to the press; someone did, but it wasn’t him.
and those standing orders and military regulations, that he violated, exist to [] prevent civilian deaths
He never violated orders or any regulations. Everything he did went through the proper channels, and he never went outside those channels on this prior to the leak and him being fired. Also, how exactly would violating these orders and regulations he supposedly violated cause civilian deaths, anyways?
and the[y] do not change because he wants to blame superiors, look incapable, leak to the press and generally run his mouth in a way that is causing casualties.
I don’t see anything Crozier did that would make him “look incapable”. Also, once again, he didn’t leak anything to the press. He also hasn’t “run his mouth” at all. Even if he had, how has anything that has happened in this whole mess since his letter was first leaked (which, again, was done by someone else, by the way) caused any casualties at all?
The man is stupid. Willfully stupid.
Someone was being stupid, but it wasn’t Crozier. Once could argue that you’re being willfully stupid by ignoring the fact that the article makes it clear that Crozier had nothing to do with his letter or anything else getting leaked to the press or the public.
(BTW, for the purposes of this discussion, I’m not addressing whether or not anyone else was right to leak any of this, whether or not Crozier would have been right to leak any of it if he had done so, or whether or not I agree with what you said about making problems public and such in the abstract, in theory, or in general (as opposed to in this case or as applied here). Those are separate issues I don’t really have to reach because the captain never leaked anything in the first place.)
I’m not a foreigner (nor is the writer of the article), and I happen to agree wholeheartedly with those “globalist idiots” and “foreigner pricks”, at least on this issue. Also, what does globalism have to do with any of this?
Explain to me, please, if a virus is NOT ALIVE ...
This really depends on your definition of “alive”. Most biologists define “organism” (and, by extension, alive) using several factors, including the ability to reproduce (at least as a species) without the assistance of another organism (with some other caveats, details, and exceptions not relevant to species that reproduce asexually like most microorganisms). Viruses cannot create new viruses on their own, requiring another organism (or, in a few cases, another, larger virus) to make copies of it for it. As such, technically viruses aren’t organisms, meaning they aren’t technically alive.
Still, most would say that viruses are alive (they can die and have a genetic code that can be replicated to produce new viruses), and it’s really just semantics we’d be arguing. It also has nothing to do with vaccines or any of the other things you talk about, really.
... NOT an ANIMAL ...
Also irrelevant, but basically, the way “animal” is defined includes some factors that wouldn’t apply to viruses, including the aforementioned ability (or inability) to reproduce itself. That said, not being an animal isn’t the same thing as not being alive by any definition. Plants, fungi, protists, and bacteria are all alive, and none of them are animals. Some (but not all) of each are also capable of causing disease and/or otherwise harming humans, are single-cellular and microscopic, and/or can be treated and/or prevented with medication or similar treatments, much like viruses. They are also perfectly capable of reproducing.
Seriously, I have no idea why it matters that viruses aren’t animals.
... the precise mechanism of how it finds, attaches itself to, and starts replicating in, a cell. Haven't seen this explained in any virologists essays. Please cover every link in the chain and give details of each chemical step. Thank you.
PaulT gives a resource that explains this already, so I’ll just summarize the relevant facts involved:
A virus finds a cell (hereinafter “the host”) and either injects its genetic materials and possibly some proteins into the host from the outside or enters the host. then injects genetic material into some organelle directly. Afterwards, the virus dies and/or leaves the host, no longer playing a direct role in the process.
The injected materials essentially “reprogram” the host to begin producing numerous copies of the virus, replicating the DNA or RNA as well as the proteins that make up the virus. (This involves modifying the genetic code of the host.) The host then does so.
After enough copies of the virus have been produced, the new copies leave the host cell. This generally winds up destroying or at least killing the host in the process.
I know this is far from a detailed explanation, but it helps provide a basis for subsequent answers, and PaulT already gave a decent answer anyways. Importantly, none of that requires the virus to be “alive”, per se. In fact, it’s the reason why some consider viruses not to be “alive”, at least in the scientific sense of the word, in the first place. So, I guess I’m confused about why this is confusing you. That it lacks one quality of being “alive” (in at least one sense of the word) doesn’t mean it lacks any of the other qualities. It is also irrelevant to how vaccines work, as they are meant to give our immune system the ability to recognize and kill the viruses before they can reproduce.
Perhaps viruses are part of the immune system. Just because they proliferate around disease is not causation but correlation. (Chicken or egg first?)
First, to be clear, not all viruses cause disease in humans, and not all diseases are cause by viruses. You probably already know this.
More importantly, how do we know viruses cause disease and aren’t just part of the immune system? Simple; they kill the host cells in the process of reproducing. Even if they don’t, they generally interfere with the host cells’ ability to perform necessary functions, such as reproducing themselves. In the case of diseases, these cells are part of our body, often a necessary part. This means that they are harmful to us. When something microscopic causes physiological harm to an organism, we call the harm a disease. The fact that these viruses that cause diseases in humans are targeting human cells and generally don’t target invading organisms or foreign substances any more frequently means they aren’t part of our immune system. In fact, some viruses (namely HIV) actually infect the white blood cells that comprise our immune system (in the bloodstream, at least), which is definitely not something the immune system should do.
Now, some viruses can actually be helpful, targeting harmful bacteria or even viruses. However, clearly there are viruses that cause diseases and are definitely not part of our immune system. We know this not just because of a correlation; we’ve observed the process through which these viruses cause disease.
Furthermore, with regard to the specific diseases known to be caused by specific viruses, we may also observe at least some individuals who have the virus but not the symptoms of the disease (they are asymptomatic), but never individuals with the disease but not the virus. This is consistent with the virus causing the disease but not with the disease causing the virus. Even when looking just at the correlation, this is clearly not a chicken-or-egg scenario.
How can you make a vaccine for parts of a dead bit of DNA/RNA? Where is the HIV vaccine given that HIV has been around for decades? Or SARS-CoV1 vaccine?
Let me just start by saying that DNA/RNA in general are not and cannot—in and of themselves—be alive or dead. Most—if not all—viruses are made up of more than just their genetic material; there is something else that separates the material from the “outside” at least. Similarly, a dead virus generally includes more than just DNA/RNA, but I suppose that can work.
Second, all a vaccine needs to do is prepare the immune system to fight off a specific virus. Given how our immune system works, this often basically just involves introducing a dead, inert, or weakened version of the virus to act as an example (like a target dummy or a photo) to allow the white blood cells to recognize that particular virus in the future. Depending on the virus, I suppose it’s possible to do this using just the genetic code, but it generally involves more than that. It doesn’t really take that much for the white blood cells to recognize the virus in the future, though bare genetic material may not be stable enough to be able to get to where the immune system can recognize it in the first place. Exactly how much of the virus is needed to get the best effect, what else might be needed, how to get the dead/inert/weak versions, etc. vary between viruses, which is one reason why designing vaccines takes some time.
Regarding HIV, that virus directly targets the immune system, so just training the immune system to recognize it (which is basically all that vaccines do) wouldn’t really work very well. Vaccines work only when your immune system has at least some minimal ability to fight off diseases in general. (How much is needed varies depending on the virus.) Since HIV targets the immune system specifically and directly impairs the immune system’s ability to fight off anything, a traditional vaccine wouldn’t really do anything. Something else is needed. There is an HIV vaccine in development, but it's not nearly as simple or fast as most vaccines would be.
As for SARS/CoV1, PaulT provides a hyperlink to info on that. I’ll just point out that the disease and virus were only discovered relatively recently and didn’t really spread much beyond China’s borders, so the need for a vaccine wasn’t as urgent here as for a vaccine for the Swine Flu or COVID-19.
Basically, how vaccines work is kinda like architecture or rocket science: the fundamentals are simple, but there are a bunch of complicated details that need to be factored in in order to actually create something that works.
Look: this isn’t censorship, and the AC was advocated for not moderating at all, not just easing up on it. Furthermore, the point was that the AC said that the speech being moderated is protected by the First Amendment, which doesn’t actually matter regarding YouTube’s moderating decisions.
First, to reiterate something that has been said many times, what YouTube is doing is not censorship (“you can’t say that anywhere”); it’s moderation (“you can’t say that here” or “we won’t host that here”).
Second, the AC didn’t say that YouTube should “ease up” on moderation but instead, “stop moderating and let people express their first amendment-protected views without being screened.” If they were to “ease up” on it, that would merely be a reduction of moderation, not a cessation (even if only temporarily) of it. Plus, the AC never said or even implied that the stop would be temporary, though that’s more of a quibble than a major issue.
Third, while I grant that inserting that “by law” bit isn’t necessarily entirely supported by what the AC did say (though I presume that that was inferred from the “first amendment-protected” bit), the “forced” bit is at least a reasonable interpretation, since the idea would be that they would remove no content at all (except possibly those that are DMCA claimed), conceivably because of the lack of manpower to make moderation work as effective as before (though, again, the AC’s arguments on this sound like they have nothing to do with the current pandemic).
True, but completely irrelevant, since this article has nothing to do with that specific patent or that specific strain of the coronavirus (which is a broad category that includes many, many different viruses and virus strains capable of causing colds and/or flus, of which COVID-19 is just one, and the “SARS-associated Coronavirus-4,5” is a very different one). Additionally, the patent(s) mentioned in this article don’t actually involve patenting genes at all.
Remember, unlike patents or copyrights, trademarks are, effectively, a consumer protection tool, to make sure that if you're buying a product that says it's Coca-Cola, you know it's actually Coca-Cola and not Bob's Cola made to look like Coca-Cola. The whole idea is to accurately label something such that you know who is actually behind the product, and can trust the brand.
This is why I don’t understand why trademarks get lumped in with patents and copyrights. The underlying purpose is completely different, the scope is completely different, the benefits are totally different, the limits are completely different (in particular, there’s no (or very few) statutory time limits for trademark protection, at least so long as the trademark remains in use), and so much more.
It’s especially baffling to me that both patents and trademarks get handled by the same office (the PTO) while copyright is in a completely different office, which makes no sense. Of the three kinds of IPs, patent and trademark have the least in common with each other. I mean, patents and copyrights both are limited in duration, require creativity and not too much else, are intended to encourage creativity and the promotion of useful arts and sciences, and aren’t limited by industry or market. Furthermore, both copyrights and trademarks involve protection of images and/or words (though copyright goes beyond that), last a very long time, and involve an actual use of the protected material at some point to acquire protection. Not only that, but while it is not unheard of for something to be protected in some way by both patent law and copyright law but not trademark law or by both copyright law and trademark law but not patent law, I don’t think it’s possible for something to be patented and trademarked in some way but not copyrighted. So really, why do patents and trademarks get handled by the same agency?
But yeah, this confusion is actually pretty common. Trademarks are meant to protect consumers first, owners second, and only from competitors trying to use the mark, yet they often are presented as something intended to protect the company from even consumers or critics, which is the exact opposite of what trademark is meant to do; some also try to use trademark law to go after alleged patent and/or copyright infringement (rather superfluous, really, at best) or even defamation, which is just ridiculous. And I’ve also heard of people trying to use or justify enforcement of patent and/or copyright law to prevent consumer confusion or protect consumers—the purpose of trademark law—or to enforce trademarks that are neither patented or copyrighted. Really, trademarks are confused with other laws extremely often. It’d be a lot better if we had patents and copyrights categorized separately from trademarks.
I’m sorry, but what same stuff are you claiming Boing Boing also does? The moderation, the irreverent language, the lists, the lack of explanations for moderation? What?
Like any politician, particularly one running for president, he'll take whatever position he thinks will get him elected.
I don’t think that was entirely and precisely true of any of the past few presidents (Trump’s positions don’t appear to have any correlation with what would get him elected, and despite their flaws, and GWB and Obama seemed to take public stances based more on principle or personal beliefs), but even if true, I fail to see how that makes him worse than Trump or any other previous POTUS.
Some of his positions are outright dangerous. For example, he is anti-Section 230. He is also in favor of investigating tech companies but has said nothing of connectivity providers.
True, but again, few politicians, especially among those running for president in this election, don’t take similar stances on those subjects (unfortunately).
On the whole, though, I suppose he is a smaller turd than Trump is. If I must pick one to flush into the Oval Office on platform alone, Biden seems the one to require the least toilet paper to clean up.
And that is, sadly, the issue: there isn’t really anyone better who is currently seeking the office.
First of all, I don’t see why only “big” stories should be reported on.
Second, and more importantly, government agencies are notorious for making up (often transparent) excuses for not complying with and/or delaying responses to FOIA requests and for making the process as unnecessarily convoluted, expensive, annoying, and/or slow as possible. They rarely come out and directly say that’s what they’re doing or why, but it is.
Plus, the alleged reasoning makes no sense at all. Managing and receiving electronic requests can be easily done without creating additional risks of spreading COVID-19, while contamination via snail mail and other physical documents cannot be mitigated as effectively. Quite frankly, even if they weren’t doing this to stymie FOIA requesters, that wouldn’t really make them look much better. Honestly, saying that they wouldn’t accept FOIA requests at all during the current crisis would have made more sense than what they’re actually doing.
Really, the question is whether they’re “evil” (I prefer to think of it as selfish or amoral) and at least somewhat (possibly dangerously) incompetent or just ridiculously and dangerously incompetent but not with ill intent. Take your pick.
While you sneak in some unnecessary and irrelevant bits in there, I concur with the gist of that. The US government—especially in recent decades—isn’t exactly known for being fully transparent with its motives and agendas.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re: I didn't imply *all* of anything
When replying to someone, please use the “reply to this” link rather than starting a new thread. It greatly improves readability.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re:
And that is all relevant in this case because…?
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re: AC, Is that you, Col. Jessup?
We’re talking here about the captain who wrote the letter that got leaked and the fact that it got leaked. This specific conversation is not about the superior officer who fired him.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re:
What hystrionics are you talking about? All he did was send a letter through the proper channels about a significant (and perfectly reasonable) concern he had. The letter itself is also perfectly reasonable and measured in tone. He got fired after the letter got leaked to the press somehow, but I haven’t seen anything suggesting he was being emotional or dramatic or anything about that or the contents of his letter or anything else, at least not in public. I’m not seeing any “hystrionics” on the part of the captain here.
Again, what are you talking about? From the article:
So yeah, we don’t know that Crozier did any of what you said he did. As far as we know, he sent the letter through the proper channels and only through the proper channels. He had nothing to do with the letter getting leaked to the press. He did not “bring problems on the deployment to the public,” he didn’t “treat [his] ship like a democracy,” and he didn’t “go outside the chain of command.”
We don’t know that, and it wouldn’t actually change our ad hoc judgment of the situation, either.
Debatable, but irrelevant where Crozier had nothing to do with the letter getting leaked in the first place.
Again, he never put it there. He didn’t leak the letter to the press; someone did, but it wasn’t him.
He never violated orders or any regulations. Everything he did went through the proper channels, and he never went outside those channels on this prior to the leak and him being fired. Also, how exactly would violating these orders and regulations he supposedly violated cause civilian deaths, anyways?
I don’t see anything Crozier did that would make him “look incapable”. Also, once again, he didn’t leak anything to the press. He also hasn’t “run his mouth” at all. Even if he had, how has anything that has happened in this whole mess since his letter was first leaked (which, again, was done by someone else, by the way) caused any casualties at all?
Someone was being stupid, but it wasn’t Crozier. Once could argue that you’re being willfully stupid by ignoring the fact that the article makes it clear that Crozier had nothing to do with his letter or anything else getting leaked to the press or the public.
(BTW, for the purposes of this discussion, I’m not addressing whether or not anyone else was right to leak any of this, whether or not Crozier would have been right to leak any of it if he had done so, or whether or not I agree with what you said about making problems public and such in the abstract, in theory, or in general (as opposed to in this case or as applied here). Those are separate issues I don’t really have to reach because the captain never leaked anything in the first place.)
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re:
I’m not a foreigner (nor is the writer of the article), and I happen to agree wholeheartedly with those “globalist idiots” and “foreigner pricks”, at least on this issue. Also, what does globalism have to do with any of this?
On the post: As Record Labels Still Are Demanding Mandated Filters; Facebook's Copyright Filter Takes Down A Guy Playing Bach
Re: Re:
Y’know, I’ve never really understood this line of reasoning. Clearly people do care; otherwise we wouldn’t be having people playing it.
On the post: Red Light Camera Company Says It's Dying Of Coronavirus
Re:
Add this: 👌
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition
Re: Viruses
This really depends on your definition of “alive”. Most biologists define “organism” (and, by extension, alive) using several factors, including the ability to reproduce (at least as a species) without the assistance of another organism (with some other caveats, details, and exceptions not relevant to species that reproduce asexually like most microorganisms). Viruses cannot create new viruses on their own, requiring another organism (or, in a few cases, another, larger virus) to make copies of it for it. As such, technically viruses aren’t organisms, meaning they aren’t technically alive.
Still, most would say that viruses are alive (they can die and have a genetic code that can be replicated to produce new viruses), and it’s really just semantics we’d be arguing. It also has nothing to do with vaccines or any of the other things you talk about, really.
Also irrelevant, but basically, the way “animal” is defined includes some factors that wouldn’t apply to viruses, including the aforementioned ability (or inability) to reproduce itself. That said, not being an animal isn’t the same thing as not being alive by any definition. Plants, fungi, protists, and bacteria are all alive, and none of them are animals. Some (but not all) of each are also capable of causing disease and/or otherwise harming humans, are single-cellular and microscopic, and/or can be treated and/or prevented with medication or similar treatments, much like viruses. They are also perfectly capable of reproducing.
Seriously, I have no idea why it matters that viruses aren’t animals.
PaulT gives a resource that explains this already, so I’ll just summarize the relevant facts involved:
A virus finds a cell (hereinafter “the host”) and either injects its genetic materials and possibly some proteins into the host from the outside or enters the host. then injects genetic material into some organelle directly. Afterwards, the virus dies and/or leaves the host, no longer playing a direct role in the process.
The injected materials essentially “reprogram” the host to begin producing numerous copies of the virus, replicating the DNA or RNA as well as the proteins that make up the virus. (This involves modifying the genetic code of the host.) The host then does so.
I know this is far from a detailed explanation, but it helps provide a basis for subsequent answers, and PaulT already gave a decent answer anyways. Importantly, none of that requires the virus to be “alive”, per se. In fact, it’s the reason why some consider viruses not to be “alive”, at least in the scientific sense of the word, in the first place. So, I guess I’m confused about why this is confusing you. That it lacks one quality of being “alive” (in at least one sense of the word) doesn’t mean it lacks any of the other qualities. It is also irrelevant to how vaccines work, as they are meant to give our immune system the ability to recognize and kill the viruses before they can reproduce.
First, to be clear, not all viruses cause disease in humans, and not all diseases are cause by viruses. You probably already know this.
More importantly, how do we know viruses cause disease and aren’t just part of the immune system? Simple; they kill the host cells in the process of reproducing. Even if they don’t, they generally interfere with the host cells’ ability to perform necessary functions, such as reproducing themselves. In the case of diseases, these cells are part of our body, often a necessary part. This means that they are harmful to us. When something microscopic causes physiological harm to an organism, we call the harm a disease. The fact that these viruses that cause diseases in humans are targeting human cells and generally don’t target invading organisms or foreign substances any more frequently means they aren’t part of our immune system. In fact, some viruses (namely HIV) actually infect the white blood cells that comprise our immune system (in the bloodstream, at least), which is definitely not something the immune system should do.
Now, some viruses can actually be helpful, targeting harmful bacteria or even viruses. However, clearly there are viruses that cause diseases and are definitely not part of our immune system. We know this not just because of a correlation; we’ve observed the process through which these viruses cause disease.
Furthermore, with regard to the specific diseases known to be caused by specific viruses, we may also observe at least some individuals who have the virus but not the symptoms of the disease (they are asymptomatic), but never individuals with the disease but not the virus. This is consistent with the virus causing the disease but not with the disease causing the virus. Even when looking just at the correlation, this is clearly not a chicken-or-egg scenario.
Let me just start by saying that DNA/RNA in general are not and cannot—in and of themselves—be alive or dead. Most—if not all—viruses are made up of more than just their genetic material; there is something else that separates the material from the “outside” at least. Similarly, a dead virus generally includes more than just DNA/RNA, but I suppose that can work.
Second, all a vaccine needs to do is prepare the immune system to fight off a specific virus. Given how our immune system works, this often basically just involves introducing a dead, inert, or weakened version of the virus to act as an example (like a target dummy or a photo) to allow the white blood cells to recognize that particular virus in the future. Depending on the virus, I suppose it’s possible to do this using just the genetic code, but it generally involves more than that. It doesn’t really take that much for the white blood cells to recognize the virus in the future, though bare genetic material may not be stable enough to be able to get to where the immune system can recognize it in the first place. Exactly how much of the virus is needed to get the best effect, what else might be needed, how to get the dead/inert/weak versions, etc. vary between viruses, which is one reason why designing vaccines takes some time.
Regarding HIV, that virus directly targets the immune system, so just training the immune system to recognize it (which is basically all that vaccines do) wouldn’t really work very well. Vaccines work only when your immune system has at least some minimal ability to fight off diseases in general. (How much is needed varies depending on the virus.) Since HIV targets the immune system specifically and directly impairs the immune system’s ability to fight off anything, a traditional vaccine wouldn’t really do anything. Something else is needed. There is an HIV vaccine in development, but it's not nearly as simple or fast as most vaccines would be.
As for SARS/CoV1, PaulT provides a hyperlink to info on that. I’ll just point out that the disease and virus were only discovered relatively recently and didn’t really spread much beyond China’s borders, so the need for a vaccine wasn’t as urgent here as for a vaccine for the Swine Flu or COVID-19.
Basically, how vaccines work is kinda like architecture or rocket science: the fundamentals are simple, but there are a bunch of complicated details that need to be factored in in order to actually create something that works.
On the post: YouTube Warns That, Thanks To Covid-19, It's Handing Over More Content Moderation To The Machines And They Might Suck
Re: Re:
Look: this isn’t censorship, and the AC was advocated for not moderating at all, not just easing up on it. Furthermore, the point was that the AC said that the speech being moderated is protected by the First Amendment, which doesn’t actually matter regarding YouTube’s moderating decisions.
On the post: YouTube Warns That, Thanks To Covid-19, It's Handing Over More Content Moderation To The Machines And They Might Suck
Re: Re:
Speaking of strawmen…
First, to reiterate something that has been said many times, what YouTube is doing is not censorship (“you can’t say that anywhere”); it’s moderation (“you can’t say that here” or “we won’t host that here”).
Second, the AC didn’t say that YouTube should “ease up” on moderation but instead, “stop moderating and let people express their first amendment-protected views without being screened.” If they were to “ease up” on it, that would merely be a reduction of moderation, not a cessation (even if only temporarily) of it. Plus, the AC never said or even implied that the stop would be temporary, though that’s more of a quibble than a major issue.
Third, while I grant that inserting that “by law” bit isn’t necessarily entirely supported by what the AC did say (though I presume that that was inferred from the “first amendment-protected” bit), the “forced” bit is at least a reasonable interpretation, since the idea would be that they would remove no content at all (except possibly those that are DMCA claimed), conceivably because of the lack of manpower to make moderation work as effective as before (though, again, the AC’s arguments on this sound like they have nothing to do with the current pandemic).
On the post: SoftBank Owned Patent Troll, Using Monkey Selfie Law Firm, Sues To Block Covid-19 Testing, Using Theranos Patents
Re:
I cannot condone these sorts of death wishes.
On the post: SoftBank Owned Patent Troll, Using Monkey Selfie Law Firm, Sues To Block Covid-19 Testing, Using Theranos Patents
Re: Patent application for coronavirus
True, but completely irrelevant, since this article has nothing to do with that specific patent or that specific strain of the coronavirus (which is a broad category that includes many, many different viruses and virus strains capable of causing colds and/or flus, of which COVID-19 is just one, and the “SARS-associated Coronavirus-4,5” is a very different one). Additionally, the patent(s) mentioned in this article don’t actually involve patenting genes at all.
On the post: SoftBank Owned Patent Troll, Using Monkey Selfie Law Firm, Sues To Block Covid-19 Testing, Using Theranos Patents
Re: Sequencing coronavirus genome - Bill Gates...
That’s great and all, but so what?
On the post: Awful, Awful People Keep Trying To Trademark COVID And Coronavirus
Regarding Trademark as IP
This is why I don’t understand why trademarks get lumped in with patents and copyrights. The underlying purpose is completely different, the scope is completely different, the benefits are totally different, the limits are completely different (in particular, there’s no (or very few) statutory time limits for trademark protection, at least so long as the trademark remains in use), and so much more.
It’s especially baffling to me that both patents and trademarks get handled by the same office (the PTO) while copyright is in a completely different office, which makes no sense. Of the three kinds of IPs, patent and trademark have the least in common with each other. I mean, patents and copyrights both are limited in duration, require creativity and not too much else, are intended to encourage creativity and the promotion of useful arts and sciences, and aren’t limited by industry or market. Furthermore, both copyrights and trademarks involve protection of images and/or words (though copyright goes beyond that), last a very long time, and involve an actual use of the protected material at some point to acquire protection. Not only that, but while it is not unheard of for something to be protected in some way by both patent law and copyright law but not trademark law or by both copyright law and trademark law but not patent law, I don’t think it’s possible for something to be patented and trademarked in some way but not copyrighted. So really, why do patents and trademarks get handled by the same agency?
But yeah, this confusion is actually pretty common. Trademarks are meant to protect consumers first, owners second, and only from competitors trying to use the mark, yet they often are presented as something intended to protect the company from even consumers or critics, which is the exact opposite of what trademark is meant to do; some also try to use trademark law to go after alleged patent and/or copyright infringement (rather superfluous, really, at best) or even defamation, which is just ridiculous. And I’ve also heard of people trying to use or justify enforcement of patent and/or copyright law to prevent consumer confusion or protect consumers—the purpose of trademark law—or to enforce trademarks that are neither patented or copyrighted. Really, trademarks are confused with other laws extremely often. It’d be a lot better if we had patents and copyrights categorized separately from trademarks.
On the post: Twitter Suspended Cory Doctorow For Putting Trolls On A List Called 'Colossal Assholes'
Re: Live By the Sword...
I’m sorry, but what same stuff are you claiming Boing Boing also does? The moderation, the irreverent language, the lists, the lack of explanations for moderation? What?
On the post: Twitter Suspended Cory Doctorow For Putting Trolls On A List Called 'Colossal Assholes'
Re: They Have Too Much Power
I don’t agree with either premise or conclusion, or that the logic connecting them is entirely valid.
On the post: Twitter Suspended Cory Doctorow For Putting Trolls On A List Called 'Colossal Assholes'
Re: Re:
I don’t think that was entirely and precisely true of any of the past few presidents (Trump’s positions don’t appear to have any correlation with what would get him elected, and despite their flaws, and GWB and Obama seemed to take public stances based more on principle or personal beliefs), but even if true, I fail to see how that makes him worse than Trump or any other previous POTUS.
True, but again, few politicians, especially among those running for president in this election, don’t take similar stances on those subjects (unfortunately).
And that is, sadly, the issue: there isn’t really anyone better who is currently seeking the office.
On the post: Twitter Suspended Cory Doctorow For Putting Trolls On A List Called 'Colossal Assholes'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Trump isn’t dangerous? Seriously, I can’t think of a single metric by which Biden ranks worse (objectively or in my opinion) than Trump.
On the post: FBI Says It Will Only Accept Snail Mail FOIA Requests Until Further Notice, Due To Coronavirus Concerns
Re: Re: No, no it is not
First of all, I don’t see why only “big” stories should be reported on.
Second, and more importantly, government agencies are notorious for making up (often transparent) excuses for not complying with and/or delaying responses to FOIA requests and for making the process as unnecessarily convoluted, expensive, annoying, and/or slow as possible. They rarely come out and directly say that’s what they’re doing or why, but it is.
Plus, the alleged reasoning makes no sense at all. Managing and receiving electronic requests can be easily done without creating additional risks of spreading COVID-19, while contamination via snail mail and other physical documents cannot be mitigated as effectively. Quite frankly, even if they weren’t doing this to stymie FOIA requesters, that wouldn’t really make them look much better. Honestly, saying that they wouldn’t accept FOIA requests at all during the current crisis would have made more sense than what they’re actually doing.
Really, the question is whether they’re “evil” (I prefer to think of it as selfish or amoral) and at least somewhat (possibly dangerously) incompetent or just ridiculously and dangerously incompetent but not with ill intent. Take your pick.
On the post: FBI Says It Will Only Accept Snail Mail FOIA Requests Until Further Notice, Due To Coronavirus Concerns
Re: Re: Re: No, no it is not
While you sneak in some unnecessary and irrelevant bits in there, I concur with the gist of that. The US government—especially in recent decades—isn’t exactly known for being fully transparent with its motives and agendas.
Next >>