On the off-chance you were serious, rather than trying to create an opening to make that joke: it stands for "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court". The name is derived from the legislation which establishes it and/or necessitates its existence: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA.
Tell me why anyone works for anything if not for time or money or sex.
Fun.
Almost everyone finds sex to be fun. (Exceptions include the asexual, those with a physical or mental disability which detracts too much from the experience, and those too young to have the physical facility to enjoy it yet.)
Some people find work itself to be fun. (For some specific types of work, different depending on the person.)
Some people find "being appreciated by others" to be fun. (I think someone else in this discussion mentioned "fame" as a motivation.)
Some people find spending money to be fun.
Some people find just lying around doing nothing to be fun. (At least some of the time.)
Some people find provoking angry or otherwise upset responses out of other people to be fun.
Some people find helping people to be fun.
There is almost nothing which is not considered to be fun, or otherwise enjoyable, by someone out there.
There are basically only two motivations to do anything; omitting a long philosophical discussion, they can be roughly described as "in order to survive" and "for enjoyment". There are a lot of things which can be fed into by the desire to survive; there are a lot more things which can be fed by the desire to enjoy oneself.
If you fail to consider "enjoyment" in your model of people's motivations, it should be no surprise that your model doesn't correspond to reality very well.
Re that first point: Not to mention that, IIRC, one or both of "indivisible" and "under God" was inserted later on, as a way to push a particular political position.
I always thought "virtue signalling" referred to things like "Now, I hate Nazis as much as the next guy, but" - the disclaimer that "despite what the rest of this may make it look like, I'm really one of the good guys, just like the rest of you", particularly in cases where that disclaimer is not actually honest.
Got a link to that ruling? It rings a faint bell, but I can't dredge up any specifics...
I'm interested in the reasoning, because of the possibility that it might line up with a chain of logic I noticed recently based on the First Amendment.
When the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on "the freedom... of the press", the "press" it refers to is not "people engaged in the business of reporting the news", but "the means of publication" - which, at the time, meant access to a literal, physical printing press.
Over the course of time, new means of publication have become available, and it is my understanding that jurisprudence has accepted them as being covered by the "freedom of the press" clause of the First Amendment.
In the modern day, the most meaningful and prevalent means of publication - to an even greater extent than the physical printing press ever was - is the Internet.
On that basis, any law prohibiting someone from accessing the Internet would seem to be unconstitutional.
At the very least, that argument could be made in court, with some chance of success - unless it's already been shot down by existing precedent, of course.
If the ruling you cite is based on similar logic, that would seem to strengthen the position. If it's not, that would be interesting as well.
I think you failed to grasp the difference between "white equalist" and "white supremacist".
It's entirely possible to be proud of something without having to insist that it must reign supreme over all other things.
It's also possible to not be proud of something without being ashamed of it either. I'm neither proud of nor ashamed of my eye color; it's just something that's there, worthy neither of pride nor of shame.
It's also possible to not lump oneself in with other people just because one shares a superficial characteristic with those people.
(That last point touches on the fact that both terms are still built on the core assumption which is the basis of racism, that being the very concept of race itself. We're a long, long way from being able to begin to abandon that concept, however.)
As I understand matters, the idea of the "not clearly established" principle is that "you can't punish someone for doing something if the rule prohibiting it wasn't clear enough that they should have known it would be prohibited".
So this isn't "ex post facto rights" - it's ex-post-facto liability again, on the officer's side.
The manifestation of that in the slavery analogy would be saying that you can't punish former slaveowners for having owned slaves when slavery hadn't been declared illegal yet.
Yes, the right always existed - but just because it existed doesn't mean that the fact that it existed was clear enough that the person should have known it existed.
If my math is right, that works out to one in a hundred billion.
While the numbers of law-enforcement officers worldwide who will ever personally encounter a terrorist are certainly low, I don't think they're quite that low.
I'm not sure that's going to produce a sufficiently good result.
The first question is, proportional to what? The only answers I've been able to think of that make any sense are "party" and "candidate", and both have problems.
If it's by party, how do you decide which parties get counted, and/or get to be on the ballot? (And this might also magnify the problem of how the parties decide who to pick for whatever seats they get.)
If it's by candidate, how do you handle a case where the proportions of the vote for the candidates cannot be remotely evenly split into the available seats? (For a contrived example, something like 250 votes in a three-seat race where two candidates each get 120 votes and two other candidates get 5 votes apiece.)
IMO, nothing short of ranked-preference voting is going to be a nearly optimal solution - and even most forms of that have their weaknesses; the one with the fewest that I know of is the Condorcet method, which has only one design weakness (the remote possibility of a true tie, which at that point can IMO legitimately be broken by random draw).
As best I can parse it, Sony appears to be saying that all the other works derived from the original "Slenderman" piece by Knudsen were infringing Knudsen's copyright (and only got away with it because he didn't care to enforce his copyright), and that now that Sony owns the copyright to that work, all those existing works are still infringing what is now Sony's copyright (which Sony does now choose, at least in some cases, to enforce).
0-to-60 is acceleration rate, which is "quickest".
The term "fastest" is reserved either for top speed or (to factor in handling, et cetera) for sustained-over-distance speed, as measured by time to cover e.g. a known-length reference course. I've never been entirely clear which, or what term is used for whichever is left over.
Which is far more than a simple "one if-statement in php".
Even building the array (if so you choose to call it) in the software is more than that simple "if" statement, and actually populating it with meaningful data is well beyond even that.
(And that's leaving out things like "detecting audio being played in the background behind other activities", where you can't just hash the audio stream because it includes so many things that aren't the copyrighted content, but where the copyrighted content is still present in the mix; you need to be able to do audio stream splitting and recognition, on a level that last I heard was at least partly still the domain of AI research. Not that having the radio on in the background while you do your video that should necessarily be considered a violation, but the RIAA et al. have certainly been willing to treat it as such in the past.)
I was hoping no one would respond to him (feeding the trolls never helps), and that if anyone did, they would at least have the courtesy to delete or replace the Subject line...
Would you be so kind as to stop spamming that comment into (apparently) every single article which so much as mentions a subject which that poster might be expected to object to?
It doesn't add anything to the discussion, and at *best* it's an attempt to wind him up - and not even a particularly effective one, as he rarely if ever even responds to it, as far as I've seen.
If you seriously know that there is in fact a single "if" statement which handles this, please do quote it here.
ContentID is certainly not a feature which "the php language already provides", or which "is already available in the php ecosystem"; it's a sizable, complex, continually developing system, consisting of both nontrivial amounts of code and (of at least equal importance) a large database of reference data, and - unless I'm much mistaken - is available only internally at Google.
Developing such a system in the first place costs a lot of money; continuing to develop it costs a lot of money; maintaining and operating it costs a lot of money.
The difficult part is not in filtering out the copyrighted works; that might indeed boil down to a single "if" statement if you arranged your code just right (although, in that case, a lot of detection complexity would be concealed within whatever functions set the variable being tested).
The difficult part is in identifying which works need to be filtered out. (Which is not the same as "which works are copyrighted" - or, thanks to things like fair use and the public domain, even "which works are neither copyrighted by nor licensed to the uploader". Neither of which is easy to determine anyway, at least not without an authoritative database of copyrighted works and licensing terms and agreements, which the rightsholders have consistently refused to even try to make available.)
I'm not sure "literacy" is quite fair; we have at best indirect evidence of his(?) degree of ability to read (with or without comprehension), and he(?) can at least type and spell fairly well.
Re: Re: What was the name of your shitty shitty band?
"Chitty Bang Bang, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, our fine four-fendered friend"?
(I actually read the original Ian Fleming novel years before seeing the movie which brought us that song, and I think before the movie even existed. IMO the movie is not a patch on the book.)
On the post: Brief To FISA Court Says The Presumption Of Openness Should Apply There, Too
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Tells DOJ To Drop The Glomar And Hand Over Records About Prosecutorial Misconduct To Requester
Re: OPR meaning
He did. From the paragraph immediately after the second quote from the 2013 decision:
On the post: Evidence Mounts: UK Study Shows Better Legal Alternatives Pushing Pirates To Become Customers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fun.
Almost everyone finds sex to be fun. (Exceptions include the asexual, those with a physical or mental disability which detracts too much from the experience, and those too young to have the physical facility to enjoy it yet.)
Some people find work itself to be fun. (For some specific types of work, different depending on the person.)
Some people find "being appreciated by others" to be fun. (I think someone else in this discussion mentioned "fame" as a motivation.)
Some people find spending money to be fun.
Some people find just lying around doing nothing to be fun. (At least some of the time.)
Some people find provoking angry or otherwise upset responses out of other people to be fun.
Some people find helping people to be fun.
There is almost nothing which is not considered to be fun, or otherwise enjoyable, by someone out there.
There are basically only two motivations to do anything; omitting a long philosophical discussion, they can be roughly described as "in order to survive" and "for enjoyment". There are a lot of things which can be fed into by the desire to survive; there are a lot more things which can be fed by the desire to enjoy oneself.
If you fail to consider "enjoyment" in your model of people's motivations, it should be no surprise that your model doesn't correspond to reality very well.
On the post: Rep. Kevin McCarthy Continues The Parade Of Stupid Anti-Internet Grandstanding
Re:
On the post: Rep. Kevin McCarthy Continues The Parade Of Stupid Anti-Internet Grandstanding
Re: Re: Re:
I always thought "virtue signalling" referred to things like "Now, I hate Nazis as much as the next guy, but" - the disclaimer that "despite what the rest of this may make it look like, I'm really one of the good guys, just like the rest of you", particularly in cases where that disclaimer is not actually honest.
On the post: Sensing Blood In The Water, All Major Labels Sue Cox For 'Ignoring' Their DMCA Notices
Re:
I'm interested in the reasoning, because of the possibility that it might line up with a chain of logic I noticed recently based on the First Amendment.
When the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on "the freedom... of the press", the "press" it refers to is not "people engaged in the business of reporting the news", but "the means of publication" - which, at the time, meant access to a literal, physical printing press.
Over the course of time, new means of publication have become available, and it is my understanding that jurisprudence has accepted them as being covered by the "freedom of the press" clause of the First Amendment.
In the modern day, the most meaningful and prevalent means of publication - to an even greater extent than the physical printing press ever was - is the Internet.
On that basis, any law prohibiting someone from accessing the Internet would seem to be unconstitutional.
At the very least, that argument could be made in court, with some chance of success - unless it's already been shot down by existing precedent, of course.
If the ruling you cite is based on similar logic, that would seem to strengthen the position. If it's not, that would be interesting as well.
On the post: Bad Reporting, Grandstanding Congressmen, Tweeting President Combine For Clusterfuck About Twitter
Re: Re:
It's entirely possible to be proud of something without having to insist that it must reign supreme over all other things.
It's also possible to not be proud of something without being ashamed of it either. I'm neither proud of nor ashamed of my eye color; it's just something that's there, worthy neither of pride nor of shame.
It's also possible to not lump oneself in with other people just because one shares a superficial characteristic with those people.
(That last point touches on the fact that both terms are still built on the core assumption which is the basis of racism, that being the very concept of race itself. We're a long, long way from being able to begin to abandon that concept, however.)
On the post: You Caught A Bullshit 'Photographing The Police' Arrest Too Soon, Federal Judge Tells Plaintiff
Re:
As I understand matters, the idea of the "not clearly established" principle is that "you can't punish someone for doing something if the rule prohibiting it wasn't clear enough that they should have known it would be prohibited".
So this isn't "ex post facto rights" - it's ex-post-facto liability again, on the officer's side.
The manifestation of that in the slavery analogy would be saying that you can't punish former slaveowners for having owned slaves when slavery hadn't been declared illegal yet.
Yes, the right always existed - but just because it existed doesn't mean that the fact that it existed was clear enough that the person should have known it existed.
On the post: Court Catches ICE In A Lie As It Tries To Vanish A Mexican Journalist And Immigration Policy Critic
Where do you get "hostile" from?
It seems to me that the fact that he stayed in the country for that long without incident would be fairly decent evidence that he's not hostile.
Or at least that he wouldn't have been if he hadn't been treated with hostility by immigration authorities.
On the post: TSA Sending Air Marshals All Over The US To Tail Non-Terrorist US Citizens
Re: Re: Normal isn't so normal anymore
If my math is right, that works out to one in a hundred billion.
While the numbers of law-enforcement officers worldwide who will ever personally encounter a terrorist are certainly low, I don't think they're quite that low.
On the post: Court Rejects Evidence From Warrantless Search Of Phone Six Years After The Gov't Seized It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure that's going to produce a sufficiently good result.
The first question is, proportional to what? The only answers I've been able to think of that make any sense are "party" and "candidate", and both have problems.
If it's by party, how do you decide which parties get counted, and/or get to be on the ballot? (And this might also magnify the problem of how the parties decide who to pick for whatever seats they get.)
If it's by candidate, how do you handle a case where the proportions of the vote for the candidates cannot be remotely evenly split into the available seats? (For a contrived example, something like 250 votes in a three-seat race where two candidates each get 120 votes and two other candidates get 5 votes apiece.)
IMO, nothing short of ranked-preference voting is going to be a nearly optimal solution - and even most forms of that have their weaknesses; the one with the fewest that I know of is the Condorcet method, which has only one design weakness (the remote possibility of a true tie, which at that point can IMO legitimately be broken by random draw).
On the post: Sony Finds Itself In Court After Bullying Film Studio Over Supposed 'Slender Man' Copyright Infringement
Re: Copywrong.
On the post: DOJ Tells Sheriff To Give It Back The $70,000 In Forfeiture Funds He Spent To Buy Himself A New Sports Car
Re: *Remember the Dodge Salesman!*
The term "fastest" is reserved either for top speed or (to factor in handling, et cetera) for sustained-over-distance speed, as measured by time to cover e.g. a known-length reference course. I've never been entirely clear which, or what term is used for whichever is left over.
On the post: No, The Public Standing Up For An Open Internet Is Not A Criminal Google Conspiracy
Re: Re: Re: Quite expensive...
Which is far more than a simple "one if-statement in php".
Even building the array (if so you choose to call it) in the software is more than that simple "if" statement, and actually populating it with meaningful data is well beyond even that.
(And that's leaving out things like "detecting audio being played in the background behind other activities", where you can't just hash the audio stream because it includes so many things that aren't the copyrighted content, but where the copyrighted content is still present in the mix; you need to be able to do audio stream splitting and recognition, on a level that last I heard was at least partly still the domain of AI research. Not that having the radio on in the background while you do your video that should necessarily be considered a violation, but the RIAA et al. have certainly been willing to treat it as such in the past.)
On the post: Cops Lose Qualified Immunity After Arresting Man For A Snarky Facebook Comment
I don't think I've noticed that, but I'm definitely going to keep an eye out for it now. I think I rather like that idea.
On the post: Cops Lose Qualified Immunity After Arresting Man For A Snarky Facebook Comment
I was hoping no one would respond to him (feeding the trolls never helps), and that if anyone did, they would at least have the courtesy to delete or replace the Subject line...
On the post: Cops Lose Qualified Immunity After Arresting Man For A Snarky Facebook Comment
Re:
It doesn't add anything to the discussion, and at *best* it's an attempt to wind him up - and not even a particularly effective one, as he rarely if ever even responds to it, as far as I've seen.
On the post: No, The Public Standing Up For An Open Internet Is Not A Criminal Google Conspiracy
Re: Quite expensive...
If you seriously know that there is in fact a single "if" statement which handles this, please do quote it here.
ContentID is certainly not a feature which "the php language already provides", or which "is already available in the php ecosystem"; it's a sizable, complex, continually developing system, consisting of both nontrivial amounts of code and (of at least equal importance) a large database of reference data, and - unless I'm much mistaken - is available only internally at Google.
Developing such a system in the first place costs a lot of money; continuing to develop it costs a lot of money; maintaining and operating it costs a lot of money.
The difficult part is not in filtering out the copyrighted works; that might indeed boil down to a single "if" statement if you arranged your code just right (although, in that case, a lot of detection complexity would be concealed within whatever functions set the variable being tested).
The difficult part is in identifying which works need to be filtered out. (Which is not the same as "which works are copyrighted" - or, thanks to things like fair use and the public domain, even "which works are neither copyrighted by nor licensed to the uploader". Neither of which is easy to determine anyway, at least not without an authoritative database of copyrighted works and licensing terms and agreements, which the rightsholders have consistently refused to even try to make available.)
On the post: Court Rejects Evidence From Warrantless Search Of Phone Six Years After The Gov't Seized It
Re:
"Composition skills", maybe.
On the post: Kenyan Music Licensing Collections In Full Chaos As Unlicensed MCSK Society Issues Rival C&D For Royalty Collections
Re: Re: What was the name of your shitty shitty band?
(I actually read the original Ian Fleming novel years before seeing the movie which brought us that song, and I think before the movie even existed. IMO the movie is not a patch on the book.)
Next >>