Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Dec 2018 @ 7:07pm
Re:
Got anything to support your delusions? Community, well, yes there is. Free speech while silencing critics? Well if that 'silencing' is on this blog, it is the community that is doing so, not the producers.
Then you state 'well deserved criticism', but you don't specify what that criticism is, or where it was published. If you mean on this blog, well not all criticism is flagged, and that which is. is because the perpetrators are well known trolls who never back up their accusations with anything that resembles evidence, lucid thinking, or actual counterpoint. Or they are just random trolls who have nothing actual to contribute to the conversation. Contributing is an important point to people who flag, mere denigration with some articulable arguments are not always flagged, though sometimes the community gets rambunctious.
I too look forward to new things from this blog, having followed it for most of its history, and I expect we will find it. That you won't enjoy, or comprehend any of it is the real shame. A shame for you, but not for us.
Oh, and your point about being a 'single truth', would you like to point those out? There are times when in the face of other's claiming 'single truth' Techdirt points out another. There are also times when there are multiple possibilities of truth, when more than one of them have some degree of 'truthiness' where one stands out over others for some reason or another. Then there are the times when more than one truth is in fact relevant and that the better methodology is to use them all in conjunction with the others. That those 'truths' are pointed out, to your apparent consternation, does not mean they don't have some level, or even a higher level of truth, alone or in concert. Got evidence? I bet the articles you claim but don't mention do.
Here is to the New Year bringing you a new level of clarity which years in the past have obscured.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Dec 2018 @ 7:03am
Re: Not one to be talking
"...because his sensibilities were hurt."
Or perhaps his sensibilities were programmed, as in 'I'll teach these kids how to be controlled!', which fits the ideology of those who consider their points of view superior to everyone else's, and damned the Constitution, full speed ahead.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Dec 2018 @ 7:56pm
Insanity here, get your insanity here
Wall Street has insantity for sale
Unless one is a) super rich and b) risk sympathetic, why would one want to trade stocks on the quasi truthful information posted on Twitter?
The first qualification needs to be was the tweet authentic?
Then one needs to know if the tweet was truthful?
Then one needs to know if that tweet would be helpful or harmful to the stock in question?
Then one needs to know if that helpful/harmful is short term or long term?
Then one needs to know how short is short term and how long is long term?
Then one need s to know how big a gamble any trading on that stock might be?
Regardless of the patentability of this application, what would make anyone think that some tweet or another might be a reason to trade, and incur such costs that come along with such trading?
One would think that investors take more into there trading decisions than mere tweets. Then again, there is programmed trading...and who knows what is in those algorithms.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Dec 2018 @ 7:11pm
Re: Re:
There is the possibility that 'scared straight' works in some instances.
The issue is a matter of judgment. Was this an instance where 'scared straight' might work, or even be applicable? 7th graders, in a discussion about bullying. Deputy Ortiz looses.
First, it appears that it was supposed to be a discussion. A discussion means that there would be some back and forth. Discussions are won with clarity and reason. The lesson learned here was 'I am bigger than you and you are now under arrest because you didn't agree with whatever premise I proposed.' Bullying succeeds.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Dec 2018 @ 6:48pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...copyright protection as it used to exist."
Can you explain that? What is different now?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Those are the powers condoned to Congress. There is nothing there to say that anyone should make any kind of income or profit. Congress has the right to create copyright legislation, or patent or trademark. Nothing in the Constitution says that any creator has to have profit. I don't think that anything Congress has done says otherwise, even if they have been co-opted to increase the length of copyright in ways that appear to be solely beneficial to copyright holders (aka MAAFIA) rather than any creators.
If you want creators to be the beneficiaries of copyright, then tell your Congresscritter to enact legislation that makes creators, either the writers or the performers or however you like, but only creators, the sole beneficiaries, rather than the copyright holders.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Dec 2018 @ 6:14pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To bring something to market a few things are necessary.
1) An idea
2) A product, sufficiently tested to be viable.
3) A product in production
4) A market
5) A way to communicate with that market
6) Production
7) Distribution
8) A recycling of the above as the originator listens to the marketplace and continually improves their product. (Wait, that doesn't apply to the extant comment).
When someone puts their 'idea' on a kickstarter they leave the rest of the chain (and whatever I am missing) to the other side. The question then becomes, is this idea mature enough to be on a kickstarter? The answer to that is yes if it can overcome the remainder of the list, and no if it cannot. If the idea is put on a kickstarter and the answer to the above questions are no, then they deserve what they get.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Dec 2018 @ 12:37pm
Re:
True. At the same time they studiously ignore the fact that Google doesn't control what websites put up, the source of the URL's. They only control what their search engines display. They can stop their search engine from returning a particular link (no one else's though), but they cannot obviate the link or take down the content. The rights holders fail to articulate that they know this on purpose so they can make stupid statements, as quoted in the article.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Dec 2018 @ 7:59pm
Revenue vs upkeep
"with hundreds of players, production crews, broadcasters, commentators, and streamers building the whole thing in to a true ecosystem."
There's the problem. Hundreds of players (aka income stream) vs millions of players.
Of course it is very short sighted of Blizzard as they could have used this phenomenon to create something millions would buy. Then created the next great thing that millions would buy. And the next...
They could also have found a way to monetize the ecosystem without being bastards, in advance. But then...why change identities in midstream?
Why is it so hard for entities to recognize the value of what they have, and then expound upon it? Right, short term profits.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Dec 2018 @ 7:44pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: justice or Social Justice
Just how do you know what I think it says. I haven't read it, and don't intend to because is am not worried about it. I am worried about those folks who think what they say should have the force of law.
What I do know is that there are unduly passionate persons out there. They seem to think that accusation is equal to conviction, and where is the nearest yard arm for hanging. I offer you the opportunity to give them whatever nomenclature you think is appropriate, but for me, without due process, nothing happened. If the accusation is true, take them to court where due process will be applied. Due process includes:
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 6
Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
These are things that the unduly passionate wish to obviate. And I will call them what I want, though I do not intend to demean anyone doing good works. They, however need to show that their works are good and in support of the constitution. The proponents of Title IX compliance as currently constructed (it is not a criminal trial it is an administrative hearing by non legal people, but by college or university administrators) wish that the above mentioned 6th Amendment be ignored, and people found guilty by say so only. They don't even want to be cross examined by a competent cross examiner as it will 're-traumatize' them. Try that in a court of law.
Something similar to the way some copyright issues are being handled. Accusation = guilt. That is not how the operating instructions for this country work, even if it has been subjugated in the past does not mean it should be in the future.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Dec 2018 @ 1:25pm
Re: Dear Mike,
You're suggesting that the city doesn't already have records of all the children within their confines? Birth records, school records, names, addresses, ages, parents names, etc.? Or are you suggesting that the wishing notes would become public further than needed to fulfill the wishes?
If you think there is a problem, then state the problem, rather than just casting aspersions without any kind of evidence.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Dec 2018 @ 1:25pm
Re: Dear Mike,
You're suggesting that the city doesn't already have records of all the children within their confines? Birth records, school records, names, addresses, ages, parents names, etc.? Or are you suggesting that the wishing notes would become public further than needed to fulfill the wishes?
If you think there is a problem, then state the problem, rather than just casting aspersions without any kind of evidence.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Dec 2018 @ 11:34am
Re:
While not Section 230, the DMCA rule actually has liability for false reporting. It would not be YouTube that gets sanctioned, but the reporting party. Unfortunately the rule was written so badly that it cannot be used.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Dec 2018 @ 9:20am
justice or Social Justice
Does the Feminist Majority Foundation claim that they represent a majority of feminists or that feminists are a majority of the population? Is either provable or is it like Reagan's silent majority? A wish.
The claim that UMW could have controlled speech, and controlled Yik Yak because they didn't try to control speech seems specious at best. If they had tried and found they couldn't, would they also be liable? They might be able to control their networks, but a platform not owned or controlled by them? Maybe they could have banned Yik Yak, but can they ban all social media, and get away with it?
Controlling networks, not platforms, for speech related issues seems like a gigantic slippery slope. If they control for one group then an opposing group might sue. If they control for the second group then the first group might sue. If they get into the business of controlling speech they are just setting themselves up to be sued and any reasonable entity would decide that getting sued is an appropriate reason to not take some action, especially when that activity is constitutionally protected.
In a separate but related issue, it now appears that there is a push for claiming that 'staring at someone is akin to rape'. There needs to be some backlash at the SJW's for their insistance that their justice is more just than others justice, even if constitutionally protected activities like due process are denied.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Dec 2018 @ 12:44pm
Lies, damned lies, and without the statistics.
Lie to me once, maybe it's an error. Lie to me twice, it leads somewhere. Lie to me three times a pattern emerges. Lie to me consistently it becomes more than a conspiracy. It becomes reason to believe the exact opposite.
When is the government going to understand that they, both collectively and individually, have lied so many times that there is little underlying basis for anyone to believe whatever it is they have to say?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Dec 2018 @ 11:36am
Re:
Maybe if it were $100 million at cost as opposed to retail. But you're right, it would be better if the customers were actually given something of value.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Dec 2018 @ 11:52am
Re:
Depends upon how their 'security/filter' software works. Does it also collect information and pass it back to Century Link? Does it make note of all your contacts and add them to a list to track (a la Facebook)? And as noted above, what are your other choices?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Dec 2018 @ 6:29pm
Confusion in the market place
" Which is amazing. I mean, I've had this exact thought for years, but getting Monster Energy to admit as much is deeply satisfying."
You hit the ball out of the park. I have never tried Monster Energy's drink because that is exactly what I though they might be selling, watered down industrial sludge. But paint works too.
I want to thank Monster Energy for clearing up any confusion as it certainly appears that they were worried about an industrial paint company siphoning off beverage drinkers, leaving no doubt about the source for Monster Energy's drinks.
On the post: New Year's Message: Do Something Different
Re:
Then you state 'well deserved criticism', but you don't specify what that criticism is, or where it was published. If you mean on this blog, well not all criticism is flagged, and that which is. is because the perpetrators are well known trolls who never back up their accusations with anything that resembles evidence, lucid thinking, or actual counterpoint. Or they are just random trolls who have nothing actual to contribute to the conversation. Contributing is an important point to people who flag, mere denigration with some articulable arguments are not always flagged, though sometimes the community gets rambunctious.
I too look forward to new things from this blog, having followed it for most of its history, and I expect we will find it. That you won't enjoy, or comprehend any of it is the real shame. A shame for you, but not for us.
Oh, and your point about being a 'single truth', would you like to point those out? There are times when in the face of other's claiming 'single truth' Techdirt points out another. There are also times when there are multiple possibilities of truth, when more than one of them have some degree of 'truthiness' where one stands out over others for some reason or another. Then there are the times when more than one truth is in fact relevant and that the better methodology is to use them all in conjunction with the others. That those 'truths' are pointed out, to your apparent consternation, does not mean they don't have some level, or even a higher level of truth, alone or in concert. Got evidence? I bet the articles you claim but don't mention do.
Here is to the New Year bringing you a new level of clarity which years in the past have obscured.
On the post: County Pays $90,000 Settlement To Man After Seizing $80,000 Judgment From Him Using 24 Deputies And An Armored Vehicle
Re: And we thought it was just a dream sequence.
On the post: Students Make A Video Depicting A School Shooting; Sheriff Decides Everyone Needs To Have Their Rights Violated
Re:
I am Groot!
On the post: Students Make A Video Depicting A School Shooting; Sheriff Decides Everyone Needs To Have Their Rights Violated
Re: Not one to be talking
Or perhaps his sensibilities were programmed, as in 'I'll teach these kids how to be controlled!', which fits the ideology of those who consider their points of view superior to everyone else's, and damned the Constitution, full speed ahead.
On the post: Stupid Patent of the Month: Trading By Tweet
Insanity here, get your insanity here
Wall Street has insantity for sale
Unless one is a) super rich and b) risk sympathetic, why would one want to trade stocks on the quasi truthful information posted on Twitter?
The first qualification needs to be was the tweet authentic?
Then one needs to know if the tweet was truthful?
Then one needs to know if that tweet would be helpful or harmful to the stock in question?
Then one needs to know if that helpful/harmful is short term or long term?
Then one needs to know how short is short term and how long is long term?
Then one need s to know how big a gamble any trading on that stock might be?
Regardless of the patentability of this application, what would make anyone think that some tweet or another might be a reason to trade, and incur such costs that come along with such trading?
One would think that investors take more into there trading decisions than mere tweets. Then again, there is programmed trading...and who knows what is in those algorithms.
On the post: County Agrees To Pay $390,000 To Students Arrested By A Sheriff 'Just To Prove A Point'
Re: Re:
The issue is a matter of judgment. Was this an instance where 'scared straight' might work, or even be applicable? 7th graders, in a discussion about bullying. Deputy Ortiz looses.
First, it appears that it was supposed to be a discussion. A discussion means that there would be some back and forth. Discussions are won with clarity and reason. The lesson learned here was 'I am bigger than you and you are now under arrest because you didn't agree with whatever premise I proposed.' Bullying succeeds.
How's that for a lesson on bullying?
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you explain that? What is different now?
Those are the powers condoned to Congress. There is nothing there to say that anyone should make any kind of income or profit. Congress has the right to create copyright legislation, or patent or trademark. Nothing in the Constitution says that any creator has to have profit. I don't think that anything Congress has done says otherwise, even if they have been co-opted to increase the length of copyright in ways that appear to be solely beneficial to copyright holders (aka MAAFIA) rather than any creators.
If you want creators to be the beneficiaries of copyright, then tell your Congresscritter to enact legislation that makes creators, either the writers or the performers or however you like, but only creators, the sole beneficiaries, rather than the copyright holders.
Oh, and good luck with that.
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) An idea
2) A product, sufficiently tested to be viable.
3) A product in production
4) A market
5) A way to communicate with that market
6) Production
7) Distribution
8) A recycling of the above as the originator listens to the marketplace and continually improves their product. (Wait, that doesn't apply to the extant comment).
When someone puts their 'idea' on a kickstarter they leave the rest of the chain (and whatever I am missing) to the other side. The question then becomes, is this idea mature enough to be on a kickstarter? The answer to that is yes if it can overcome the remainder of the list, and no if it cannot. If the idea is put on a kickstarter and the answer to the above questions are no, then they deserve what they get.
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re:
On the post: Blizzard's Sudden Shuttering Of Heroes Of The Storm Demonstrates Why eSports Needs Its Next Evolutionary Step
Revenue vs upkeep
There's the problem. Hundreds of players (aka income stream) vs millions of players.
Of course it is very short sighted of Blizzard as they could have used this phenomenon to create something millions would buy. Then created the next great thing that millions would buy. And the next...
They could also have found a way to monetize the ecosystem without being bastards, in advance. But then...why change identities in midstream?
Why is it so hard for entities to recognize the value of what they have, and then expound upon it? Right, short term profits.
On the post: Dangerous Court Ruling Says Colleges May Be Required To Block Access To Certain Websites
Re: Re: Re: Re: justice or Social Justice
Just how do you know what I think it says. I haven't read it, and don't intend to because is am not worried about it. I am worried about those folks who think what they say should have the force of law.
What I do know is that there are unduly passionate persons out there. They seem to think that accusation is equal to conviction, and where is the nearest yard arm for hanging. I offer you the opportunity to give them whatever nomenclature you think is appropriate, but for me, without due process, nothing happened. If the accusation is true, take them to court where due process will be applied. Due process includes:
These are things that the unduly passionate wish to obviate. And I will call them what I want, though I do not intend to demean anyone doing good works. They, however need to show that their works are good and in support of the constitution. The proponents of Title IX compliance as currently constructed (it is not a criminal trial it is an administrative hearing by non legal people, but by college or university administrators) wish that the above mentioned 6th Amendment be ignored, and people found guilty by say so only. They don't even want to be cross examined by a competent cross examiner as it will 're-traumatize' them. Try that in a court of law.
Something similar to the way some copyright issues are being handled. Accusation = guilt. That is not how the operating instructions for this country work, even if it has been subjugated in the past does not mean it should be in the future.
On the post: Dangerous Court Ruling Says Colleges May Be Required To Block Access To Certain Websites
Re: Re: justice or Social Justice
On the post: How The GDPR Nearly Ruined Christmas
Re: Dear Mike,
If you think there is a problem, then state the problem, rather than just casting aspersions without any kind of evidence.
On the post: How The GDPR Nearly Ruined Christmas
Re: Dear Mike,
If you think there is a problem, then state the problem, rather than just casting aspersions without any kind of evidence.
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re:
On the post: Dangerous Court Ruling Says Colleges May Be Required To Block Access To Certain Websites
justice or Social Justice
Does the Feminist Majority Foundation claim that they represent a majority of feminists or that feminists are a majority of the population? Is either provable or is it like Reagan's silent majority? A wish.
The claim that UMW could have controlled speech, and controlled Yik Yak because they didn't try to control speech seems specious at best. If they had tried and found they couldn't, would they also be liable? They might be able to control their networks, but a platform not owned or controlled by them? Maybe they could have banned Yik Yak, but can they ban all social media, and get away with it?
Controlling networks, not platforms, for speech related issues seems like a gigantic slippery slope. If they control for one group then an opposing group might sue. If they control for the second group then the first group might sue. If they get into the business of controlling speech they are just setting themselves up to be sued and any reasonable entity would decide that getting sued is an appropriate reason to not take some action, especially when that activity is constitutionally protected.
In a separate but related issue, it now appears that there is a push for claiming that 'staring at someone is akin to rape'. There needs to be some backlash at the SJW's for their insistance that their justice is more just than others justice, even if constitutionally protected activities like due process are denied.
On the post: TSA Will No Longer Engage In Suspicionless, Cross-Country Surveillance Of Airplane Passengers
Lies, damned lies, and without the statistics.
When is the government going to understand that they, both collectively and individually, have lied so many times that there is little underlying basis for anyone to believe whatever it is they have to say?
On the post: NY's Record $176 Million Settlement With Charter For Crap Broadband Highlights Cable's Growing Monopoly
Re:
On the post: Broadband ISP CenturyLink Is Blocking Users' Internet Access Just To Show An Ad
Re:
On the post: Monster Energy Fails Its Attempt To Claim That Its Beverages Are Indistinguishable From Industrial Paint
Confusion in the market place
You hit the ball out of the park. I have never tried Monster Energy's drink because that is exactly what I though they might be selling, watered down industrial sludge. But paint works too.
I want to thank Monster Energy for clearing up any confusion as it certainly appears that they were worried about an industrial paint company siphoning off beverage drinkers, leaving no doubt about the source for Monster Energy's drinks.
Next >>