Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Nov 2018 @ 2:20pm
Official of what?
The thing I though about when I read this the other day was that the First Lady is not a government official. The position might have some political influence, but that position is not mentioned in the Constitution, or any law that I am aware of. The First Lady might be able to order White House staff around (that's domestic staff), but telling any other government employee what to do could only be contrued as a message from her husband, one that I would want to verify from the source.
There was also a comment in that other article about Hillary's use of private email while she was Secretary of State. Well, the Secretary of State is in fact a government official, and has different rules than an unelected and/or unappointed person.
So far as firing Ivanka, well I think they still call that divorce.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Nov 2018 @ 9:15am
Re: Re: Cable box or Internet Router
It does at my house. In fact I have two routers between my lan and the Internet, the inner one controls my VPN and the outer one (ISP provided) connects to the Internet. I still pay for cable because it is cheaper than Internet alone, the cable box is, however, stored in a box someplace, unused. Maybe the provider here works differently than yours.
For that matter, there were routers in the last two places I lived.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Nov 2018 @ 8:23am
Re:
Social media, nor the Internet, create democracy. The people who use those as a tool for communications do. That one entity in a struggle is stronger than other entities does not mean one should not try. Nor does it mean that the suppressed won't try again, and that comminication, Internet based or not, will be a part of that next try.
Your annecdotes only show a part of the trip, someplace between the beginning and whatever the eventual ends might be.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Nov 2018 @ 7:17am
Re: Re: Re: Re: I see no problem letting comcast assume control of my home
You left out the usage caps in the unlimited bundle, oh, and the throttled bandwidth. When you go over your usage caps the price per egress goes up, not exponentially but astronomically. And the throttle, if someone is trying to use the back door at the same time someone is using the front door, one or both would have a half hour delay.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Nov 2018 @ 7:13am
Cable box or Internet Router
Is it possible that Comcast is more confused than we think they are? I mean, cable box gives you access to...well...cable. An Internet router gives you access to the Internet. The streaming stuff they are talking about is on the Internet, not on cable. Is this new design both a cable box and a router?
I think any cost conscious consumer would understand that if they get the cable box in order to stream Internet content, they will need to keep paying for cable and that would abrogate the whole cutting cable (and the expense) thingy.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Nov 2018 @ 6:46pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another profit center.
One of the things that gets me with for profit insurance is that premiums are paid, then syphoned off to investors as dividends or something, or maybe as bonuses and huge compensation packages for executives. Then the insurance company claims they have no money to pay claims. They had the money, for its intended purpose, then gave it away .
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Nov 2018 @ 4:45pm
Re: Re: Another profit center.
I am not against the idea of insurance. The way it has been implemented however. Insurance companies should be not for profit and with strict controls over administrative and compensation costs.
There should also be controls over how they go about deciding whether or not to pay on claims. Indirectly, this would put a control on rates.
There are probably more things needed to make the system work properly, making sure they retain sufficient funds for those payouts and how they are audited and invested, for example.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Nov 2018 @ 1:08pm
Another profit center.
The idea that insurance companies are the solution to anything is quite baffling to me. While I agree there may be some deletorious effects upon insured entities due to rate increases for egrgious behavior, the only real solution I see is for insurance companies' investors.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Nov 2018 @ 12:06pm
Chickens without eggs, or is it eggs but no chickens?
Wouldn't they need evidence to show that there was in fact evidence on the wiped phone?
Then there's disposing of the weapon used. Do they have proof that the 'culprit' had the weapon? It does not appear that she has been charged for the shooting, or even for being there.
And finally, refusing to give up someones name sure sounds like testifying against oneself. If they give up the name, then that would make themselves complicit because how else would one know the name if they weren't there?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Nov 2018 @ 5:40pm
Re:
Not so sure that incentive is either needed, or wanted. But given the facts, I wonder if anything would actually be lost if we didn't explain things to the simple minded, or egregious assholes as the case may be.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Nov 2018 @ 6:35am
Re: Re: "a decently strong degree"
Which makes me wonder, along with other comments and the article, if we are setting targets for a voting system too high, either electronic or manual. The various manual (paper or machine or electronic (but not internet)) systems all have flaws. Every time the question of Internet voting comes up there a lists of the potential flaws with that concept.
In neither case is the system perfect, nor does it appear that it can be. So the arguement against Internet voting becomes 'it is not possible to create a perfect system, so lets not try' when one would think it should be 'can we create an Internet voting system that is at least as good as our various manual systems'?
Who knows. Given open sourced, mission specific, hardware, OS, software, along with those 3 rules and security and auditability in mind, etc. with maybe a few years of public testing and White Hat attacking, something, while still not perfect, is at least as good as what we have now, and possibly better.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Nov 2018 @ 6:07pm
Re: Re: Are there really any 'new' jokes?
Yeah they got around that by calling it something called treatment, which migh abrogate some of my argument above.
It also explains whay Disney got away with copyrighting things that were already in the public domain, they treated those things differently. It does not explain why different treatments of the original tune that Stairway to Heaven and some other song arent' aslo differently copyrightable. It also doesn't explain why, oh what is the term, the mixing of various exerpts from different pieces of music, also considered a new treatment.
Is this a new or just a different definition of double standard? Can double standards be codified? Or have they been already?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Nov 2018 @ 5:57pm
Re: Re: Are there really any 'new' jokes?
The economic upheaval of having to close all the comedy clubs in the world was something that had to be determined to be unsustainable. Then there is the consideration for sitcoms on TV and/or cable, which could no longer exist. Oh, and all the late night shows will no longer have any content to show as there is nothing serious there (maybe an exception for John Oliver) .
The total loss of humor in the world was both reviled and extorted. The problem is that they could not figure out what to replace it with. It did not take long to determine that Trump wasn't an option.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Nov 2018 @ 5:48pm
Re: Re: Copyright ALL the stuff
That copyright was accepted, no doubt. Then, there was that ruling that said that databases were not copyrightable. But that was only the US Supreme Court, then along came the EU.
BTW, how much are you charging to use your whitelist? Are the terms better than using the blacklist? What happens if I buy both and then something comes along that is on neither? Whoa is me. What a conundrum. How is one to figure out what to do?
Oh, what happens when something is on both lists?
I know...just stop creating as there is no way to create and obtain the rights to your own creations.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Nov 2018 @ 4:24pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
>TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
>Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Which means Officer Minchuk violated Federal law and is liable for up to 10 years of confinement. But to the court's point of view, that now depends upon whether it is 5, or 10, or 15 seconds between something and something. Oh my gosh...where is the presumption of innocence?
And I am still looking for anything in this story to make me think that Craig Strand was guilty of anything he wasn't induced into doing by someone acting 'under the color of law' even when he was off duty. HE WAS OFF DUTY, so why any consideration of qualified anything?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Nov 2018 @ 3:47pm
Are there really any 'new' jokes?
Let's see, a vaudvillian tells a joke, then twenty years later some Catskill comedian tells the same joke. Then twenty years later some up-and-coming comedian telss the same joke on say The Johnny Carson (aka The Tonight Show) show, and then twenty years later some other, new, up-and-coming comedian tells the same joke on Jay Leno show (aka also the Tonight Show). Just who got hurt?
Was there any blood? Were there any scratches? Broken bones? How about bruises? OK, I know, we are talking about economic harm. Well that goes to the guy who originally wrote the joke, twenty years before the first vaudvilian told it. He's dead. Has been for a lot longer than 75 years. But somewhere along the path of the joke (which may have had several iterations or updating to the times) makes a claim of copyright, and the cycle begins again.
And the joke is, there are no new jokes. There are only updates to old jokes. Except, we now have the joke that goes 'who has the copyright on this joke that has been around forever'?. With the punchline of new iterations of the same joke gets new copyright protections, but then what happened to the copyright of the previous iteration?
On the post: But Her Emails: Ivanka Trump Also Used A Private Email Account For Official Government Business
Official of what?
There was also a comment in that other article about Hillary's use of private email while she was Secretary of State. Well, the Secretary of State is in fact a government official, and has different rules than an unelected and/or unappointed person.
So far as firing Ivanka, well I think they still call that divorce.
On the post: Comcast To Battle Cord Cutting By... Reinventing The Closed Cable Box
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cable box or Internet Router
On the post: Comcast To Battle Cord Cutting By... Reinventing The Closed Cable Box
Re: Re: Cable box or Internet Router
For that matter, there were routers in the last two places I lived.
On the post: In A Speech Any Autocrat Would Love, French President Macron Insists The Internet Must Be Regulated
Re:
Your annecdotes only show a part of the trip, someplace between the beginning and whatever the eventual ends might be.
On the post: Comcast To Battle Cord Cutting By... Reinventing The Closed Cable Box
Re: Re: Re: Re: I see no problem letting comcast assume control of my home
On the post: Comcast To Battle Cord Cutting By... Reinventing The Closed Cable Box
Cable box or Internet Router
I think any cost conscious consumer would understand that if they get the cable box in order to stream Internet content, they will need to keep paying for cable and that would abrogate the whole cutting cable (and the expense) thingy.
On the post: Police Misconduct, Data Breaches, And The Ongoing Lack Of Accountability That Allows These To Continue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another profit center.
On the post: Police Misconduct, Data Breaches, And The Ongoing Lack Of Accountability That Allows These To Continue
Re: Re: Another profit center.
There should also be controls over how they go about deciding whether or not to pay on claims. Indirectly, this would put a control on rates.
There are probably more things needed to make the system work properly, making sure they retain sufficient funds for those payouts and how they are audited and invested, for example.
On the post: Police Misconduct, Data Breaches, And The Ongoing Lack Of Accountability That Allows These To Continue
Another profit center.
On the post: Prosecutors Charge Suspect With Evidence Tampering After A Seized iPhone Is Wiped Remotely
Chickens without eggs, or is it eggs but no chickens?
Then there's disposing of the weapon used. Do they have proof that the 'culprit' had the weapon? It does not appear that she has been charged for the shooting, or even for being there.
And finally, refusing to give up someones name sure sounds like testifying against oneself. If they give up the name, then that would make themselves complicit because how else would one know the name if they weren't there?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Not Funny: The Conan O'Brien Joke-Stealing Lawsuit Is Still Going On
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright ALL the stuff
On the post: Blockchain Voting: Solves None Of The Actual Problems Of Online Voting; Leverages None Of The Benefits Of Blockchain
Re: Re: "a decently strong degree"
In neither case is the system perfect, nor does it appear that it can be. So the arguement against Internet voting becomes 'it is not possible to create a perfect system, so lets not try' when one would think it should be 'can we create an Internet voting system that is at least as good as our various manual systems'?
Who knows. Given open sourced, mission specific, hardware, OS, software, along with those 3 rules and security and auditability in mind, etc. with maybe a few years of public testing and White Hat attacking, something, while still not perfect, is at least as good as what we have now, and possibly better.
On the post: Not Funny: The Conan O'Brien Joke-Stealing Lawsuit Is Still Going On
Re: Re: Are there really any 'new' jokes?
It also explains whay Disney got away with copyrighting things that were already in the public domain, they treated those things differently. It does not explain why different treatments of the original tune that Stairway to Heaven and some other song arent' aslo differently copyrightable. It also doesn't explain why, oh what is the term, the mixing of various exerpts from different pieces of music, also considered a new treatment.
Is this a new or just a different definition of double standard? Can double standards be codified? Or have they been already?
On the post: Not Funny: The Conan O'Brien Joke-Stealing Lawsuit Is Still Going On
Re: Re: Are there really any 'new' jokes?
The total loss of humor in the world was both reviled and extorted. The problem is that they could not figure out what to replace it with. It did not take long to determine that Trump wasn't an option.
On the post: Not Funny: The Conan O'Brien Joke-Stealing Lawsuit Is Still Going On
Re: Re: Copyright ALL the stuff
BTW, how much are you charging to use your whitelist? Are the terms better than using the blacklist? What happens if I buy both and then something comes along that is on neither? Whoa is me. What a conundrum. How is one to figure out what to do?
Oh, what happens when something is on both lists?
I know...just stop creating as there is no way to create and obtain the rights to your own creations.
Well done EU.
On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Shooting A Man Who Had His Hands Up And Twice Said He Surrendered
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Shooting A Man Who Had His Hands Up And Twice Said He Surrendered
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
>Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Which means Officer Minchuk violated Federal law and is liable for up to 10 years of confinement. But to the court's point of view, that now depends upon whether it is 5, or 10, or 15 seconds between something and something. Oh my gosh...where is the presumption of innocence?
And I am still looking for anything in this story to make me think that Craig Strand was guilty of anything he wasn't induced into doing by someone acting 'under the color of law' even when he was off duty. HE WAS OFF DUTY, so why any consideration of qualified anything?
On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Shooting A Man Who Had His Hands Up And Twice Said He Surrendered
Re: Re: There's setting the bar low, and then there's throwing it out
On the post: Not Funny: The Conan O'Brien Joke-Stealing Lawsuit Is Still Going On
Are there really any 'new' jokes?
Let's see, a vaudvillian tells a joke, then twenty years later some Catskill comedian tells the same joke. Then twenty years later some up-and-coming comedian telss the same joke on say The Johnny Carson (aka The Tonight Show) show, and then twenty years later some other, new, up-and-coming comedian tells the same joke on Jay Leno show (aka also the Tonight Show). Just who got hurt?
Was there any blood? Were there any scratches? Broken bones? How about bruises? OK, I know, we are talking about economic harm. Well that goes to the guy who originally wrote the joke, twenty years before the first vaudvilian told it. He's dead. Has been for a lot longer than 75 years. But somewhere along the path of the joke (which may have had several iterations or updating to the times) makes a claim of copyright, and the cycle begins again.
And the joke is, there are no new jokes. There are only updates to old jokes. Except, we now have the joke that goes 'who has the copyright on this joke that has been around forever'?. With the punchline of new iterations of the same joke gets new copyright protections, but then what happened to the copyright of the previous iteration?
Next >>