Yes, and arm the police like the military, and they immediately try to think of situations in which they can use their new toys.
"Flash bang grenades "
For real? The guy walks out of his house into a multi-officer ambush, and they use Flash bang grenades??
We really need to dis-arm the police back to 1970 standards, if not UK standards. And we need to have checks and balances for the deployment of SWAT teams.
Domestic law enforcement is not a war, guys. If you think it is, maybe this line of work isn't for you. And if you WANT a war, we have some of those on the go, and you may be able to volunteer.
What concerns me is not that a journalist might be sympathetic with one side or the other:
"because Goodman's coverage was sympathetic to the protesters, it was fine to consider her a protester too. "
...but rather that our government and law enforcement, in the form of Ladd Erickson and the police, would take one side or the other.
Her job is to report the situation to the public, which she is clearly doing, whether biased or not. Law enforcement's job should be to keep the peace as the protesters demonstrate, and make sure innocent citizens and journalists remains safe, even if the protesters or pipeline security detail break laws.
"a marginally interesting story by Eichenwald about how a Russian government connected news website, Sputnik, misread an email leaked via Wikileaks from Hillary Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal to campaign chief John Podesta."
Stop. We're already waaaay beyond the comprehension level of the electorate. Especially those that need to understand this story. Sad.
"Trump himself has made his tax returns (and his supposed acumen as a business man) an issue in this campaign by refusing to release them."
I don't agree with that at all. Following that logic, any document I choose to remain private and confidential could be considered news because of my failure to release it.
Isn't it funny how so-called "trade deals" like TTIP or TPP have Corporate Sovereignty clauses, that allow multi-national companies to knock-back nations' regulations when it impedes their business...and we get hurt.
But when states of the Union pass true protectionism laws, there is no similar Sovereignty protections...and we get hurt.
- Google would be subject to the same stupid state laws - Google is currently suffering with the high cost of deploying fiber, is less keen on expanding the fiber footprint, and is shifting towards wireless last-mile technologies
Some sectors of the economy are what are called Natural Monopolies. These sectors are defined by barriers to entry and cost advantages to incumbency and scale. Telecoms fits tidily into the category. If you don't understand Natural Monopoly, then you're not qualified to enter this discussion.
In a Natural Monopoly, a free market is distorted not by regulations, but by the price control of the incumbents. Most new entrants are scared off by the price control power of the incumbent.
Any new entrants in telecom must dig ditches, or pay to use the incumbent's poles. You need permission to dig into hundreds of properties and rights-of-way, then you have the cost to dig and lay cable. They you need to connect each house, pay for marketing, and only then can you collect some revenue from your first customers. Meanwhile, the incumbent (with a lower cost basis, amortized long ago), simply drops price below the new entrant, and kills them off, then buys up the assets for pennies on the dollar. Thanks.
The reason you are wrong is because regs aren't the only things that can distort a free market. Naturally occurring things do, too. Sometimes, regs can bring us CLOSER to a free market, not farther. It's hard for absolutists to understand.
"U.S. and Italian officials are now weighing the option of a “Step 1” deal to lock in elements that can be finalized by December, possibly including joint testing regimes and mutually agreed upon standards for cars, pharmaceuticals and medical devices."
Once again, these are not Free Trade deals. They are regulation simplification deals, and corporate sovereignty deals. As Techdirt has written, they bind the hands of our elected leaders, and empower multinational corporations.
We basically already have free trade. What are the normal impediments to free trade? - bans or blockades - quota - tariffs - price fixes - subsidy or domestic favoritism
So, if a so-called "Free Trade" deal does not focus on reducing one of the above, it is NOT a Free Trade deal. It is probably more of a "Regulation Equalization Deal", or such...but that doesn't sound as good.
Smart people, and in particular economists, are universally in favor of free trade, because we've seen the math that shows that it floats all boats. Free Trade has a good brand, for good reason.
Regulatory Equalization, OTOH, could be good or bad. But what we usually get from it, in practice, is the worst of any national quality standards, or the lightest of any national regulations.
Corporate Sovereignty, OTOH (I have three hands) is most definitely bad for the citizens. It takes power from our elected officials, and gives it to corporations.
"Using this logic America should completely dismantle it's entire Military out of fear of another country invading us because they are frustrated with us having a military."
Reasons there is no similarity: - The US gov't does not have an imaginary leash in its military. The Commander in Chief and congress can effect swift and important changes in deployment, engagement, organization, and rules.
- Releasing our very, very weak control of the Internet to a neutral party to stave off fragmentation does not open our nation up to invasion.
A better analogy would be control of the ENTIRE Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The USA, with its strong navy, could CLAIM control and all rights to the Oceans. Of course, if we did, other countries and individuals would ignore those claims, and respond with similar stupid claims of their own. Instead, a better choice is to claim and control only near our shores, and allow the oceans to be no country's actual property, but rather agree to a set of Maritime laws and guidelines for navigation, safety, and resources.
No. Don't contribute to the false equivalence meme.
A wall on the MX border is obviously stupid. It is physically unbuildable on any reasonable budget. He claims MX will pay, but they won't. And it will be completely ineffective as undocumented peeps just enter here on tourist visas, and overstay...as they mostly do now.
Clinton's position from this article is not good, is certainly hawkish, but it is not so blatantly stupid. And to understand the intricacies of "the cyber" is not something we would expect of the candidates - although we would hope she has advisers who understand. And Clinton hasn't made this "not smart" position the main pillar of her campaign.
There is no equivalence between Trump's blatantly stupid, incessant windmill tilting, and Clinton's imperfect one-time statement about over-zealous cyber-retaliation.
"We have to use up physical weapons in order to have a need to replenish them."
For the M-I complex, things aren't so dire as that. They can sell us more modern weapons. They just need to show how the old weapons are outdated. We'll get sales pitches for ultra-mega-project weapons like Star Wars, or a nuclear arsenal which we never intend to use. We get new fighter planes that run years late and billions over budget.
Also, they don't need to use the weapons to clear space for the new ones. You can just recycle them for scrap, sell them to allies, sell them to enemies-with-benefits, or -better still- you can sell them to some yokel Sheriff to use on American civilians.
"Elsevier's business model has been compared to a restaurant where the customers bring the ingredients..."
...takes them to another customer's house and kitchen,
"...do all the cooking, and then get hit with a $10,000 bill from the "restaurant".
Otherwise, the analogy gives Elsevier credit for the restaurant facility, but the peer review process is done by other Profs located at other universities. Elsevier is just a market...that charges like it were the supplier.
- It's like if a real estate agent sold your house, then kept all the money.
- It's like if Uber arranged for drivers with cars to do business with passengers, but after a driver gave one ride, Uber owns her car and she's not allowed to use it anymore.
- It's like if the NASDAQ hosted your trades and equity sells, but then owns your stock, and gives you a cut of the dividends.
- It's like if the RIAA companies produced your record, but then had you by the nutsack, owned your music, and extracted every penny they could from it, while giving the artist a pittance or nothing at all...hey wait, it IS like that.
"The objective is not so that the works are "available for our enjoyment""
Yes, it IS the objective. It is, in fact, the specific and ONLY objective of copyright. Offering creators temporary exclusive rights is just a means to the end.
Copyright was not created so that your content could be your private property. Nor so that you could monetize it. You need to read history, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Supreme Court's decisions...or just Techdirt.
Copyright's function is to distort the market with an artificial monopoly, for a period of time, in order to provide enough incentive for creators to share their content. But the objective is that last part, getting creators to share their content so that the public can benefit.
The laws were absolutely written to benefit the public, not the creator.
On the post: FBI Facial Recognition Expert Helps Denver PD Arrest Wrong Man Twice For The Same Crime
Re:
Yes, and arm the police like the military, and they immediately try to think of situations in which they can use their new toys.
"Flash bang grenades "
For real? The guy walks out of his house into a multi-officer ambush, and they use Flash bang grenades??
We really need to dis-arm the police back to 1970 standards, if not UK standards. And we need to have checks and balances for the deployment of SWAT teams.
Domestic law enforcement is not a war, guys. If you think it is, maybe this line of work isn't for you. And if you WANT a war, we have some of those on the go, and you may be able to volunteer.
On the post: Judge Rejects 'Rioting' Charge Against Journalist For Reporting On Protestors, But Prosecutor Still Looking For New Charges
Picking Sides
What concerns me is not that a journalist might be sympathetic with one side or the other:
"because Goodman's coverage was sympathetic to the protesters, it was fine to consider her a protester too. "
...but rather that our government and law enforcement, in the form of Ladd Erickson and the police, would take one side or the other.
Her job is to report the situation to the public, which she is clearly doing, whether biased or not. Law enforcement's job should be to keep the peace as the protesters demonstrate, and make sure innocent citizens and journalists remains safe, even if the protesters or pipeline security detail break laws.
On the post: Media, Politics & The Death Of Intellectual Honesty
Stop. We're already waaaay beyond the comprehension level of the electorate. Especially those that need to understand this story. Sad.
On the post: FTC Releases Big Report On Patent Trolls, Says The Patent System Needs To Change
Re:
On the post: Trump Campaign Threatens To Sue NY Times For Sharing His 1995 Tax Returns
Re: Re: I Disagree With This Small Argument
It is NOT an issue because he "refused to show them".
On the post: Trump Campaign Threatens To Sue NY Times For Sharing His 1995 Tax Returns
I Disagree With This Small Argument
I don't agree with that at all. Following that logic, any document I choose to remain private and confidential could be considered news because of my failure to release it.
On the post: Town Loses Gigabit Connections After FCC Municipal Broadband Court Loss
TPP for States
But when states of the Union pass true protectionism laws, there is no similar Sovereignty protections...and we get hurt.
When do we win?
On the post: Town Loses Gigabit Connections After FCC Municipal Broadband Court Loss
Re:
- Google would be subject to the same stupid state laws
- Google is currently suffering with the high cost of deploying fiber, is less keen on expanding the fiber footprint, and is shifting towards wireless last-mile technologies
On the post: Town Loses Gigabit Connections After FCC Municipal Broadband Court Loss
Re: Re: Re: Govt meddling
Some sectors of the economy are what are called Natural Monopolies. These sectors are defined by barriers to entry and cost advantages to incumbency and scale. Telecoms fits tidily into the category. If you don't understand Natural Monopoly, then you're not qualified to enter this discussion.
In a Natural Monopoly, a free market is distorted not by regulations, but by the price control of the incumbents. Most new entrants are scared off by the price control power of the incumbent.
Any new entrants in telecom must dig ditches, or pay to use the incumbent's poles. You need permission to dig into hundreds of properties and rights-of-way, then you have the cost to dig and lay cable. They you need to connect each house, pay for marketing, and only then can you collect some revenue from your first customers. Meanwhile, the incumbent (with a lower cost basis, amortized long ago), simply drops price below the new entrant, and kills them off, then buys up the assets for pennies on the dollar. Thanks.
The reason you are wrong is because regs aren't the only things that can distort a free market. Naturally occurring things do, too. Sometimes, regs can bring us CLOSER to a free market, not farther. It's hard for absolutists to understand.
On the post: Obama's Last Gasp At Trade Deals: Lame Duck Push On TPP; And 'Lite' Version Of TTIP
Calling These Pacts "Free Trade" is a Lie
Once again, these are not Free Trade deals. They are regulation simplification deals, and corporate sovereignty deals. As Techdirt has written, they bind the hands of our elected leaders, and empower multinational corporations.
We basically already have free trade. What are the normal impediments to free trade?
- bans or blockades
- quota
- tariffs
- price fixes
- subsidy or domestic favoritism
So, if a so-called "Free Trade" deal does not focus on reducing one of the above, it is NOT a Free Trade deal. It is probably more of a "Regulation Equalization Deal", or such...but that doesn't sound as good.
Smart people, and in particular economists, are universally in favor of free trade, because we've seen the math that shows that it floats all boats. Free Trade has a good brand, for good reason.
Regulatory Equalization, OTOH, could be good or bad. But what we usually get from it, in practice, is the worst of any national quality standards, or the lightest of any national regulations.
Corporate Sovereignty, OTOH (I have three hands) is most definitely bad for the citizens. It takes power from our elected officials, and gives it to corporations.
On the post: Prenda's Paul Hansmeier Loses His Law License; Won't Be Filing Bogus ADA Lawsuits For Now
Re:
On the post: Ted Cruz Still Blatantly Misrepresenting Internet Governance Transition
Re: Really?
"Using this logic America should completely dismantle it's entire Military out of fear of another country invading us because they are frustrated with us having a military."
Reasons there is no similarity:
- The US gov't does not have an imaginary leash in its military. The Commander in Chief and congress can effect swift and important changes in deployment, engagement, organization, and rules.
- Releasing our very, very weak control of the Internet to a neutral party to stave off fragmentation does not open our nation up to invasion.
A better analogy would be control of the ENTIRE Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The USA, with its strong navy, could CLAIM control and all rights to the Oceans. Of course, if we did, other countries and individuals would ignore those claims, and respond with similar stupid claims of their own. Instead, a better choice is to claim and control only near our shores, and allow the oceans to be no country's actual property, but rather agree to a set of Maritime laws and guidelines for navigation, safety, and resources.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Thinks Real-World Military Responses To Hacking Attacks Are A Nifty Idea
Re:
No. Don't contribute to the false equivalence meme.
A wall on the MX border is obviously stupid. It is physically unbuildable on any reasonable budget. He claims MX will pay, but they won't. And it will be completely ineffective as undocumented peeps just enter here on tourist visas, and overstay...as they mostly do now.
Clinton's position from this article is not good, is certainly hawkish, but it is not so blatantly stupid. And to understand the intricacies of "the cyber" is not something we would expect of the candidates - although we would hope she has advisers who understand. And Clinton hasn't made this "not smart" position the main pillar of her campaign.
There is no equivalence between Trump's blatantly stupid, incessant windmill tilting, and Clinton's imperfect one-time statement about over-zealous cyber-retaliation.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Thinks Real-World Military Responses To Hacking Attacks Are A Nifty Idea
Re:
For the M-I complex, things aren't so dire as that. They can sell us more modern weapons. They just need to show how the old weapons are outdated. We'll get sales pitches for ultra-mega-project weapons like Star Wars, or a nuclear arsenal which we never intend to use. We get new fighter planes that run years late and billions over budget.
Also, they don't need to use the weapons to clear space for the new ones. You can just recycle them for scrap, sell them to allies, sell them to enemies-with-benefits, or -better still- you can sell them to some yokel Sheriff to use on American civilians.
Oh, the places you will go!
On the post: Business Promoting Children Reading Sues Schools Over Trademarks For Encouraging Reading
Re: Incentivizing Is Teh Key
I'm pretty sure there's an image of that here
http://goo.gl/fmyDx9
I would like to nominate it for best cat comment of the week.
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review
Re: Hope
- option b: "but we suppose they will."
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review
Insert
...takes them to another customer's house and kitchen,
"...do all the cooking, and then get hit with a $10,000 bill from the "restaurant".
Otherwise, the analogy gives Elsevier credit for the restaurant facility, but the peer review process is done by other Profs located at other universities. Elsevier is just a market...that charges like it were the supplier.
- It's like if a real estate agent sold your house, then kept all the money.
- It's like if Uber arranged for drivers with cars to do business with passengers, but after a driver gave one ride, Uber owns her car and she's not allowed to use it anymore.
- It's like if the NASDAQ hosted your trades and equity sells, but then owns your stock, and gives you a cut of the dividends.
- It's like if the RIAA companies produced your record, but then had you by the nutsack, owned your music, and extracted every penny they could from it, while giving the artist a pittance or nothing at all...hey wait, it IS like that.
On the post: Copyright Group, In Arguing Against FCC's Set Top Box Proposal, Appears To Argue That VCRs & DVRs Are Also Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Incorrect
You're talking about the subsequent creep of it.
On the post: Copyright Group, In Arguing Against FCC's Set Top Box Proposal, Appears To Argue That VCRs & DVRs Are Also Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Incorrect
"I then have to let others monetize it [or do whatever they please with it]"
On the post: Copyright Group, In Arguing Against FCC's Set Top Box Proposal, Appears To Argue That VCRs & DVRs Are Also Illegal
Re: Re: Incorrect
Yes, it IS the objective. It is, in fact, the specific and ONLY objective of copyright. Offering creators temporary exclusive rights is just a means to the end.
Copyright was not created so that your content could be your private property. Nor so that you could monetize it. You need to read history, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Supreme Court's decisions...or just Techdirt.
Copyright's function is to distort the market with an artificial monopoly, for a period of time, in order to provide enough incentive for creators to share their content. But the objective is that last part, getting creators to share their content so that the public can benefit.
The laws were absolutely written to benefit the public, not the creator.
Next >>