I look forward to the day when it's generally accepted that there must be some truth in advertising.
Saying 'up to 50Mbps' is a specific claim. It uses a actual number. The hardware infrastructure involved, every element along the path, should be able to deliver that performance. Perhaps only in ideal circumstances, but they must be achievable ideal circumstances.
Selling a 300 baud modem as a "up to 56Kbps" modem would have been recognized as consumer fraud. cable companies shouldn't be able to get away with the same fraud just because the technology is much more difficult to understand and evaluate.
It's a more challenging case when the performance isn't reached due to over-subscription, but even there it's a bright line if the performance is never reached.
Growing up I frequently heard "it takes two to fight" as the excuse to punish all involved in a fight.
That is, of course, wrong.
It takes two to brawl. It takes only one for a beat down.
It's usually one person that starts the fight. The target has the choice to fight back then or be assaulted over the long term until they do fight back.
It's easy to forget that children in school or on the bus are forced to be there. They don't have luxury of avoiding the situation or walking away. The instigators know not to start the assault when an adult is watching. Adults rarely intervene in a just way, and are usually only there to punish the disruption.
I can see how Apple Computer feels they have strong claim on the word 'Apple' as applied to computer-related items, even though it's a common word and Apple Music was well known before they started. The word 'Apple' has nothing to do with computers.
But when you name your company 'Vice' and you are engaged in vice... that's pretty much like naming your restaurant 'Diner' and expecting to have a valid trademark claim.
There is currently quite a bit of hang-wringing over the amount of 'screen time' that kids get.
That 3 hour number is suspiciously identical to the point where TV time was found to turn from a positive to a negative. That was based on a broad study, rather than someone's guesses.
But a closer examination showed that the study was very misleading. Kids that watched more than 3 hours of TV a day were vastly more likely to have a single parent, or both parents working much more than 8 hours a day. Watching TV in place of other activities was a reflection of their economic situation, not a cause of lower academic or social performance.
We've created an astonishing world where a person with internet access and a tablet has vastly more resources to learn from than the largest library of a generation ago. Yet it's considered 'better' or more noble to be reading paper than looking at a screen. Why?
Following the link to the Abbott story, it appears that he solicited sex from multiple 13- and 14-year-old boys. That usually happened in person, with multiple years of electronic messages providing confirming evidence.
This wasn't a case of pursuing 17-almost-18 year olds, this was unambiguous pedophilia. Something like that isn't usually kept hidden. His fellow officers must have suspected or even known about it. Even if they thought that the 'evidence gathering' passed constitutional muster, why would they let him be involved?
Is it really true that the police resisted this order?
The first time the police took pictures of his penis, and told him to make it erect. That didn't happen, so the prosecutor filed for and received a warrant.
If I'm offer a 45 day 'Free Subscription', I don't go any further. I've been throughly educated that I'll be locked into an expensive subscription that is nearly impossible to cancel.
I try to avoid such 'free subscriptions', but some are really difficult. Recently I had to deal with OnStar, which makes it trivial to subscribe, renew or increase your service online. But if you want to cancel or reduce your service you have to call, wait on hold for a long time, and be subject to a sales pitch before they will cancel the service.
This is a nearly universal experience, and most people learn to treat 'free' offers with justified suspicion. The researchers must have a strong bias to ignore the effect.
This guy was guilty, but was really just an uninformed mule. He was sentenced to 15 years.
It appears that the dirty police officer, who stole and handled the drugs, as well as committing many other crimes using his badge, was sentenced to only 5 years and 10 months in total.
The reason cable companies pay for 'rebroadcast' rights is because the FCC explicitly allows the broadcasters to charge.
The broadcasters actually get a choice of 'must carry' for free, or they can negotiate a rate and risk not being carried.
It's an absurd situation. Local stations spend millions on powerful broadcasting equipment, carefully situated towers and electricity in the hopes of reaching the maximum number of viewers. But when the cable company will carry the signal for free, to otherwise-unreachable viewers, and report the exact number of customers, the broadcaster expects to be paid.
At first that seemed off-topic, but it (and the following comments) provided a great deal of additional info.
The sheriff went to Liberty University, the far-right university founded by Jerry Falwell. It's not known for high academic standards. It is known for its political and religious stance. They make it clear to incoming students that free speech takes a back seat to religious belief.
The truck owner worked for the Sheriff Dept until relatively recently.
The arrest was for an offense in March and April 2014 (when she worked at the Sheriff's Dept?).
Why would a rational person want to delete Trump's account?
The only reason I could think of would be to stop him from embarrassing himself. And that's pointless, since the account would be certain to be quickly restored.
If being in the street was the problem, the police would have added on a citation for that.
It seems pretty clear what happened. The police officer was part of the security detail. He was told by someone working for the campaign to harass the reporter. He did. The officer thought that the profanity was a justification to roughly arrest the reporter. Before they filled out the arrest report the officer was told the law was unconstitutional, so they had to substitute 'disorderly conduct'.
Without the video, the officer's narrative would stand. Before the age of ubiquitous video cameras I certainly would have believed it. But with the video it's clear that the police officer was arresting the reporter for a violation of section 511. They needed to substitute a different charge later to justify the arrest. Without a plausible charge -- one that wasn't obviously unconstitutional, the police couldn't justify the force used during the arrest.
How much would a police department pay for a dice roll to do an otherwise-improper search?
When viewed from that perspective, the ideal test kit would have a high false positive rate, with some attribute (such as lower cost) that justifies its use vs. a more accurate test.
My previous perception was that 'eco-terrorist' referred to those extremists that were willing to destroy property and even kill in "raise awareness" for their 'cause'. They do evil things like spike trees, burn down buildings and release ill-adapted animals to the wild.
Now when I hear that phrase I'll just expect regular people with moderate views wanting reasonable constraints on companies that would otherwise destroy the environment to make money.
His comments might have no technical basis. They could be pure market positioning for a government-enforced windfall.
Blackberry went from owning the smartphone market to having a vanishingly tiny share. That is a trillion dollar screw-up. It puts them near the top of the worst business misses of all time.
With that perspective, it's understandable that the CEO would grasp at any straw that might cause a government to mandate them back into relevance.
Hopefully this case will result in much more careful consideration with a default judgment. It was easy to foresee that transferring the copyright could only lead to the plaintiff stirring up trouble.
On the post: Charter Spectrum Fails To Wiggle Out From Under State Lawsuit For Crappy Service
Saying 'up to 50Mbps' is a specific claim. It uses a actual number. The hardware infrastructure involved, every element along the path, should be able to deliver that performance. Perhaps only in ideal circumstances, but they must be achievable ideal circumstances.
Selling a 300 baud modem as a "up to 56Kbps" modem would have been recognized as consumer fraud. cable companies shouldn't be able to get away with the same fraud just because the technology is much more difficult to understand and evaluate.
It's a more challenging case when the performance isn't reached due to over-subscription, but even there it's a bright line if the performance is never reached.
On the post: Appeals Court: Handcuffing A Compliant Ten-Year-Old Is Unreasonable But Deputy Had No Way Of Knowing That
Re:
That is, of course, wrong.
It takes two to brawl. It takes only one for a beat down.
It's usually one person that starts the fight. The target has the choice to fight back then or be assaulted over the long term until they do fight back.
It's easy to forget that children in school or on the bus are forced to be there. They don't have luxury of avoiding the situation or walking away. The instigators know not to start the assault when an adult is watching. Adults rarely intervene in a just way, and are usually only there to punish the disruption.
On the post: Vice Media Goes After Vice Industry Token, A Porn Crypto-Currency Company, For Trademark
Wait a second..
They are awesome and powerful.
I can see how Apple Computer feels they have strong claim on the word 'Apple' as applied to computer-related items, even though it's a common word and Apple Music was well known before they started. The word 'Apple' has nothing to do with computers.
But when you name your company 'Vice' and you are engaged in vice... that's pretty much like naming your restaurant 'Diner' and expecting to have a valid trademark claim.
On the post: Shareholder Groups Say Apple Should Do More To Address Gadget 'Addiction' Among Young People: Should It?
That 3 hour number is suspiciously identical to the point where TV time was found to turn from a positive to a negative. That was based on a broad study, rather than someone's guesses.
But a closer examination showed that the study was very misleading. Kids that watched more than 3 hours of TV a day were vastly more likely to have a single parent, or both parents working much more than 8 hours a day. Watching TV in place of other activities was a reflection of their economic situation, not a cause of lower academic or social performance.
We've created an astonishing world where a person with internet access and a tablet has vastly more resources to learn from than the largest library of a generation ago. Yet it's considered 'better' or more noble to be reading paper than looking at a screen. Why?
On the post: Charter, Disney Execs Pledge To Crack Down On Streaming Password Sharing 'Piracy'
"when they can least afford it"
Or is the phrase "when they can least afford it" used because the price of upper-end customized Gulfstreams has increased?
On the post: Appeals Court Can't Decide Whether It Should Protect Critic's Anonymity, Boots Free Speech Case Back To Lower Court
Extra-judicial punishment?
On the post: Appeals Court: Forcing A Teen To Masturbate So Cops Can Take Pictures Is A Clear Violation Of Rights
This wasn't a case of pursuing 17-almost-18 year olds, this was unambiguous pedophilia. Something like that isn't usually kept hidden. His fellow officers must have suspected or even known about it. Even if they thought that the 'evidence gathering' passed constitutional muster, why would they let him be involved?
On the post: Appeals Court: Forcing A Teen To Masturbate So Cops Can Take Pictures Is A Clear Violation Of Rights
Re: Re:
The first time the police took pictures of his penis, and told him to make it erect. That didn't happen, so the prosecutor filed for and received a warrant.
On the post: No Shit: Groundbreaking Study Shows That Giving People 12% Of The Video Content They Want Doesn't Magically Stop Piracy
Major flaw in the study
I try to avoid such 'free subscriptions', but some are really difficult. Recently I had to deal with OnStar, which makes it trivial to subscribe, renew or increase your service online. But if you want to cancel or reduce your service you have to call, wait on hold for a long time, and be subject to a sales pitch before they will cancel the service.
This is a nearly universal experience, and most people learn to treat 'free' offers with justified suspicion. The researchers must have a strong bias to ignore the effect.
On the post: Court Says Cop's Theft Of Evidence Shouldn't Have Any Effect On Man's 15-Year Drug Sentence
And the police officer got...
It appears that the dirty police officer, who stole and handled the drugs, as well as committing many other crimes using his badge, was sentenced to only 5 years and 10 months in total.
On the post: 3 Million Dish Customers May Miss Thanksgiving Football In Latest Example Of TV Industry Dysfunction
Re: Free OTA
The broadcasters actually get a choice of 'must carry' for free, or they can negotiate a rate and risk not being carried.
It's an absurd situation. Local stations spend millions on powerful broadcasting equipment, carefully situated towers and electricity in the hopes of reaching the maximum number of viewers. But when the cable company will carry the signal for free, to otherwise-unreachable viewers, and report the exact number of customers, the broadcaster expects to be paid.
On the post: Sheriff Thinks He Can Use Bogus Disorderly Conduct Charges To Shut Down Speech He Doesn't Like
Re: DA and Arrest
The sheriff went to Liberty University, the far-right university founded by Jerry Falwell. It's not known for high academic standards. It is known for its political and religious stance. They make it clear to incoming students that free speech takes a back seat to religious belief.
The truck owner worked for the Sheriff Dept until relatively recently.
The arrest was for an offense in March and April 2014 (when she worked at the Sheriff's Dept?).
On the post: Good Ruling: Court Affirms Fox's Victory In Trademark Suit From Empire Distribution Over Its Hit Show 'Empire'
Re: First paragraph condescending as if member of the bar,
It doesn't read that way.
On the post: Don't Cheer For The Twitter Employee Who Deleted Donald Trump's Account
Re: Re: Why would a rational person want to delete Trump's account?
A person is displaying a Nazi flag in their window. Should that be banned? Why?
Isn't it better to know the attitudes of the person up front? Especially when they aren't... typical.
On the post: Don't Cheer For The Twitter Employee Who Deleted Donald Trump's Account
Why would a rational person want to delete Trump's account?
On the post: Reporter Arrested, Thrown To The Ground For Cursing
Re: He wasn't charged with obstructing traffic
It seems pretty clear what happened. The police officer was part of the security detail. He was told by someone working for the campaign to harass the reporter. He did. The officer thought that the profanity was a justification to roughly arrest the reporter. Before they filled out the arrest report the officer was told the law was unconstitutional, so they had to substitute 'disorderly conduct'.
Without the video, the officer's narrative would stand. Before the age of ubiquitous video cameras I certainly would have believed it. But with the video it's clear that the police officer was arresting the reporter for a violation of section 511. They needed to substitute a different charge later to justify the arrest. Without a plausible charge -- one that wasn't obviously unconstitutional, the police couldn't justify the force used during the arrest.
On the post: Man Gets $37,500 Payout After Field Drug Test Says Donut Crumbs Are Methamphetamines
How much would you pay for...
When viewed from that perspective, the ideal test kit would have a high false positive rate, with some attribute (such as lower cost) that justifies its use vs. a more accurate test.
On the post: Energy Group Labels Creators Of Video Game As 'Eco-Terrorists'
Complete own-goal
Now when I hear that phrase I'll just expect regular people with moderate views wanting reasonable constraints on companies that would otherwise destroy the environment to make money.
On the post: BlackBerry CEO Promises To Try To Break Customers' Encryption If The US Gov't Asks Him To
Is this just a competitive position?
Blackberry went from owning the smartphone market to having a vanishingly tiny share. That is a trillion dollar screw-up. It puts them near the top of the worst business misses of all time.
With that perspective, it's understandable that the CEO would grasp at any straw that might cause a government to mandate them back into relevance.
On the post: Sorry, You Can't Abuse Copyright Law To Make A Negative Review Disappear
Next >>