Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Aug 2018 @ 2:41pm
Monkey See Monkey Do
I think the freak out when someone copies you is a learned reaction. They learn it from our intellectual property system where overbearing 'rights' holders rather than creators do everything and then some to protect their cash flow (we cannot say profits because they often do not sell anything, they soak money from others selling things).
If only those gatekeepers had some concept of actually competing in the marketplace rather than strong arming anyone and everyone, even for fair use. Protect, defend, defy, and attack (let's not forget lying). It's the way they know and others learn the behavior from them. Patent holders display similar acts of disproportionate response. The whole greening old patents for example, and charging organic farmers for 'stealing' their seeds when birds, bees, and the wind did the damage, and the damage was to the organic farmer, not the seed developer.
I wonder if the gatekeepers should be as upset about others copying their behavior as they are about copies of their IP? It would be a novel suit, and I expect it almost anytime.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Aug 2018 @ 11:50am
Re: Re:
I have heard, but not verified, that Windows OS ignores the HOSTS file. Not sure about other OS's, but my Linux systems seems to comply. I block Facebook there, and my browser won't reach it when I accidentally click on a Facebook link. Check this out for a list of what HOSTS files might block.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Aug 2018 @ 8:36am
Re: The telcos stand up for every important and noble issue!
Your saying the telcos have more than two faces? I tend to agree, but it's getting crowded. They are going to wind up not actually understanding what they believe, except that some things earn them more money, and other don't.
Getting Congress to just pass a law that guarantees not only certain levels of profit, but growth in profit along with overall growth, forever, is just a bit beyond their reach, so far.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Aug 2018 @ 8:10am
Proof?
After the arrest, when they take the 'perpetrator' to court, what evidence will be presented? The output of the computer program? If the arrest takes place before the crime is committed, what wrong would the arrested have done? Provable wrong that is.
If the police display an unexpected amount of patience and wait for the act of crime to begin and THEN arrest the perpetrator, then they would have actual crimes to charge the culprits with. Short of that, they only have un-provable intent. They might collect some planning materials and co-conspirators, but then they only have conspiracy to charge them with.
Maybe they should use the software in a blind study. Document the predictions, and correlate those predictions with actual crimes, for five or ten years, and see what it actually comes up with. Then, if accurate, the police could be in place and waiting for the culprits when they begin the crime.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Aug 2018 @ 10:24am
Re: "It's not a violation of the fifth!" "Prove it."
Wouldn't that just open a pathway to parallel construction? In fact, those parallels exist, but are harder to find without 'leads'. Or so it appears. Working harder AND smarter seems beyond the current abilities of law enforcement. Why aren't they finding those 'leads' on their own. The answer seems to be they don't want to do the work.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Aug 2018 @ 9:49am
Re: What's "anti-competitively" about charging heaviest users more?
The telecom's have had plenty of time, and money, to expand their capacity. It is not their customers fault they chose not to.
You seem to think that having inherently low capacity and the right to charge more when the capacity gets tested, rather than having adequate capacity, not just for today's usage, but for what might be coming, especially when they KNOW it's coming far in advance, is something we should put up with.
Net Neutrality means that all traffic get the same priority. Now that priority might be lower for, say torrents, and higher for, say video streaming. The problem is that they want THEIR video streaming to have a higher priority and lower cost as compared to THE OTHER GUYS video streaming which gets a lower priority and higher cost. That is not neutral. Then there is their concept of 'unlimited' which is severely limited and speed impacted whey 'THEY' feel like it.
An ISP, no matter how one gets the service, should be a dumb pipe. That an ISP also owns content providers should not affect that dumb pipe. Using the dumb pipe to market their content is an abrogation of the original deal. I buy Internet access from an ISP. Not content. If I buy content, then I choose a content provider. If I choose the content the ISP owned content provider provides, well good for them. Why should I be penalized, by the ISP for choosing someone else's content?
You want everyone to pay by the byte. Well they do. That the lack of competition allows them to change the deal while in mid deal and raise prices willy nilly, without giving anything more, or even justify the supposed underlying inflation, is again, not the users fault. THEY use their money to buy legislators and laws that prevent or hinder the competition that would both improve quality AND price because THEIR investors want growth. Both growth in quarterly profits and overall growth annually. Something that is unsustainable given that there are only so many customers, a commodity that won't expand very rapidly, and may shrink. Hence the mergers that try to forestall the fact that the market is limited. But even when there is only one left, growth will not be sustainable. What will they do then? I am fairly certain that you, a telecom shill, will be happy with whatever they come up with.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Aug 2018 @ 8:47am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those options are sill available to them. Whatever their reasons for not taking those steps, it appears they see an easier way. That it won't work seems beyond their understanding. That they think they 'deserve' more money isn't really in question either. How they go about getting more money is.
They need both to become more efficient, and retain the skilled personnel while excising those that are no longer needed as well as developing new business models that work. Part of the issue here is profit. Investors tend to not only want more profit, every quarter, they want continued growth, every year. That is a model that might not always be possible, or isn't now and the realization causes them to grasp for the unobtainable. So again, what to do?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Aug 2018 @ 8:34am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes there are, but there are also big differences. Broadcast (either radio or TV) are limited in time. They have a tendency to cover 'big' issues and don't even bother with anything 'small'. And that 'big' issue coverage is very limited (time again), as the have the next 'important' story to get to.
There have been some attempts at 'news magazine' style reporting on radio and TV, and to a large degree they have not met the burden. Even NPR or PBS have gotten entrapped in that they fail to ask the hard questions, or to challenge fallacious answers. And again, they are limited by time, they only cover so many stories, the ones 'they' think might be important. Now that is true of print media to some degree as well. But there are a lot more of those than the others, and they are willing to, for example, print obituaries, whereas your local TV station does not, unless it was a celebrity. There are other services provided by the print media that don't take place on TV or radio, if one takes the time to look.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Aug 2018 @ 7:45am
Re: Re: Re:
Trust.
Developing trust in one's 'news' product takes work. A lot of work, and skill. All those independent sources, while they have value, would need to work full time developing story after story (building story sourcing and telling skills) until trust is built, not just in consumers, but with sources. If they are working at it full time, they would need income, just as current new organizations need income.
While the legacy industry has issues, they already have developed skills in both sourcing and story telling. I will give you that in recent years both the sourcing (news organizations parroting whatever government says) and story telling (more unidentified opinion than facts and analysis) have deteriorated.
One of the points of finding new ways to fund news gathering and reporting is to make them more independent, and able to maintain resources to that end.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Aug 2018 @ 7:19am
Re:
The news business has always been based upon advertising revenue, subscriptions or per copy price was a pittance in comparison. Reversing the polarity of the revenue stream seems like a natural occurrence. Too bad it will fail, in any form they can imagine.
Which raises the question, how can news organizations be supported? They are a necessary part of good government, and should be either independent of major influences, or enough of them, supported by different streams to maintain some tension. Other than plain old charity, what do we do? I say we, because they haven't a clue. Apparently.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Aug 2018 @ 7:08am
Re:
It sounds like a threat to me, and that should be illegal.
On the other hand, whether the bill passes or not, the rates will go up due to lack of competition. Let the mergers proceed, so the rates can go up faster.
A better bill would be requiring competition, though I guess that would be hard to do at the state level.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Aug 2018 @ 12:07pm
Use SEO to manage that reputation
It sure sounds like National Review, The Weekly Standard, Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, Hot Air, Townhall, Red State could use the help of an SEO or a reputation managment team. I have heard of a couple of good ones, here on Techdirt, who go out of their way to falsify information to benefit their clients. It didn't help.
So what tea leaves should conservative websites be reading? That there are a lot fewer people reading the conservative point of view than they would like.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 7:47pm
Re: Re: Re:
I listen, just not to you and the poster you characterized as being "well spoken, expressive, tempered and rational" when he/she isn't any of those things.
You speak well. Try acting rational, try acting tempered, try being expressive. We will listen. But associating yourself with a well known troll, won't help you.
Tell us what you think, why you think it, and support it with facts (and citations where appropriate) and you will be heard. You won't be flagged for being honest, but you will for being an ass, as your "well spoken, expressive, tempered and rational" poster friend often (or always) is.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 7:38pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meaninglessness
I am arguing for what I mean, not what you think I should mean. That you don't like my, or our, use if the word bias, which can be used in a variety of ways, can mean different things in different contexts. That it is used one way on one post, or in the article, does not mean it cannot be used in another way in a different post or some other article. I use the word bias to mean some of the other definitions in different contexts. Not this time. Nature does not know of politics, and probably doesn't know about prejudice. Assumptions can be dangerous.
I followed the line to the left of your post up to the connecting post. Possibly by mistake, it appears you replied to the post under mine.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 7:24pm
Re:
Beside the point that you can't find the reply button for the correct post, you iterate why you should not be listened to. Well done. Have another flag.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 7:20pm
Re: Re: Re: Meaninglessness
You question should be asked of the folks that wrote the dictionary. They provide the variety of definitions, because there is a variety. That you suggest that we should ignore one definition in favor of others tells us a lot about how you think about things. I picked one, not ignoring the others, but because that one means what I want to say, the others didn't. Just because I use that one does not make me wrong. Nor does it make you right.
BTW, you replied to the wrong post, at least you didn't reply to me, but talked to me anyway.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 6:58pm
Re: It will all work out
"...on the other you have the well spoken, expressive, tempered and rational commentators censored above..."
You got off to a good start, but that line is where your comment lost all credibility...at least for me, and I bet a lot of others. In fact, I didn't even read the rest. You showed your colors, and they ain't neutral. If those comments were in fact well spoken, expressive, tempered and rational, they would not have been flagged by significantly more than one person, which hides them, not censors them.
On the post: How Not To Freak Out When Someone Copies Your Product
Monkey See Monkey Do
If only those gatekeepers had some concept of actually competing in the marketplace rather than strong arming anyone and everyone, even for fair use. Protect, defend, defy, and attack (let's not forget lying). It's the way they know and others learn the behavior from them. Patent holders display similar acts of disproportionate response. The whole greening old patents for example, and charging organic farmers for 'stealing' their seeds when birds, bees, and the wind did the damage, and the damage was to the organic farmer, not the seed developer.
I wonder if the gatekeepers should be as upset about others copying their behavior as they are about copies of their IP? It would be a novel suit, and I expect it almost anytime.
On the post: The Mystery Of Columbia Pictures DMCAing Its Own Leaked Promotional Posters For Its 'Holmes And Watson' Movie
Re:
And another one will make it about CDA 230.
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
Re: Re:
I have heard, but not verified, that Windows OS ignores the HOSTS file. Not sure about other OS's, but my Linux systems seems to comply. I block Facebook there, and my browser won't reach it when I accidentally click on a Facebook link. Check this out for a list of what HOSTS files might block.
On the post: Comcast Is Trying To Ban States From Protecting Broadband & TV Consumers
Re: The telcos stand up for every important and noble issue!
Getting Congress to just pass a law that guarantees not only certain levels of profit, but growth in profit along with overall growth, forever, is just a bit beyond their reach, so far.
On the post: Indian Police Adding Pre-Crime Software To Their Long List Of Snooping Tools
Proof?
If the police display an unexpected amount of patience and wait for the act of crime to begin and THEN arrest the perpetrator, then they would have actual crimes to charge the culprits with. Short of that, they only have un-provable intent. They might collect some planning materials and co-conspirators, but then they only have conspiracy to charge them with.
Maybe they should use the software in a blind study. Document the predictions, and correlate those predictions with actual crimes, for five or ten years, and see what it actually comes up with. Then, if accurate, the police could be in place and waiting for the culprits when they begin the crime.
On the post: Indiana Appeals Court Says Forcing Someone To Unlock Their Phone Violates The 5th Amendment
Re: "It's not a violation of the fifth!" "Prove it."
On the post: Big Telecom Resorts To Lying To Senior Citizens To Scuttle Net Neutrality In California
Re: What's "anti-competitively" about charging heaviest users more?
You seem to think that having inherently low capacity and the right to charge more when the capacity gets tested, rather than having adequate capacity, not just for today's usage, but for what might be coming, especially when they KNOW it's coming far in advance, is something we should put up with.
Net Neutrality means that all traffic get the same priority. Now that priority might be lower for, say torrents, and higher for, say video streaming. The problem is that they want THEIR video streaming to have a higher priority and lower cost as compared to THE OTHER GUYS video streaming which gets a lower priority and higher cost. That is not neutral. Then there is their concept of 'unlimited' which is severely limited and speed impacted whey 'THEY' feel like it.
An ISP, no matter how one gets the service, should be a dumb pipe. That an ISP also owns content providers should not affect that dumb pipe. Using the dumb pipe to market their content is an abrogation of the original deal. I buy Internet access from an ISP. Not content. If I buy content, then I choose a content provider. If I choose the content the ISP owned content provider provides, well good for them. Why should I be penalized, by the ISP for choosing someone else's content?
You want everyone to pay by the byte. Well they do. That the lack of competition allows them to change the deal while in mid deal and raise prices willy nilly, without giving anything more, or even justify the supposed underlying inflation, is again, not the users fault. THEY use their money to buy legislators and laws that prevent or hinder the competition that would both improve quality AND price because THEIR investors want growth. Both growth in quarterly profits and overall growth annually. Something that is unsustainable given that there are only so many customers, a commodity that won't expand very rapidly, and may shrink. Hence the mergers that try to forestall the fact that the market is limited. But even when there is only one left, growth will not be sustainable. What will they do then? I am fairly certain that you, a telecom shill, will be happy with whatever they come up with.
On the post: A Link Tax Won't Bring Back Journalists; It Will Do Even More Harm To Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They need both to become more efficient, and retain the skilled personnel while excising those that are no longer needed as well as developing new business models that work. Part of the issue here is profit. Investors tend to not only want more profit, every quarter, they want continued growth, every year. That is a model that might not always be possible, or isn't now and the realization causes them to grasp for the unobtainable. So again, what to do?
On the post: A Link Tax Won't Bring Back Journalists; It Will Do Even More Harm To Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There have been some attempts at 'news magazine' style reporting on radio and TV, and to a large degree they have not met the burden. Even NPR or PBS have gotten entrapped in that they fail to ask the hard questions, or to challenge fallacious answers. And again, they are limited by time, they only cover so many stories, the ones 'they' think might be important. Now that is true of print media to some degree as well. But there are a lot more of those than the others, and they are willing to, for example, print obituaries, whereas your local TV station does not, unless it was a celebrity. There are other services provided by the print media that don't take place on TV or radio, if one takes the time to look.
On the post: A Link Tax Won't Bring Back Journalists; It Will Do Even More Harm To Them
Re: Re: Re:
Developing trust in one's 'news' product takes work. A lot of work, and skill. All those independent sources, while they have value, would need to work full time developing story after story (building story sourcing and telling skills) until trust is built, not just in consumers, but with sources. If they are working at it full time, they would need income, just as current new organizations need income.
While the legacy industry has issues, they already have developed skills in both sourcing and story telling. I will give you that in recent years both the sourcing (news organizations parroting whatever government says) and story telling (more unidentified opinion than facts and analysis) have deteriorated.
One of the points of finding new ways to fund news gathering and reporting is to make them more independent, and able to maintain resources to that end.
On the post: A Link Tax Won't Bring Back Journalists; It Will Do Even More Harm To Them
Re:
Which raises the question, how can news organizations be supported? They are a necessary part of good government, and should be either independent of major influences, or enough of them, supported by different streams to maintain some tension. Other than plain old charity, what do we do? I say we, because they haven't a clue. Apparently.
On the post: Big Telecom Resorts To Lying To Senior Citizens To Scuttle Net Neutrality In California
Re:
On the other hand, whether the bill passes or not, the rates will go up due to lack of competition. Let the mergers proceed, so the rates can go up faster.
A better bill would be requiring competition, though I guess that would be hard to do at the state level.
On the post: Conservatives: Stop Crying Wolf On Tech Bias Or No One Will Ever Take You Seriously
Use SEO to manage that reputation
So what tea leaves should conservative websites be reading? That there are a lot fewer people reading the conservative point of view than they would like.
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re: Oh, come on.
Go back and read the original comment to which you replied. Here, let me help you. Then read the one above it. Now you know why I made the comment.
And I am done. It surely appears that you want this argument for the sake of argument.
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meaninglessness
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re: Re: Re:
You speak well. Try acting rational, try acting tempered, try being expressive. We will listen. But associating yourself with a well known troll, won't help you.
Tell us what you think, why you think it, and support it with facts (and citations where appropriate) and you will be heard. You won't be flagged for being honest, but you will for being an ass, as your "well spoken, expressive, tempered and rational" poster friend often (or always) is.
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meaninglessness
I followed the line to the left of your post up to the connecting post. Possibly by mistake, it appears you replied to the post under mine.
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re:
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re: Re: Re: Meaninglessness
BTW, you replied to the wrong post, at least you didn't reply to me, but talked to me anyway.
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re: It will all work out
You got off to a good start, but that line is where your comment lost all credibility...at least for me, and I bet a lot of others. In fact, I didn't even read the rest. You showed your colors, and they ain't neutral. If those comments were in fact well spoken, expressive, tempered and rational, they would not have been flagged by significantly more than one person, which hides them, not censors them.
Next >>