Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 4:56pm
Re: "Oh darn, I guess we have no choice but to raise it again..."
I think the MAFFIA's are conflicted. On one hand they want money and control, and maybe not in that order. On the other hand public perception might wind up mitigating everything they want.
They have done enough shitty things that they may perceive that public perception of them is turning against them, and that regardless of how much they contribute to legislators campaigns, there might be enough backlash to undo them. Now whether that backlash turns into reverting copyright to reasonable terms, I doubt it, but hope so.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 4:20pm
Trade Agreement
I noticed that there was no mention of payment for Trumps' wall. Did Trump cave? Or is there some 'hidden' provision that makes the payments for 'something else'. The press hasn't mentioned yet.
For that matter, Trade Negotiations have a greater security clearance than the Nuclear Codes, so what else don't we actually know?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 4:15pm
Re: Re:
That is not what they do at Burning-Man.
On the other hand, it might be competitive to the WWE, and probably more entertaining. Can you build a straw man that will fight another straw man, with flames, and WIN? Creativity, action, adventure, eye-candy for TV, and FLAMES. More than the WWE delivers.
And to satisfy Mexico, they could wear weird masks.
(It's likely that the 'straw men' will be robots encased in straw, and susceptible to fire (cardboard or paper laminates instead of metal or plastic frameworks) and lots of employment as new 'straw men' would need to be built for every match, of which there could be a lot, as no one would need rest or recuperation time)
I expect royalty checks of this comes to fruition.
My apologies if you took that offensively, it was not intended as offensive, but maybe incredulous.
On the other hand, anything that encourages the shit posters to post is not a good thing for the rest of us. Let them disagree. Let them post those disagreements in a conversational tone. Let them be coherent. Let them not insult everyone who is not them. They often, or even regularly, do not.
One method to preserving cordial conversation is to not 'feed the trolls'. Your expression of finding them 'entertaining' is a form of feeding, even if surreptitiously.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 3:34pm
Re: Meaninglessness
1) There is no such thing as nature "intending" to grow specific plants.
To know whether 'nature' intended anything goes further into belief systems than I care to venture, but only because our discussion of what god you believe in vs the god I believe in would take over the conversation. Nature, intended? I don't know about that, but it certainly promoted some things and denigrated others. How that choice was made is not yet known, for absolute fact. The chemistry, yes, but the choice, no.
2) A garden is purpose-grown, and removing weeds and other plants that go against the purpose of the garden is not "bias." Prefering to grow, say, berries instead of vegetables, could be called a "bias," but why would you? That's a preference; the subtext of the word bias does not maintain in that conversation.
To prefer to grow something, in the Internet conversation sense, means that a particular 'bias' is inherent in the website. Some do, some don't. Some try to be neutral, others don't try so hard. If a website or a service tries to be neutral and fails at it, it is not bias. We could call it many names, but bias might not apply.
3) Similarly, proper moderation is no more "bias" than is removing weeds from a garden; keeping a forum to its proper and purposeful context is what keeps it a forum instead of a pile of meaningless spam and garbage, just like weeding a garden keeps it a garden instead of a tangle of wild growth.
Here we don't disagree. I never said otherwise.
4) The term "bias" has a specific and deliberate negative connotation that your comments do not account for, and your apparent definition of "bias"is indistinguishable from the term "preference." A bias indicates taking a side on somethig actively in debate and deliberately slanting things toward that side, not removing unrelated spam and trolling.
Definition of bias
1 a : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice
b : an instance of such prejudice
c : bent, tendency
d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates
(2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
(limited to the first definition as the others don't apply)
I am using definition 'c', whereas others may be using different definitions. Even when using the term 'bias' I am thinking more about 'discrimination or preference' (see below), which is why I chose definition 'c'.
Definition of discrimination
1 a : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination
b : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing the film viewed by those with discrimination
3 a : the act of making or perceiving a difference : the act of discriminating a bloodhound's scent discrimination
b psychology : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
Definition of preference
1 a : the act of preferring : the state of being preferred
b : the power or opportunity of choosing
2 : one that is preferred
3 : the act, fact, or principle of giving advantages to some over others
4 : priority in the right to demand and receive satisfaction of an obligation
5 : orientation or sexual preference
In the end nature vs nurture might just be applicable. If one has an inherent 'bias' to use the definitions I did not, then it seems to be nurture, whereas if one does not impose 'bias' and 'bias' is perceived, then it might just be nature exposing its dark side. Some of nature is good, some bad. There are things that nature produces 'naturally' that are inherently poisonous. There are others that are are not. Then again, that might pertain to the species consuming.
If one reads Techdirt and presumes it has a liberal 'bias' then they should look into their perception system. If one reads Techdirt and presumes a conservative 'bias' then they should look into their perception system. If one reads Techdirt and does not impose 'bias' then it is likely that their perception system is working, as Techdirt tries not to impose any political 'bias', but looks at various things as to how they might be good or bad in relation to everybody, not just one or the other (meaning conservative or liberal or R or D or any other descriptor).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 2:43pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Inevitable Bias -- A modest proposal
On the issue of bias, or discrimination, or taste, your's is weird. Perhaps self flagellation would be a more productive method of torturing (erm entertaining) yourself.
For the rest of us, wading through the crap espoused by the most flagged person on this page, we would prefer wading through a biologically sound pool of different, yet not toxic discussion. Opposing us is not the issue, how the opposition is presented is.
Bias in not limited to humans making political decisions, nor to humans deciding whether they like chocolate ice cream or pistachio ice cream. Nature itself has bias. Just think evolution, and whether you believe in evolution or not, things change, over time, whether we impact them or not. Whether we control them or not. Nature does it.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 1:59pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The direction of Government...
To be fair, checkered tablecloths get wrinkled and folded. He/she doesn't. Terribly confused, obstinately narrow minded, and pointedly obtuse, and insulting of anyone not him/her, yes, but not wrinkled (yet, or maybe) and probably not folded.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2018 @ 6:52am
Where are the Feds?
The only excuse I can think of for the DoD not going after this guy is that they receive brownie points for getting stuff off their inventory via the LESO program. After all, if they exhaust their inventory, they get to buy more. More buying by the DoD makes those congresscrtters who have suppliers in their districts VERY happy. More money changing hands means more money changing different hands.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Aug 2018 @ 1:01pm
Re: Great.
Wet tea leaves are the same as marijuana to some cops. Why wouldn't they stretch their imaginations in your case? Hey, there is even a so called equal protection clause in the Constitution that states "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." and with the Supreme Court saying that law enforcement officers don't actually have to know the laws they enforce, I am seriously surprised we are not all in jail.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Aug 2018 @ 8:16am
Re: Not exactly "devastating"
Just what are the chances that any pre-merger promises will be kept? What promises have other companies made during the merger run up that have blatantly been ignored post merger? What is there about these companies that would make one think they would be any different?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Aug 2018 @ 8:04am
Re: Recording is not the real issue.
Isn't the real problem not only that the information was used to inform the prosecutors what the defense strategy was in order to gain convictions, but also that now those cases are complete, the defense strategy is again known, and even offering a retrial would not rectify the harm, especially if the defendant was found not guilty the second time around.
Also, as I am not a lawyer, shouldn't the possession of such information be considered Brady material? It would most certainly be embarrassing, but isn't the prosecutor required to give up any information that might aid the defense. That the prosecutors had illegal privileged information would have certainly helped the defense.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 7:11pm
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Your assumption that Obama knew about Russian interference with the election ("information" from the pubic is certainly taken as verbatim, no government agency would act on something 'suggested". right?) is not the same thing as Obama knew about Russian interference with the election.
That there was some interference with the elections, and possibly by some Russians, is still under investigation. Guess who is causing the slowness of the investigation?
The question that I do not hear being addresses is; since the Electoral College, and not the popular vote, elected the president, whom did the interference effect?
Your point of view is that the problem lies with anyone not Republican. That is, if nothing, short sighted. That we have an Electoral College still, that we have soft money in politics, that we still have political parties, and others, are the problems.
Your point of view is seriously one sided, and I am having a hard time to figure out what side that actually is.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 5:57pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good one. I didn't even thing of that. Maybe Bezos has given them their head. I hope so. We need a minimally biased voice. They might be worth watching. I wonder what their editorial section will have to say about the coming elections.
Well, I don't wonder much, I won't be looking to see. But it does relate to the original question.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 5:51pm
Re:
Thing is, those who follow the site and know better and still make the same kind of asinine, irrelevant statements. They think that making the statement enables or affirms their cause, whatever that is (and it is getting harder and harder to know what that cause is because they don't actually articulate it or change their premise depending upon the responses, they change their argument for continued argument). I think, at times that the purpose is to be obstinate, for the purpose of being obstinate, not because the actually have something to say. They get their rocks off from that. Shame on them.
The appropriate response is in most cases a flag for abusive commentary and not to respond otherwise. To some degree, we have valued community members who like to argue. They do not see that the rest of us have to suffer. I respond, sometimes, but when the other party shows their desire to argue, rather than discuss, I quit. Others, not so much. I hope they will learn that quitting is better than getting their arguing merit badges. Not matter how good it might make you feel for the moment.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 5:38pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN's through VPN's
Bleachbit is free. Windows or Linux (I have both) is free. So your offer has as much substance as your statements.
Thing is, politicians are bad, it does not matter which of the various sides they are on (there are more than two if you haven't been paying attention), and that they need money to get re-elected is bad.
I know that you have gone into my history and looked for ways to denigrate me. Have at it. I don't care much. But if you look further, you will find what I have to say about how to go about changing things. There is more than one post, so don't stop at the first one you find. Look back. And then there are the years that I was not a member, but used the moniker Anonymous Anonymous Coward, and then there are the years that I was merely an Anonymous Coward. Just reading my writings will not tell you who I am. But reading my writings will give you a clue. As of now, you have no clue.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 5:28pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
Trump did and does bad stuff. Whether that bad stuff, done or being done, rises to criminal is currently being investigated. Hopefully, with integrity, not partiality. Trump creates his own anti-Trump expose, just read his Twitter feed, or as I do, those Twitter comments that make it to some other sometimes mainstream press. I don't use Twitter.
Politicians have dirty hands. It does not matter whether they are R's or D's or Other's. They all have dirty hands. They need to do so in order to be re-elected. That they desire to be re-elected is a big problem. That they need to listen to corpratocracy in order to get the money to be re-elected is also a problems. That they are R's or D's or Other's is an additional, and not irrelevant problem. Having an ideology that is not 'for the people' is a problem.
Denigrating an incumbent, whatever their position (and that means the President as well), for not being for the people is a good thing. Equal justice based on the facts needs to be upheld, is a true statement, so long as the facts are not manipulated...something that is at issue.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 5:07pm
Re: Re:
I like that. The only questions I get from Amazon are whether or not I want to give my privacy away by joining Prime, or how much I want to pay for fast delivery. I choose standard, all the time. I could choose free, and wait a few more days, but, for me, money does have to circulate, and the delivery companies are part of the circulation.
Another question might be, what is the current editorial policy at the Washington Post? I don't have an answer to that, nor have I looked. At some point, someone might find that Bezos is imprinting his (whatever it is) ideology on that newspaper. On the other hand, he might have said, do what you do, and given them a free hand. Until we hear some analysis, we won't know.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 4:57pm
Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
True, but newspapers 'colluding' to call out the President for attempts at violating the 1st Amendment isn't in the same league as planning a bank robbery. There was nothing illegal in their 'planning' to respond to Trumps antagonism. There was nothing illegal in their execution either. Not that you think there was.
You are correct in that for a conspiracy, no other crime need be committed. The fact remains that the administration has called both collusion and conspiracy as acts of their detractors. Short of defamation, detractors can say anything they want. That is, until the government intervenes, then it becomes expensive expression. Which to me would seem to be a 1st Amendment violation. Collecting from the government when they lose the suit is...well an exercise in futility. It might happen, but they have the long wallet, or erm, all the patience in the world. Takes us to court again, and again, and again. We pay for them procrastinating.
On the post: US Trade Rep Appears To Misreport Its Own Trade Agreement To Include Copyright Extension
Re: "Oh darn, I guess we have no choice but to raise it again..."
They have done enough shitty things that they may perceive that public perception of them is turning against them, and that regardless of how much they contribute to legislators campaigns, there might be enough backlash to undo them. Now whether that backlash turns into reverting copyright to reasonable terms, I doubt it, but hope so.
Like you, no breath holding here.
On the post: US Trade Rep Appears To Misreport Its Own Trade Agreement To Include Copyright Extension
Trade Agreement
For that matter, Trade Negotiations have a greater security clearance than the Nuclear Codes, so what else don't we actually know?
On the post: US Trade Rep Appears To Misreport Its Own Trade Agreement To Include Copyright Extension
Re: Re:
On the other hand, it might be competitive to the WWE, and probably more entertaining. Can you build a straw man that will fight another straw man, with flames, and WIN? Creativity, action, adventure, eye-candy for TV, and FLAMES. More than the WWE delivers.
And to satisfy Mexico, they could wear weird masks.
(It's likely that the 'straw men' will be robots encased in straw, and susceptible to fire (cardboard or paper laminates instead of metal or plastic frameworks) and lots of employment as new 'straw men' would need to be built for every match, of which there could be a lot, as no one would need rest or recuperation time)
I expect royalty checks of this comes to fruition.
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: Inevitable Bias -- A modest proposal
On the other hand, anything that encourages the shit posters to post is not a good thing for the rest of us. Let them disagree. Let them post those disagreements in a conversational tone. Let them be coherent. Let them not insult everyone who is not them. They often, or even regularly, do not.
One method to preserving cordial conversation is to not 'feed the trolls'. Your expression of finding them 'entertaining' is a form of feeding, even if surreptitiously.
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re: Meaninglessness
To know whether 'nature' intended anything goes further into belief systems than I care to venture, but only because our discussion of what god you believe in vs the god I believe in would take over the conversation. Nature, intended? I don't know about that, but it certainly promoted some things and denigrated others. How that choice was made is not yet known, for absolute fact. The chemistry, yes, but the choice, no.
To prefer to grow something, in the Internet conversation sense, means that a particular 'bias' is inherent in the website. Some do, some don't. Some try to be neutral, others don't try so hard. If a website or a service tries to be neutral and fails at it, it is not bias. We could call it many names, but bias might not apply.
Here we don't disagree. I never said otherwise.
(limited to the first definition as the others don't apply)
I am using definition 'c', whereas others may be using different definitions. Even when using the term 'bias' I am thinking more about 'discrimination or preference' (see below), which is why I chose definition 'c'.
In the end nature vs nurture might just be applicable. If one has an inherent 'bias' to use the definitions I did not, then it seems to be nurture, whereas if one does not impose 'bias' and 'bias' is perceived, then it might just be nature exposing its dark side. Some of nature is good, some bad. There are things that nature produces 'naturally' that are inherently poisonous. There are others that are are not. Then again, that might pertain to the species consuming.
If one reads Techdirt and presumes it has a liberal 'bias' then they should look into their perception system. If one reads Techdirt and presumes a conservative 'bias' then they should look into their perception system. If one reads Techdirt and does not impose 'bias' then it is likely that their perception system is working, as Techdirt tries not to impose any political 'bias', but looks at various things as to how they might be good or bad in relation to everybody, not just one or the other (meaning conservative or liberal or R or D or any other descriptor).
On the post: Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale
Re: Re: Re: Re: Inevitable Bias -- A modest proposal
For the rest of us, wading through the crap espoused by the most flagged person on this page, we would prefer wading through a biologically sound pool of different, yet not toxic discussion. Opposing us is not the issue, how the opposition is presented 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: Inevitable Bias -- A modest proposal
Bias in not limited to humans making political decisions, nor to humans deciding whether they like chocolate ice cream or pistachio ice cream. Nature itself has bias. Just think evolution, and whether you believe in evolution or not, things change, over time, whether we impact them or not. Whether we control them or not. Nature does it.
On the post: Two-Person Police Department's Million Dollar Military Gear Grab Ends In Arrest Of Police Chief
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The direction of Government...
On the post: Two-Person Police Department's Million Dollar Military Gear Grab Ends In Arrest Of Police Chief
Where are the Feds?
On the post: Appeals Court: City-Owned Utility Pulling Electric Use Info Every 15 Minutes Is A Search
Re: Great.
Wet tea leaves are the same as marijuana to some cops. Why wouldn't they stretch their imaginations in your case? Hey, there is even a so called equal protection clause in the Constitution that states "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." and with the Supreme Court saying that law enforcement officers don't actually have to know the laws they enforce, I am seriously surprised we are not all in jail.
/s
On the post: T-Mobile Begs Small Wireless Carriers To Support Its Awful Merger. The Problem: They Hate It Too
Re: Not exactly "devastating"
On the post: Another Prison Phone Service Caught Recording Privileged Conversations And Passing Them On To Law Enforcement
Re: Recording is not the real issue.
Isn't the real problem not only that the information was used to inform the prosecutors what the defense strategy was in order to gain convictions, but also that now those cases are complete, the defense strategy is again known, and even offering a retrial would not rectify the harm, especially if the defendant was found not guilty the second time around.
Also, as I am not a lawyer, shouldn't the possession of such information be considered Brady material? It would most certainly be embarrassing, but isn't the prosecutor required to give up any information that might aid the defense. That the prosecutors had illegal privileged information would have certainly helped the defense.
On the post: Trump's Anti-press Rhetoric Is Dangerous, But His Actions Are Worse
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
That there was some interference with the elections, and possibly by some Russians, is still under investigation. Guess who is causing the slowness of the investigation?
The question that I do not hear being addresses is; since the Electoral College, and not the popular vote, elected the president, whom did the interference effect?
Your point of view is that the problem lies with anyone not Republican. That is, if nothing, short sighted. That we have an Electoral College still, that we have soft money in politics, that we still have political parties, and others, are the problems.
Your point of view is seriously one sided, and I am having a hard time to figure out what side that actually is.
On the post: Trump's Anti-press Rhetoric Is Dangerous, But His Actions Are Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I don't wonder much, I won't be looking to see. But it does relate to the original question.
On the post: Facebook's 'Privacy Protecting' VPN Booted From Apple Store For Snooping Too Much
Re:
The appropriate response is in most cases a flag for abusive commentary and not to respond otherwise. To some degree, we have valued community members who like to argue. They do not see that the rest of us have to suffer. I respond, sometimes, but when the other party shows their desire to argue, rather than discuss, I quit. Others, not so much. I hope they will learn that quitting is better than getting their arguing merit badges. Not matter how good it might make you feel for the moment.
On the post: Facebook's 'Privacy Protecting' VPN Booted From Apple Store For Snooping Too Much
Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN's through VPN's
Thing is, politicians are bad, it does not matter which of the various sides they are on (there are more than two if you haven't been paying attention), and that they need money to get re-elected is bad.
I know that you have gone into my history and looked for ways to denigrate me. Have at it. I don't care much. But if you look further, you will find what I have to say about how to go about changing things. There is more than one post, so don't stop at the first one you find. Look back. And then there are the years that I was not a member, but used the moniker Anonymous Anonymous Coward, and then there are the years that I was merely an Anonymous Coward. Just reading my writings will not tell you who I am. But reading my writings will give you a clue. As of now, you have no clue.
On the post: Trump's Anti-press Rhetoric Is Dangerous, But His Actions Are Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
Politicians have dirty hands. It does not matter whether they are R's or D's or Other's. They all have dirty hands. They need to do so in order to be re-elected. That they desire to be re-elected is a big problem. That they need to listen to corpratocracy in order to get the money to be re-elected is also a problems. That they are R's or D's or Other's is an additional, and not irrelevant problem. Having an ideology that is not 'for the people' is a problem.
Denigrating an incumbent, whatever their position (and that means the President as well), for not being for the people is a good thing. Equal justice based on the facts needs to be upheld, is a true statement, so long as the facts are not manipulated...something that is at issue.
On the post: Trump's Anti-press Rhetoric Is Dangerous, But His Actions Are Worse
Re: Re:
Another question might be, what is the current editorial policy at the Washington Post? I don't have an answer to that, nor have I looked. At some point, someone might find that Bezos is imprinting his (whatever it is) ideology on that newspaper. On the other hand, he might have said, do what you do, and given them a free hand. Until we hear some analysis, we won't know.
On the post: Trump's Anti-press Rhetoric Is Dangerous, But His Actions Are Worse
Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
You are correct in that for a conspiracy, no other crime need be committed. The fact remains that the administration has called both collusion and conspiracy as acts of their detractors. Short of defamation, detractors can say anything they want. That is, until the government intervenes, then it becomes expensive expression. Which to me would seem to be a 1st Amendment violation. Collecting from the government when they lose the suit is...well an exercise in futility. It might happen, but they have the long wallet, or erm, all the patience in the world. Takes us to court again, and again, and again. We pay for them procrastinating.
On the post: Facebook's 'Privacy Protecting' VPN Booted From Apple Store For Snooping Too Much
Re: Oh, by the way: Google too is just great at privacy! Tracks location when "off"!
Yeah, Techdirt totally missed that.
Next >>