Funny, I don't see you living in a teepee. Seems like your ancestors came over and set-up mini-versions of your own culture.
No, they created a new one, as evidenced by the fact that you also don't see serfs and a titled noble class, which were both common throughout Europe at the time.
Integration is literally the very meaning of the word "American." The term was invented by Benjamin Franklin to get people to stop thinking of themselves as Irish and English and German and Dutch and whatever else, to let go of the lives that they had left behind--because they had chosen to leave them behind, so why continue to cling to them?--and focus instead on what they had chosen to come and be a part of instead. (Note: yes, that absolutely does mean that anyone using hyphenated "something-American" terms are completely missing the point.)
I know where my ancestors came from, before they showed up here. They were from all over the place, a little bit here, a little bit there, but I don't identify with any of those nationalities or cultures. I'm American, and that's all. That's good enough for me, and if it's not good enough for someone else, then why are they coming to live here in the first place?
There's nothing bigoted about that. There's nothing degrading to point out that when you freely choose to live in Rome, you're expected to do as the Romans do, except perhaps insofar as it highlights how dumb someone is for having to be told something so obvious in the first place.
But really that's just plain common sense, and it works both ways. When I spent some time in Argentina, I didn't try to live like an American; I learned their language and their culture. I learned to appreciate their food, (to this day I find it frustrating how difficult it is to get ahold of alfajores--Argentine snack cookies--in the USA), and even to not be weirded out by stuff like greeting everyone, of either gender, with a kiss on the cheek or widespread breast feeding in public. Because that's what you do when you're living in a different country: you learn to live the way they do. And you do this because you understand that if you don't, you'll be making trouble for yourself and those around you.
So when someone points out the simple truth that people who refuse to do so are causing trouble and violating the basic social contract, can we please not jump all over them for it?
Kyle Wiens called it "copyright creep", Mike said that someone else calls it "copyright immigration". Why not simply call it what it is: a "get out of competition free card". That's what it's truly about: abusing DRM to ensure that competitors are locked out of being able to service equipment you produced.
If the farmers never agreed to share their data with John Deere, how is what they are doing not illegal (and highly actionable!) industrial espionage?
Mike said, "it's very tough to explain the innovations you don't have yet." This brings to mind something Henry Ford once said: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
Kyle says, "I'm kind of wondering if this [won't be] the last triennial review." Let's hope so! Hopefully because somewhere within the next 3 years, the DMCA will be repealed.
WRT international obligations, every time someone brings this up I always wonder, why is it that it's so easy to enter into a bad treaty, but you never hear of the country withdrawing from one?
Think of it as abusing the legal system for publicity.
Well, yes, you already said "PETA", so abusive publicity stunts can be assumed up-front.
But as PETA stunts go, this is a pretty mild one. At least they're not supporting terrorists or encouraging high school kids to drink beer this time...
What's never acknowledged in these rulings is that removing links from search engine results is pretty much the same thing as removing it from the original websites. If search engines can't "find" it, it ceases to exist for all intents and purposes.
I often see this accepted as an article of faith, but how true is it really? I run a few websites, and I get maybe 20% of my traffic from general-purpose search engines such as Google. The vast majority of it comes in as links from more specialized sites.
You might sound like a conspiracy theorist if the companies weren't openly bragging about this to their shareholders. When you find a drug that turns cancer from a death sentence into a chronic condition, where you just take a pill every day (for the rest of your life!) and it keeps the cancer in check, that's the holy grail of for-profit pharmaceutical research.
I will say, at the very least, that it's somewhat refreshing to hear a government representative admit that at least some part of aiport and passenger security boils down to the feel-goods, but I'm of the opinion that a security agency unconcerned about security probably shouldn't be allowed to exist any longer. Especially when that same agency has been touting those same useless locks for years to passengers.
The bad job they're doing notwithstanding, it doesn't help your case when you twist their words. Luggage locks have nothing to do with "airport and passenger security".
If someone steals stuff out of your luggage, that's no fun for you, but it does not pose a threat to aviation security (keeping planes from coming down when or where they shouldn't). It just poses a threat to the security of your luggage, which is not the TSA's mandate, which appears to be the point that Mr. England is making.
We're not seeing this mass migration to skinny bundles. In fact, in the second quarter, roughly 82 percent of our video connects took the preferred bundle…which is the fattest of the fat bundle.
So roughly 18 percent--almost one-fifth--of your "connects" migrated to skinny bundles in the first two quarters alone and you don't see a mass migration?
KO: Pooh-Bah, it seems that the festivities in connection with my approaching marriage must last a week. I should like to do it handsomely, and I want to consult you as to the amount ought to spend upon them. POOH: Certainly. In which of my capacities? As First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chamberlain, Attorney General, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Privy Purse, or Private Secretary? KO: Suppose we say as Private Secretary. POOH: Speaking as your Private Secretary, I should say that, as the city will have to pay for it, don't stint yourself, do it well. KO: Exactly—as the city will have to pay for it. That is your advice. POOH: As Private Secretary. Of course you will understand that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am bound to see that due economy is observed. KO: Oh! But you said just now "Don't stint yourself, do it well". POOH: As Private Secretary. KO: And now you say that due economy must be observed. POOH: As Chancellor of the Exchequer. KO: I see. Come over here, where the Chancellor can't hear us. (They cross the stage.) Now, as my Solicitor, how do you advise me to deal with this difficulty? POOH: Oh, as your Solicitor, I should have no hesitation in saying "Chance it——" KO: Thank you. (Shaking his hand.) I will. POOH: If it were not that, as Lord Chief Justice, I am bound to see that the law isn't violated. KO: I see. Come over here where the Chief Justice can't hear us. (They cross the stage.) Now, then, as First Lord of the Treasury? POOH: Of course, as First Lord of the Treasury, I could propose a special vote that would cover all expenses, if it were not that, as Leader of the Opposition, it would be my duty to resist it, tooth and nail. Or, as Paymaster General, I could so cook the accounts that, as Lord High Auditor, I should never discover the fraud. But then, as Archbishop of Titipu, it would be my duty to denounce my dishonesty and give myself into my own custody as first Commissioner of Police. KO: That's extremely awkward.
No, the problem is with people, such as yourself, using a ridiculous analogy involving taking something away from someone, which does not happen when you make a copy of something.
You know, it occurs to me that when someone is hired as a specialist, to do one specific thing, and they consistently screw that up, most reasonable people would consider that grounds for firing them.
Also, you WANT companies to have First Amendment rights.
Speak for yourself. I want people--including employees or spokespeople for companies--to have First Amendment rights, but human rights are for humans. Period.
Comcast recently filed a brief in which they claim that our communications--yours and mine--that flow over their network are their speech and that they therefore have a First Amendment right to exercise editorial control over it, that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for the government to force them to transmit speech that they do not agree with.
I believe the technical term for this idea is "crazy talk." They are lacking the single most important prerequisite for any sane third party to agree with the idea that they have a right to exercise editorial control over our content: no one hired them as an editor! They were hired as a delivery service, and therefore their claim makes exactly as much sense as FedEx would if they were to hypothetically assert a First Amendment right to not ship a book that's critical of FedEx that you or I bought on Amazon.
How did we get from the hippie generation of love and freedom to the oppression of our youth in such a short amount of time?
Well, the part where the hippies' ideals imploded in the face of reality and most of them ended up growing up and becoming yuppies obsessed with materialism, the generation that's screwed up this country (and a good deal of the rest of the world) just in time for them to start retiring and living off the backs of their kids since they neglected to properly save for retirement, leaving all the messes they created for us to clean up, probably had something to do with it...
On the post: Donald Trump Threatens Ridiculous Defamation Lawsuit Over Attack Ad
Re: Re: watched the GOP debates for once
No, they created a new one, as evidenced by the fact that you also don't see serfs and a titled noble class, which were both common throughout Europe at the time.
Integration is literally the very meaning of the word "American." The term was invented by Benjamin Franklin to get people to stop thinking of themselves as Irish and English and German and Dutch and whatever else, to let go of the lives that they had left behind--because they had chosen to leave them behind, so why continue to cling to them?--and focus instead on what they had chosen to come and be a part of instead. (Note: yes, that absolutely does mean that anyone using hyphenated "something-American" terms are completely missing the point.)
I know where my ancestors came from, before they showed up here. They were from all over the place, a little bit here, a little bit there, but I don't identify with any of those nationalities or cultures. I'm American, and that's all. That's good enough for me, and if it's not good enough for someone else, then why are they coming to live here in the first place?
There's nothing bigoted about that. There's nothing degrading to point out that when you freely choose to live in Rome, you're expected to do as the Romans do, except perhaps insofar as it highlights how dumb someone is for having to be told something so obvious in the first place.
But really that's just plain common sense, and it works both ways. When I spent some time in Argentina, I didn't try to live like an American; I learned their language and their culture. I learned to appreciate their food, (to this day I find it frustrating how difficult it is to get ahold of alfajores--Argentine snack cookies--in the USA), and even to not be weirded out by stuff like greeting everyone, of either gender, with a kiss on the cheek or widespread breast feeding in public. Because that's what you do when you're living in a different country: you learn to live the way they do. And you do this because you understand that if you don't, you'll be making trouble for yourself and those around you.
So when someone points out the simple truth that people who refuse to do so are causing trouble and violating the basic social contract, can we please not jump all over them for it?
On the post: Jeb Bush Proudly Promises To Axe Net Neutrality If Elected
Filled *with* countless open meetings?
On the post: DailyDirt: Making Progress Towards Fusion (Again)
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Making Progress Towards Fusion (Again)
Re:
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 43: Why Do We Let An 86 Year Old Librarian Decide Who's Allowed To Innovate?
If the farmers never agreed to share their data with John Deere, how is what they are doing not illegal (and highly actionable!) industrial espionage?
Mike said, "it's very tough to explain the innovations you don't have yet." This brings to mind something Henry Ford once said: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
Kyle says, "I'm kind of wondering if this [won't be] the last triennial review." Let's hope so! Hopefully because somewhere within the next 3 years, the DMCA will be repealed.
WRT international obligations, every time someone brings this up I always wonder, why is it that it's so easy to enter into a bad treaty, but you never hear of the country withdrawing from one?
On the post: Monkey Business: PETA Sues On Behalf Of The Monkey Selfie; Claims Copyright Belongs To The Monkey
Well, yes, you already said "PETA", so abusive publicity stunts can be assumed up-front.
But as PETA stunts go, this is a pretty mild one. At least they're not supporting terrorists or encouraging high school kids to drink beer this time...
On the post: French Regulating Body Says Google Must Honor Right To Be Forgotten Across All Of Its Domains
I often see this accepted as an article of faith, but how true is it really? I run a few websites, and I get maybe 20% of my traffic from general-purpose search engines such as Google. The vast majority of it comes in as links from more specialized sites.
On the post: French Regulating Body Says Google Must Honor Right To Be Forgotten Across All Of Its Domains
Re: Google is doing it wrong...
On the post: Company Acquires Rights To Drug Used By AIDS/Cancer Patients; Immediately Raises Per Pill Price From Under $14 To $750
Re: Re: When corpses are just numbers
On the post: Company Acquires Rights To Drug Used By AIDS/Cancer Patients; Immediately Raises Per Pill Price From Under $14 To $750
It's their new slogan
On the post: Why Backdoors Always Suck: The TSA Travel Locks Were Hacked And The TSA Doesn't Care
The bad job they're doing notwithstanding, it doesn't help your case when you twist their words. Luggage locks have nothing to do with "airport and passenger security".
If someone steals stuff out of your luggage, that's no fun for you, but it does not pose a threat to aviation security (keeping planes from coming down when or where they shouldn't). It just poses a threat to the security of your luggage, which is not the TSA's mandate, which appears to be the point that Mr. England is making.
On the post: Time Warner Cable CEO: Cable TV Pricing Is So High Because We're The Mercedes Of Entertainment
So roughly 18 percent--almost one-fifth--of your "connects" migrated to skinny bundles in the first two quarters alone and you don't see a mass migration?
Dude is either blind or delusional.
On the post: Texas Attorney General Sues Self To Stop Self From Releasing Documents He Says Can't Be Released
On the post: Appeals Court: It Is In The Public's Interest That Samsung Not Be Allowed To 'Slide To Unlock' Devices
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court: It Is In The Public's Interest That Samsung Not Be Allowed To 'Slide To Unlock' Devices
Re: Re: Re:
Got any legitimate arguments to present?
On the post: Appeals Court: It Is In The Public's Interest That Samsung Not Be Allowed To 'Slide To Unlock' Devices
You had one job...
On the post: FCC: Sorry, No -- Net Neutrality Does Not Violate ISPs' First Amendment Rights
Re: Re:
Speak for yourself. I want people--including employees or spokespeople for companies--to have First Amendment rights, but human rights are for humans. Period.
On the post: FCC: Sorry, No -- Net Neutrality Does Not Violate ISPs' First Amendment Rights
It gets worse
I believe the technical term for this idea is "crazy talk." They are lacking the single most important prerequisite for any sane third party to agree with the idea that they have a right to exercise editorial control over our content: no one hired them as an editor! They were hired as a delivery service, and therefore their claim makes exactly as much sense as FedEx would if they were to hypothetically assert a First Amendment right to not ship a book that's critical of FedEx that you or I bought on Amazon.
On the post: Sexting Teens Sentenced To A Year Without Cellphones And All The Warrantless Searches They Can Be Subjected To
Re: Case of justice gone wild?
Well, the part where the hippies' ideals imploded in the face of reality and most of them ended up growing up and becoming yuppies obsessed with materialism, the generation that's screwed up this country (and a good deal of the rest of the world) just in time for them to start retiring and living off the backs of their kids since they neglected to properly save for retirement, leaving all the messes they created for us to clean up, probably had something to do with it...
On the post: NYPD Union Prez Patrick Lynch: Only Police Are Qualified To Judge The Actions Of Police
Re: Don't protect bad cops. It puts good cops in danger.
Next >>