Re: Re: 'You broke the deal, we're returning the favor.'
"Oh well, they'll awaken and find their mistake - a little too late to do anything about it."
So THEY will do NOTHING and go nappies, and one day THEY will awaken, and it will be too late "to do anything."
Get off your lazy ass and do something before you throw it under the carpet and take your mid-day nap pretending everything wrong with society is OTHER people's problems and THEY will fix it for you, or not if it's too late.
If you don't have the brains, guts, energy, or gumption to DO SOMETHING to make a difference, please don't preach laziness to the rest of us.
Pons and Fleischman are turning in their respective scholarships, custom eponymous school, and a lifetime of success, sans any professional respect for gross incompetence, of course.
Lots of people didn't patent things. Our society is better for it. They did not need an "incentive" to "create".
The question here isn't one of whether Big Pharma CAN patent, it is whether they SHOULD given that the funding was public. This hearkens back to Australia's CSIRO and WiFI. Don't get me wrong, I love Australia, Aussies, and WiFi. Just not when it all goes to billing the whole world for it. https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/tools-resources/case-studies/csiro-wlan-patent
Moderna has a claim, but it should be secondary to its debt to US taxpayers for funding the research. Public funds should provide for public good.
I have no problem with Moderna getting plenty of profit...
I do have that problem, and I didn't author this article. One voice does not speak for the entire country of tax-paying people who contributed to this vaccine.
One voice cannot speak as to whether it's legitimate or not for Moderna to be ballhogs.
It's not about whether you or I "have a problem with Moderna..." or not. It's 100% about whether Moderna should be allowed to steal the patent rights to a technology they developed as a work for hire, got paid $900M for, and don't own.
I suspect not. Again, my opinion isn't the determining factor here... the law SHOULD be. Attempts to say "Well maybe they do and maybe they do but I personally don't think blah blah blah" just serve to legitimize this crap.
Thanks for letting us all know what you command us to do. Sadly, you lack any expertise, authority, and authorization to demand we comply with your demands.
The public deserves the ability to be as safe as possible in their flights. That this doesn't track well with FCC allocations is, as you point out, a reason to move, but not a demand for such, a deadline for such, or a requirement for such.
RADAR altimeters are a thing, and as of around 2018 (can't find the exact date right now) a requirement not just for FAA Part 135 operators but also Part 121 and 91 LOA operators, and they were so excited to have to put in $10K/AC (aircraft) RADALT units it's equally likely they'll be just as excited to have those retro-fitted to another frequency band.
So get with the program yourself and stop telling other people to incur a $10K+ expense just because you think "work with the FCC" means something.
Go fix the republicans preventing minority votes and come back and pontificate.
Disclosure: I hold licenses from the FCC and certificates from the FAA.
The FCC's focus is on communication, and safety isn't even an afterthought since communication nowadays mostly works. Handheld GPS radio+SMS devices are sub $300... no problem.
The FAA's focus is on aviation, and safety is a huge concern. The FAA has many programs to improve flight safety.
If the FCC makes an error, a communication may be affected. That doesn't mean 40 countries doing something for a few months is anything other than anecdotal. Worse, a failure to communicate often results in a retransmission, not an incident report.
If the FAA makes an error, people could die (and no, I'm not being melodramatic here), and some of those PEOPLE DYING COULD BE CHILDREN. Collecting valid statistical data to prevent incident and accidents weighs a bit more heavily than "Oh, I guess you can't hear me. I'm in a bad area. Let me try again."
So while I don't think the FAA is flawless... nor do I think anything that the Ajit Pai FCC and its dregs is flawless... one is entrusted with with the lives of billions of flying public throughout the year, and the other is entrusted with enriching duopolies.
Not the same thing, and they should not be judged by the same gravitas of criteria.
Imessage has always been known to be insecure. If one signs on on a new device the previous message history and message threads are displayed. That's not secure.
Whatsapp has been known to be insecure for at least the last five years. The fact that the message content is insecure AND they're willing to 'play ball' with Jackboot LEO thugs without a warrant just adds fuel to a long-burning fire.
Thus far Whisper Systems' Signal is the only e2e encrypted app that provides a functionality equivalent to what it says -- your message content is yours and the recipients' to deal with... not Signal, not LEOs, and not pen register/taps.
The CDT opined on pen registers in the Internet age 21 years ago... and yet.. not only has no responsive legislation been passed (or even proposed) but the Internet companies aren't fighting them. https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/security/000404amending.shtml
Workaround 1: Use Signal instead of WhatsApp, Apple proprietary broken apps, or anything else that reveals content you didn't want revealed.
Solution 1: exhort your congress critters to do something useful to update the laws to respect our constitutional rights, including the 4th and 5th amendments. As such, no "without a warrant" sharing of information mandate, and no penalties for ignoring [what should be] unlawful fishing expeditions using a pen trace.
Microsoft will always be Microsoft. If you put it on your back and help it cross the river, it will sting you. That's Microsoft.
On the day researchers showed ALL Windows versions have a zero-day exploit Microsoft tried and failed to patch, and another one in the wings... the only people who believe anything Microsoft says are what we call "suckers."
The way to defeat this is to stop buying their products. Don't buy PC/Xbox-only games. No more MS consoles. Let them drown in production costs they can't recoup. Now THAT would be a free market.
Yes, there is that. There are also penalties under section f that are supposed to apply to those who file false DMCA complaints. To the best of my knowledge no court has applied those penalties.
In the current shove to remove women's rights, undo legal votes, and allow right-wing nutjobs to undo the 1st amendment and any subsequent protections (like section 230)... it might behoove these elected non-representatives to take a step back from their petty 2-party squabbles and consider:
clearinghouse for notices so that the ability to verify a human identity of the notice filer exists. See more on why below...
real penalties to those whose DMCA notices contain false information. Note: a script is unable to swear under oath.
add penalties for legally deficient notices. Judges don't let deficient filings get by - neither should the law.
fee shifting. If a DMCA notice is challenged and removed, filer pays the winner. This also implies no script notices.
fair-use IS part of the copyright law (17USC) and it should be considered as a RIGHT ... PRIOR to any takedown. Failure to do so should be penalized. How about if someone takes down my fair-use content I get statutory damages of $150,000 multiplied by everyone who attempts to access that content?
Of course none of this will happen, because
Oh and they flat out own enough congress critters to get their way. -- That Anonymous Coward
My very respectful regards and thanks to the veterans who have served to protect the freedoms we have today, and the sacrifices made by them and their families. Veterans' Day in the US is all day. Thank a vet.
Mike has covered the issues with automated takedown requests and the resulting takedown ad nauseum. TL;DR - It doesn't work.
On the ISP end, we received notices daily of our clients' file sharing. No matter how we replied we got crickets. Finally we updated our website's DMCA policy to say that if they can't comply with the law we'll be happy to educate them, and the rates. More crickets but we could just delete and ignore. ALL takedown notices in a 20 year period were legally deficient.
Moral of that one: end-user servicing companies can delete and ignore. More on this in a second.
Second Example: At home we have two open access points, and every now and then an email appears from CableCo giving a notice of infringement. No matter how I've replied that too gets crickets.
Moral of that one: intermediary companies don't care either.
Now on all the "delete and ignore stuff", people often frame this --as in this article-- that the safe harbor provisions means "if you bow to every request you'll be safe from expensive litigation, and NOBODY wants to do that."
Safe Harbor: there are plenty of cases where that has not worked out for the service provider who did nothing wrong and everything right. A "safe harbor" that sinks your boat is not worth anything.
Lawsuit Costs: when litigation occurs both sides pay a lot. With the exception of absurdly overinflated statutory fines, it's often not worth the squeeze to get the juice.
My conclusions: don't hire law-profs and junior newbs to represent you against Sony. Sorry, Mr. Tenenbaum. Secondly, if you're going to hack Sony's equipment, don't settle by admitting you won't do stuff you didn't admit you did. Sorry, Mr. Hotz. And finally, if we don't tolerate bullying in schools (but it's there) and the military (it's there) and the workplace (it's there) ... why do we allow these companies to bully everyone... and then blame the victim for not obeying instructions, or not blame the bully?
October 27 - Judge says "Hey I really wanna know who's paying for this. Ignoring barratry, maintenance [and possibly champerty], the standard for defamation relies on knowing this. He gave them till November 2nd.
November 9th - one week after the deadline. Crickets?
Maybe for once we can agree on something, but I want to differentiate between "One person told a story they personally experienced" vs "A well respected lab test shows X."
The concept you are espousing taints all anecdotal information, but that's not realistic. People prefer their own personal stories, but that doesn't make the stories false, or the information invalid.
If anecdotal information was not accepted as data, our methods of having witnesses at trial (they lie) or customers on the support line (they lie) would fail.
Prior to recorded history*, the scientific method, and critical observation, anecdotal information was considered data. Now we have the revisionists who want their own agendas to color what is and is not data. One such revisionist organization even has a class to teach about it. The implementation is not bad, but the presumed concept is inherently flawed: https://curriculum.idsucla.org/unit3/lesson1/
To ensure that the anecdotal information is good data there are methods to ensure integrity of the information and any conclusions drawn from it... just as with any other information source. That's all part of validation of data, regardless if it's an Aunt Minnie situation or a JAMA article.
Simple methods that are often not followed, which makes the information ineligible to be the foundation for conclusions:
Label sources so others know where the information originated and how.
Provide a mechanism for others to replicate the conclusions
Ensure the conclusion doesn't draw from information not in evidence (e.g. US Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 703). Also Australia's Rule 702 regarding expert testimony is another good example of this delineation.
So -- yes -- anecdotal information is not as valid for building a foundation for theory or conclusion as is laboratory-verified replicable tests. It is, however, data.
Ehud
Even with recorded history, videos of the US moon landing of the Apollo 11 mission in 1966, many people (idiots IMO) still claim it's faked. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/10/one-giant-lie-why-so-many-people-still-think-the-moo n-landings-were-faked. We have recorded video, audio, terrain samples, and a history of many missions leading up to this... and yet, this "data" is considered worse than anecdotal... actual premeditated conspiracy to defraud the entire planet. There are many other examples (e.g. Trump and his stolen election). The point is all of us should critically examine what we read, view, see, and hear with an eye and an ear to validate replicable data from one-time personal stories.
And now you're saying you're stupid for having confused murder and homicide? Shall we make it about your illiteracy. No.
ALPRs allow ex-post facto policing, which in the civilized world is against constitutional and other legal guidelines. That's the problem. Just imagine the next step. Cameras everywhere, infinite recording capacity, and the ability to intelligently search to locate something.
Why would there be crime when everyone is watching?
Because criminals. That's why
Enjoy calling people stupid. I guess if it makes you happy, you go, girl.
There's nothing I can say that will convince a third-world laughtivist of anything.
One day you can read what I wrote. I answered your comments. There are not "numerous rules associated[means nothing] with being legally allowed[more begged questions already addressed] to use public roadways.
So again, you've begged the question, assumed it to be a fact, and built atop a broken foundation.
Now, how are those taxes collected?
Annual bills from the taxing authority -- motor vehicle department. Next?
Presumably while being laughed at by the rest of the world.
Listen, if you want to make it "third world vs the United States" thing, that is your right -- in my country. Maybe in yours you have freedom of speech too -- I hope so.
You can't be BOTHERED TO READ CAPITAL LETTERS... got it.
Murder is premeditated. It IS planned ahead of time. ALL murders are. That's what makes them murder, vs, for example, accidental death, manslaughter, etc.
As for the detterence (and recidivism) the current systems of law enforcement and imprisonment definitely are ineffective at preventing crime, or repeat offenders. So, yes on that one.
Note: This started out short, but in time became longer. The TL;DR version is this: DO NOT ACCEPT BEGGED QUESTIONS AS FACT, and then BUILD ON THEM. Your foundation is breached.
You can always accept government overreach and pretend to yourself that THIS is ok, but those who complain about it, or about something that results from it are the bad guys. Such is how "authorities" (authorities on what?) diminish your rights and grant you NOTHING in return. No diminished crime, no greater accountability, just more "law enforcement" of laws not for the greater good of society. But let's go to the question:
...why is it a problem to display something to confirm that your vehicle is PROPERLY REGISTERED AND AUTHORISED...
[emphasis mine[
Why is it a begged question that vehicles must be registered? In the US bicycles are not registered yet they have full, equal, and in some cases greater access to the public roadways.
Why must a car be registered? A bicycle has more rights and isn't required to be registered in the entire United States. The second largest country in North America says no need to do so...
What about pedestrians? Should we beg that question also and REQUIRE that pedestrians be PROPERLY REGISTERED (whatever "properly" means) and AUTHORI[S/Z]ED to be on public roadways?
The assumption is
at some point PTB said all vehicles must have a unique identification number (VIN). That is now a begged question. Bicycles don't have these, nor do pedestrians.
at some point, PTB said all vehicles must be registered. (Still don't quite get the whole "properly" bit). That same VIN is now used to tie a vehicle to a recurring tax that has a tax-stamp called a registration, often associated with a "really easy for LEOs to spot a mile away" thing called a license plate. It's nothing more than proof of paying tax. Taxes are not inherently wrong -- part of being in a social contract is paying for it. Do call a spade a spade though, instead of assuming it to be ok because government said so.
at some point PTB said proof of same is a requirement, must be displayed so it can be visible from some specific distance, and that failure to display it provides REASON TO ELIMINATE THE PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO LEO HARASSMENT.
During the cold war... there were lots of criticism of Nazi Germany asking drivers for "your papers, please." If these papers were not 100% perfect one could hear "Your papers are not in order."
How much different is that from "I stopped you because your license plate sticker is out of date. Please give me your driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of vehicle liability insurance." and "Oh, one of these is expired. Your papers are not in order."
I decline to
beg the question of why we need VINs. Car theft has not reduced nor have chop-shops gone out of business because of these.
beg the question of why we need to broadly display that we paid our registration for that year [or whatever your taxes are]
beg the question of why this "makes the vehicle properly registered and authorised" for anything, let alone access to taxpayer-funded public road[way]s
Feel free to give up your rights. In the United States we still get to pretend we have some. At times government convinces us that we don't have these as rights... they are a privilege.
For my taxes that pay for roadways, I do have the right to travel. Apparently I need to pay extra to do so in a motor vehicle with a VIN. If you get bored, check out YouTube's VINWiki. You'd likely be surprised how flexible the system is if you just don't assume all those begged questions can be safely ignored and accepted as fact.
I did say it was long, but if you've read this to its end, you know we are at yet another cusp of losing rights/privileges. ALPRs allow time-travel inspection of vehicle movement. Minority Report has nothing on this. It is not today a violation of US 4th Amendment laws against unreasonable search and seizure... and yet, if accused of a crime, it sure can be.
Brian "I killed Gabby" Laundrie was charged with a crime -- using her debit (some say credit) card without permission. LEOs have no evidence this happened, because she's (sadly) unable to testify as to whether she permitted him to use her card or not. That's enough say-so to allow ALPR record searches to see where Brian was, went, ended up (hiding in Florida with fake dental records allowing people to excuse him being dead... but he's not.)
At some point, We The People need to take a stand and say "no mas." For me that's ALPRs, because I'm guilty of being part of that same VIN+REGISTRATION+AUTHORIZATION generation.
I'm not really seeing how this relates to my interest.
Okay.
Jeff Bezos is a person.
Amazon, Inc. is a corporation.
The two are not the same.
YOU want to conflate the two. You don't get to do that. Someone's OWNERSHIP OF STOCK or MANAGEMENT OF A CORPORATION doesn't impart personal liability.
Here's an analogy. I own IBM stock. I am not responsible for what the corporation does. I could even be part of their management team. I'm still not responsible for what the corporation does.
Love Bezos, hate Bezos, love Musk, hate Musk, love Warren, hate Warren, love Bill, hate Bill, love Steve Jobs (liver stealer is dead btw) or hate him... THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS. They are NOT the corporations.
On the post: How The Financialization Of Music Could Lead To Demands For Perpetual Copyright
Re: Re: 'You broke the deal, we're returning the favor.'
"Oh well, they'll awaken and find their mistake - a little too late to do anything about it."
So THEY will do NOTHING and go nappies, and one day THEY will awaken, and it will be too late "to do anything."
Get off your lazy ass and do something before you throw it under the carpet and take your mid-day nap pretending everything wrong with society is OTHER people's problems and THEY will fix it for you, or not if it's too late.
If you don't have the brains, guts, energy, or gumption to DO SOMETHING to make a difference, please don't preach laziness to the rest of us.
On the post: The US Gov't Paid For Moderna To Develop Its Vaccine; But Moderna Wants To Keep The Patent All To Itself
Cold fusion
Pons and Fleischman are turning in their respective scholarships, custom eponymous school, and a lifetime of success, sans any professional respect for gross incompetence, of course.
On the post: The US Gov't Paid For Moderna To Develop Its Vaccine; But Moderna Wants To Keep The Patent All To Itself
Jonas Salk, Louis Pasteur, Marie Curie, et al
Lots of people didn't patent things. Our society is better for it. They did not need an "incentive" to "create".
The question here isn't one of whether Big Pharma CAN patent, it is whether they SHOULD given that the funding was public. This hearkens back to Australia's CSIRO and WiFI. Don't get me wrong, I love Australia, Aussies, and WiFi. Just not when it all goes to billing the whole world for it.
https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/tools-resources/case-studies/csiro-wlan-patent
Moderna has a claim, but it should be secondary to its debt to US taxpayers for funding the research. Public funds should provide for public good.
That's my piece.
Peace.
E
On the post: The US Gov't Paid For Moderna To Develop Its Vaccine; But Moderna Wants To Keep The Patent All To Itself
Articles that speak in their author's voice
Please don't legitimize what Moderna is doing.
I do have that problem, and I didn't author this article. One voice does not speak for the entire country of tax-paying people who contributed to this vaccine.
One voice cannot speak as to whether it's legitimate or not for Moderna to be ballhogs.
It's not about whether you or I "have a problem with Moderna..." or not. It's 100% about whether Moderna should be allowed to steal the patent rights to a technology they developed as a work for hire, got paid $900M for, and don't own.
I suspect not. Again, my opinion isn't the determining factor here... the law SHOULD be. Attempts to say "Well maybe they do and maybe they do but I personally don't think blah blah blah" just serve to legitimize this crap.
E
On the post: FAA Ignores FCC, Limits U.S. 5G Over Unsubstantiated Safety Concerns
Anonymous Coward:
Thanks for letting us all know what you command us to do. Sadly, you lack any expertise, authority, and authorization to demand we comply with your demands.
The public deserves the ability to be as safe as possible in their flights. That this doesn't track well with FCC allocations is, as you point out, a reason to move, but not a demand for such, a deadline for such, or a requirement for such.
RADAR altimeters are a thing, and as of around 2018 (can't find the exact date right now) a requirement not just for FAA Part 135 operators but also Part 121 and 91 LOA operators, and they were so excited to have to put in $10K/AC (aircraft) RADALT units it's equally likely they'll be just as excited to have those retro-fitted to another frequency band.
So get with the program yourself and stop telling other people to incur a $10K+ expense just because you think "work with the FCC" means something.
Go fix the republicans preventing minority votes and come back and pontificate.
E
On the post: FAA Ignores FCC, Limits U.S. 5G Over Unsubstantiated Safety Concerns
FCC, FAA, and focus
Disclosure: I hold licenses from the FCC and certificates from the FAA.
The FCC's focus is on communication, and safety isn't even an afterthought since communication nowadays mostly works. Handheld GPS radio+SMS devices are sub $300... no problem.
The FAA's focus is on aviation, and safety is a huge concern. The FAA has many programs to improve flight safety.
If the FCC makes an error, a communication may be affected. That doesn't mean 40 countries doing something for a few months is anything other than anecdotal. Worse, a failure to communicate often results in a retransmission, not an incident report.
If the FAA makes an error, people could die (and no, I'm not being melodramatic here), and some of those PEOPLE DYING COULD BE CHILDREN. Collecting valid statistical data to prevent incident and accidents weighs a bit more heavily than "Oh, I guess you can't hear me. I'm in a bad area. Let me try again."
So while I don't think the FAA is flawless... nor do I think anything that the Ajit Pai FCC and its dregs is flawless... one is entrusted with with the lives of billions of flying public throughout the year, and the other is entrusted with enriching duopolies.
Not the same thing, and they should not be judged by the same gravitas of criteria.
Ehud
On the post: Life360 Scandal Once Again Shows Nobody In The U.S. Actually Wants To Fix Our Rampant Privacy Problems
Rants are fun.
Usually usually.
"Dumb face" (dumb means unable to speak)
"Half truths" (not a thing)
This entire rant could be better written as an article with facts, evidence, and a lack of whiny misuse of the word "dumb" and others.
Having read this, I'm two minutes older, and no wiser. Maybe someone "dumber" than I can make sense of this incompetent rant.
E
On the post: Documents Shows Just How Much The FBI Can Obtain From Encrypted Communication Services
Known problem with a known solution.
Imessage has always been known to be insecure. If one signs on on a new device the previous message history and message threads are displayed. That's not secure.
Whatsapp has been known to be insecure for at least the last five years. The fact that the message content is insecure AND they're willing to 'play ball' with Jackboot LEO thugs without a warrant just adds fuel to a long-burning fire.
Thus far Whisper Systems' Signal is the only e2e encrypted app that provides a functionality equivalent to what it says -- your message content is yours and the recipients' to deal with... not Signal, not LEOs, and not pen register/taps.
The CDT opined on pen registers in the Internet age 21 years ago... and yet.. not only has no responsive legislation been passed (or even proposed) but the Internet companies aren't fighting them.
https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/security/000404amending.shtml
Workaround 1: Use Signal instead of WhatsApp, Apple proprietary broken apps, or anything else that reveals content you didn't want revealed.
Solution 1: exhort your congress critters to do something useful to update the laws to respect our constitutional rights, including the 4th and 5th amendments. As such, no "without a warrant" sharing of information mandate, and no penalties for ignoring [what should be] unlawful fishing expeditions using a pen trace.
E
On the post: The Next 'Elder Scrolls' Game Will Be A PC, Xbox Exclusive
And then the scorpion said...
Microsoft will always be Microsoft. If you put it on your back and help it cross the river, it will sting you. That's Microsoft.
On the day researchers showed ALL Windows versions have a zero-day exploit Microsoft tried and failed to patch, and another one in the wings... the only people who believe anything Microsoft says are what we call "suckers."
The way to defeat this is to stop buying their products. Don't buy PC/Xbox-only games. No more MS consoles. Let them drown in production costs they can't recoup. Now THAT would be a free market.
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2014-April/131869.html
QED
E
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Electric Truck Company Uses Copyright Claims To Hide Criticism (2020)
Re:
Yes, there is that. There are also penalties under section f that are supposed to apply to those who file false DMCA complaints. To the best of my knowledge no court has applied those penalties.
In the current shove to remove women's rights, undo legal votes, and allow right-wing nutjobs to undo the 1st amendment and any subsequent protections (like section 230)... it might behoove these elected non-representatives to take a step back from their petty 2-party squabbles and consider:
Of course none of this will happen, because
My very respectful regards and thanks to the veterans who have served to protect the freedoms we have today, and the sacrifices made by them and their families. Veterans' Day in the US is all day. Thank a vet.
E
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Electric Truck Company Uses Copyright Claims To Hide Criticism (2020)
The personal touch of great customer service.
Mike has covered the issues with automated takedown requests and the resulting takedown ad nauseum. TL;DR - It doesn't work.
On the ISP end, we received notices daily of our clients' file sharing. No matter how we replied we got crickets. Finally we updated our website's DMCA policy to say that if they can't comply with the law we'll be happy to educate them, and the rates. More crickets but we could just delete and ignore. ALL takedown notices in a 20 year period were legally deficient.
Moral of that one: end-user servicing companies can delete and ignore. More on this in a second.
Second Example: At home we have two open access points, and every now and then an email appears from CableCo giving a notice of infringement. No matter how I've replied that too gets crickets.
Moral of that one: intermediary companies don't care either.
Now on all the "delete and ignore stuff", people often frame this --as in this article-- that the safe harbor provisions means "if you bow to every request you'll be safe from expensive litigation, and NOBODY wants to do that."
Safe Harbor: there are plenty of cases where that has not worked out for the service provider who did nothing wrong and everything right. A "safe harbor" that sinks your boat is not worth anything.
Lawsuit Costs: when litigation occurs both sides pay a lot. With the exception of absurdly overinflated statutory fines, it's often not worth the squeeze to get the juice.
My conclusions: don't hire law-profs and junior newbs to represent you against Sony. Sorry, Mr. Tenenbaum. Secondly, if you're going to hack Sony's equipment, don't settle by admitting you won't do stuff you didn't admit you did. Sorry, Mr. Hotz. And finally, if we don't tolerate bullying in schools (but it's there) and the military (it's there) and the workplace (it's there) ... why do we allow these companies to bully everyone... and then blame the victim for not obeying instructions, or not blame the bully?
Ehud
Tucson, AZ US
On the post: Judge Says Devin Nunes' Family Has To Tell The Judge Who Is Funding Their Lawsuit Against Esquire & Ryan Lizza
August 25 - Nunes family says "Whut??? We don't know who's paying the bills that aren't coming to us!" (paraphrase mine)
https://www.businessinsider.com/devin-nunes-family-doesnt-know-defamation-lawsuit-funder-docs- show-2021-8
October 27 - Judge says "Hey I really wanna know who's paying for this. Ignoring barratry, maintenance [and possibly champerty], the standard for defamation relies on knowing this. He gave them till November 2nd.
November 9th - one week after the deadline. Crickets?
E
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops
Maybe for once we can agree on something, but I want to differentiate between "One person told a story they personally experienced" vs "A well respected lab test shows X."
The concept you are espousing taints all anecdotal information, but that's not realistic. People prefer their own personal stories, but that doesn't make the stories false, or the information invalid.
If anecdotal information was not accepted as data, our methods of having witnesses at trial (they lie) or customers on the support line (they lie) would fail.
Prior to recorded history*, the scientific method, and critical observation, anecdotal information was considered data. Now we have the revisionists who want their own agendas to color what is and is not data. One such revisionist organization even has a class to teach about it. The implementation is not bad, but the presumed concept is inherently flawed:
https://curriculum.idsucla.org/unit3/lesson1/
To ensure that the anecdotal information is good data there are methods to ensure integrity of the information and any conclusions drawn from it... just as with any other information source. That's all part of validation of data, regardless if it's an Aunt Minnie situation or a JAMA article.
Simple methods that are often not followed, which makes the information ineligible to be the foundation for conclusions:
So -- yes -- anecdotal information is not as valid for building a foundation for theory or conclusion as is laboratory-verified replicable tests. It is, however, data.
Ehud
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Identify the Problem
Metallic mint green Pontiac with the two yoots?
No license plate needed.
Eye-dentified.
E
Thanks, Vincent and Mona Lisa and Fred Gwynn RIP
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops
Re: Re: Re: Re: ALPRs have not decreased crime
Wait... you said
And now you're saying you're stupid for having confused murder and homicide? Shall we make it about your illiteracy. No.
ALPRs allow ex-post facto policing, which in the civilized world is against constitutional and other legal guidelines. That's the problem. Just imagine the next step. Cameras everywhere, infinite recording capacity, and the ability to intelligently search to locate something.
Why would there be crime when everyone is watching?
Because criminals. That's why
Enjoy calling people stupid. I guess if it makes you happy, you go, girl.
E
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Identify the Problem
There's nothing I can say that will convince a third-world laughtivist of anything.
One day you can read what I wrote. I answered your comments. There are not "numerous rules associated[means nothing] with being legally allowed[more begged questions already addressed] to use public roadways.
So again, you've begged the question, assumed it to be a fact, and built atop a broken foundation.
You can't be BOTHERED TO READ CAPITAL LETTERS... got it.
Bye Felicia.
E
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops
Re: Re: ALPRs have not decreased crime
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+murder
Murder is premeditated. It IS planned ahead of time. ALL murders are. That's what makes them murder, vs, for example, accidental death, manslaughter, etc.
As for the detterence (and recidivism) the current systems of law enforcement and imprisonment definitely are ineffective at preventing crime, or repeat offenders. So, yes on that one.
E
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops
Re: Re: Re: Identify the Problem
Note: This started out short, but in time became longer. The TL;DR version is this: DO NOT ACCEPT BEGGED QUESTIONS AS FACT, and then BUILD ON THEM. Your foundation is breached.
You can always accept government overreach and pretend to yourself that THIS is ok, but those who complain about it, or about something that results from it are the bad guys. Such is how "authorities" (authorities on what?) diminish your rights and grant you NOTHING in return. No diminished crime, no greater accountability, just more "law enforcement" of laws not for the greater good of society. But let's go to the question:
Why is it a begged question that vehicles must be registered? In the US bicycles are not registered yet they have full, equal, and in some cases greater access to the public roadways.
Why must a car be registered? A bicycle has more rights and isn't required to be registered in the entire United States. The second largest country in North America says no need to do so...
What about pedestrians? Should we beg that question also and REQUIRE that pedestrians be PROPERLY REGISTERED (whatever "properly" means) and AUTHORI[S/Z]ED to be on public roadways?
The assumption is
During the cold war... there were lots of criticism of Nazi Germany asking drivers for "your papers, please." If these papers were not 100% perfect one could hear "Your papers are not in order."
How much different is that from "I stopped you because your license plate sticker is out of date. Please give me your driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of vehicle liability insurance." and "Oh, one of these is expired. Your papers are not in order."
I decline to
Feel free to give up your rights. In the United States we still get to pretend we have some. At times government convinces us that we don't have these as rights... they are a privilege.
For my taxes that pay for roadways, I do have the right to travel. Apparently I need to pay extra to do so in a motor vehicle with a VIN. If you get bored, check out YouTube's VINWiki. You'd likely be surprised how flexible the system is if you just don't assume all those begged questions can be safely ignored and accepted as fact.
I did say it was long, but if you've read this to its end, you know we are at yet another cusp of losing rights/privileges. ALPRs allow time-travel inspection of vehicle movement. Minority Report has nothing on this. It is not today a violation of US 4th Amendment laws against unreasonable search and seizure... and yet, if accused of a crime, it sure can be.
Brian "I killed Gabby" Laundrie was charged with a crime -- using her debit (some say credit) card without permission. LEOs have no evidence this happened, because she's (sadly) unable to testify as to whether she permitted him to use her card or not. That's enough say-so to allow ALPR record searches to see where Brian was, went, ended up (hiding in Florida with fake dental records allowing people to excuse him being dead... but he's not.)
At some point, We The People need to take a stand and say "no mas." For me that's ALPRs, because I'm guilty of being part of that same VIN+REGISTRATION+AUTHORIZATION generation.
B/R
E
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops
Re: Re: Re:
Okay.
Jeff Bezos is a person.
Amazon, Inc. is a corporation.
The two are not the same.
YOU want to conflate the two. You don't get to do that. Someone's OWNERSHIP OF STOCK or MANAGEMENT OF A CORPORATION doesn't impart personal liability.
Here's an analogy. I own IBM stock. I am not responsible for what the corporation does. I could even be part of their management team. I'm still not responsible for what the corporation does.
Love Bezos, hate Bezos, love Musk, hate Musk, love Warren, hate Warren, love Bill, hate Bill, love Steve Jobs (liver stealer is dead btw) or hate him... THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS. They are NOT the corporations.
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops
Re: [Was: ALPRs have not decreased crime
Uh sure. Well said.
Next >>