Re: Re: Getting ready for the billing of the future
"how about no"
Me personally, I'd say this instead (which I'm stealing from a reply a few years ago about various three-letter agencies seizing cell phones at the border): "Sure, here ya go. My unlock passcode is the last 20 digits of Pi."
We don't have a law forcing MickeyD to keep their shake machines working (and by that I mean, the company could let their franchise stores seek local independent help) because the populace doesn't need to have a milk shake every time they turn around.
We are on the cusp of letting farmers have some freedom to keep their farm machinery working, without jacking up the costs of repair that eventually translates its way to the retail customer's wallet, because literally everybody has to eat. For the cynical among you, the populace needs to eat so they can both donate and vote.
That's the difference between the two examples.
This bill is the legislative "foot in the door" to break this crap in other fields, though I foresee that a lot more effort will have to be undertaken - no one has to have a cell phone, or an 80" TV, nor anything else techy in nature. About 99% of that mystical "everyone" wants their gadgets, but they don't need them to get through life. And don't worry, when you come back with "wah wah wah", I'll have a comeback for you, trust me.
Both of you have taken this way too far, and in the latter case, in a way too personal a direction. Sorry, but I'm not up for discussing this topic in detail.
After a moment's thought, I can't fault your thinking - "parent harder" is a pretty good simile for 'tough love'. No one said, and I certainly didn't intend to mean, that parenting is easy, but it's all a matter of degree - some children need more attention paid to their behavior than others. Some parents are simply better equipped to provide that attention, and execute corrective action, others aren't up to speed. The evidence is plain for all to see, should one wish to look.
As to my presumptions.... I didn't just presume that a solution is possible, I know that at least one is possible, and likely more than one would've worked out with good results. Experience, history, and the entire "child psychology" field have ample proof of that. But I'm not a psychiatrist, so I'm not going to expound on exactly how to go about finding such a solution, that's better left to the experts.
And why did you presume that I was in favor of finding someone to blame just because a bad thing happened? Did you not read my epistle, wherein I stated that the mother should' realize that there can be no blame to assign, because her daughter is not here to provide evidence of where any such blame should be placed. I spoke of "tough love" as being a way to redirect misbehavior, but that's not assigning blame.
The bottom line is a cold hard truth - self-blame after the fact won't bring her daughter back, and neither will assigning blame elsewhere. It's time for the mother to suck it up and administer some tough love for herself - accept reality, and move on. There are no prizes for playing the "if only I had...." game.
The claim in the matter is that Instagram and Snapchat's actions/inactions/policies are legally recognized causes of the suicide.
Which will fail, because at no time can anyone find/produce any evidence that either Instagram or Snapchat espouse suicide as a good thing to do. And that's before we get to the willful disregard of the TOS, which will go go a long ways toward sinking all efforts to suck the platforms down the black hole of "think of the grieving mother, she must be compensated". (But do understand, I do feel bad for her. I just don't like seeing the judicial system abused for person gain. (In this case, the gain of one or more lawyers.))
What's happening here is that lacking the moral courage to accept her loss, the mother wants to lash out at "the boogeyman who took my daughter away from me". This is entirely different from the woman in Kansas (is that correct, I don't remember just now) that told her daughter's classmate, via social media, that she should just kill herself... and the girl did that very thing. That situation did call for some retribution, and it was delivered. Said difference being, one is a neutral platform, the other was a natural-born person using a neutral platform.
Nope, I give this case a -1, Mr. Clark - it ain't got no beat that I can dance to!
Mike, I've never seen an MD behind your name, nor anything else that might have to do with psychiatry, so I'm fairly certain that you don't hold any magic keys to force a congenital liar to stop cold turkey. My advice: save your breath, you've got better fish to fry.
(Actually, to be selfish about it, if you did get Koby to stop lying, then who the hell are we gonna pick on?)
Since you've made it abundantly clear that you can't understand abstract thinking, I'll give you a concrete example, using your non-example.
The coal miners were, and still are losing their jobs, and thus are in danger of losing a lot more than just their lifestyle. That's understood. The journalists (some of them) simply said, "you can learn to code, and thus get another, different job".
Whereas the journalists' jobs are not in jeopardy, so when the persons you call "people" started harassing them, the platform stepped in with a notice of TOS violation ("Thou shalt not harass, etc."). The rest is history, and for good reason.
Since my meds are making me feel very fine this morning, let me guess - you're a product of "No Child Left Behind", aren't you? Because there are quite few knives in the drawer that are much sharper than you, we can tell.
Steven Biss: Yes your Honor, my client is indeed bringing suit against all of those 150,000 account holders, because each of them claims to be his mother!
His Honor: Well, no reverse class-action for you. Pay the filing fees and serve suit on each individual, doing so in the appropriate jurisdiction for each such individual. The clerk will now enter into the record that this matter has been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the claimed defendants. Mr. Biss, thank you for your time, and have a great day!
Other replies to your missive nothwithstanding, America is a democratic republic.
That means that each individual citizen has a vote, a say in how this country is run. But as dictated by the Constitution, one's vote is wasted on only being able to elect a layer of middle-management. Sigh.
It's trivially easy for a page's code to accept input from a viewer, via the textarea or other input commands. But it takes only one more line of code to determine that the input is a URL, and thus it should be treated as a link. (For reference, it's <input type=URL...>) Obviously, that can be changed, in the background, to simple text (<input type=text....>) and the user will see the same thing on the screen. As eventually posted, the URL will not be an actual link. Anyone can copy/paste it into an address bar, and that's a royal pain, but it's not a link, thus no link tax is forthcoming.
It does take a few more lines of code to sift through a textarea and find any links, usually by filtering for www, http/https, specific-news-source.com, etc, but it can be done, and the results would be modified such that browsers don't have anything to automatically call out as a link. Copy-pasta to the rescue, and no link-tax to be found here, either.
Truly devious coders can come up with other exotic ideas, I'm sure. I'll not elaborate here, don't wanna attract undue attention, you understand. ;)
Your second paragraph is spot on, but sadly, shifting the blame for being an ineffective parent does help someone - the lawyers. Specifically, their wallets. IMO, these are worse than ambulance chasers, they should've told her right off the bat that her desired suit has no chance of success.
In your first 'graph, I need to point out that TFS repeatedly found, in analysis of the complaint, that the mother did know of the daughter's problems, and did try to do something about them. Again sadly, she just didn't try hard enough. But the 'monitoring' was definitely going on, make no mistake.
My thought is that this was written by two lawyers who didn't talk to each other. And sure enough, I was correct - one's in SF, the other is in Seattle. Hmmmm....
All I saw was effectively negativity - "should have done this or that", and the like. Nothing concrete, only supposition. Usually not enough to get a conviction. (But as ever, courts sometimes come to unfathomable conclusions.) Lacking anything positive, such as "they did directly do this or that, as a well established known cause", I see no chance of survival in the current form. However, if an amended complaint is permitted.... that'll be interesting to see.
You drove that point as "expertly" as your accused defendants of "right to rip off the motoring public".
First, you imitate the NHTSA in their confused conflation and/or separation of security/cybersecurity with safety, specifically on public highways. But in the end, the letter does iterate and reiterate that the Agency does not want to get in the business of defining security, that the congressmen should call upon the FTC for input of that nature.
Second, the Agency does specifically state, more than once, that it perceives a need for serviceability by authorized third parties. Note that the Agency once again does not define who's authorized, they leave that up to the lawmakers and/or the industry, as they should. Their input is valid only insofar as public safety is concerned, and privacy/personal security is the polar opposite of public (safety or otherwise).
Third, there are no "subject matter experts" vis-a-vis rights to repair, there are only sub-field (singular topic) experts - security, safety, privacy, feasibility, technical capability, training, standardization, things like that. The whole realm of right-to-repair is too new to have experienced whole-field experts, Louis Rossmann notwithstanding. And when one attempts to prioritize a specific sub-field over the others in a transparent attempt to scuttle the law entirely, then one is indeed asking for trouble in PublicVille.
And lastly, you run against the public grain.... stupidly so. What it all comes down to is money, plain and simple. The vast majority of the motoring public (which is still only a part of the overall public) is very unhappy with being gouged at the dealerships. I'll not list all the factors, they are numorous, but suffice it to say, if the public gets even so much as a whiff of freedom from that dealer lock-in, they're gonna go for it, tooth and nail.
Will the Massachusetts law need tweaking after it takes effect? Quite possibly, because that's the nature of the beast. But as a simple starting point, it's nuts on. It's needed, the public wants it, and all the car makers can come up with in defense is "what about (flavor-of-the-day whipping boy), won't somebody please think of the whipping boy!"
tl;dr:
The auto-pilot in your wheelhouse is going off-course, I strongly suggest that you revert to manual control. Ask yourself this question - who benefits if the law stands as currently written, and who benefits if it ends up in the boneyard? I'll give you a clue - 5 letters, rhymes with funny or honey, and sits in your wallet. I think you can figure it out from there.
(FWIW, I sincerely hope that you aren't as clueless as an orange two-year-old.)
Don't expect the copyright office to help you with that. Hell, they're lucky if they can find their own asses with both hands, a flashlight, and a multi-color map.
But my guess is that no one holds any such copyrights. That in fact, Google's own bots were trained with numerous test case scenarios, and those were never removed from the "live" database.
I didn't know that downloads could extract or elicit anything, although I am familiar with the idea that the MAFIaa thinks all downloads are illicit.
... we aimed to discover trending, unknown artists worldwide and serve them up to record labels hungry for new talent.
So let me get this straight - you wanted to take individual musicians that were presumably unknowlegable in the ways of Hollywood Accounting, and throw them into the lion's den, is that about right? GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!
Either you were truly out of your mind at the time, or you were in cahoots with the Hollywood bastids, acting as shills for them. I don't care which was the case, here's a mallet and a funnel, now go pound sand!
And I did read the entire article. As to "maybe we'd have better regulation today, than what we currently have", that's not even laughable. My advice to you is, grow up, spend some time in the field with us peons. When you've got about 20 more years of experience, then call on us again.
Re: Re: Re: 'What do you mean speech has consequences?! Not for
Would that opinion be lower than a whale turd on the bottom of the ocean? The kind where orange persons are so low that they need a ladder to climb up to the bottom of that turd? Tell us, sir, just how low is your opinion of these "fake humans posing as Americans"?
On the post: Automakers Can't Give Up The Idea Of Turning Everyday Features Into Subscription Services With Fees
Re: Re: Getting ready for the billing of the future
Me personally, I'd say this instead (which I'm stealing from a reply a few years ago about various three-letter agencies seizing cell phones at the border): "Sure, here ya go. My unlock passcode is the last 20 digits of Pi."
Let the hilarity ensue!
On the post: Congress Introduces New Agricultural 'Right to Repair' Bill With Massive Farmer Support
Re: This is rather amazing...
We don't have a law forcing MickeyD to keep their shake machines working (and by that I mean, the company could let their franchise stores seek local independent help) because the populace doesn't need to have a milk shake every time they turn around.
We are on the cusp of letting farmers have some freedom to keep their farm machinery working, without jacking up the costs of repair that eventually translates its way to the retail customer's wallet, because literally everybody has to eat. For the cynical among you, the populace needs to eat so they can both donate and vote.
That's the difference between the two examples.
This bill is the legislative "foot in the door" to break this crap in other fields, though I foresee that a lot more effort will have to be undertaken - no one has to have a cell phone, or an 80" TV, nor anything else techy in nature. About 99% of that mystical "everyone" wants their gadgets, but they don't need them to get through life. And don't worry, when you come back with "wah wah wah", I'll have a comeback for you, trust me.
On the post: Mother's Lawsuit Attempts To Hold Snapchat, Instagram Responsible For Her Daughter's Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re: This subject is touchy but...
Both of you have taken this way too far, and in the latter case, in a way too personal a direction. Sorry, but I'm not up for discussing this topic in detail.
On the post: Mother's Lawsuit Attempts To Hold Snapchat, Instagram Responsible For Her Daughter's Suicide
Re: Re: Re: This subject is touchy but...
Parent harder..... nice allegory.
After a moment's thought, I can't fault your thinking - "parent harder" is a pretty good simile for 'tough love'. No one said, and I certainly didn't intend to mean, that parenting is easy, but it's all a matter of degree - some children need more attention paid to their behavior than others. Some parents are simply better equipped to provide that attention, and execute corrective action, others aren't up to speed. The evidence is plain for all to see, should one wish to look.
As to my presumptions.... I didn't just presume that a solution is possible, I know that at least one is possible, and likely more than one would've worked out with good results. Experience, history, and the entire "child psychology" field have ample proof of that. But I'm not a psychiatrist, so I'm not going to expound on exactly how to go about finding such a solution, that's better left to the experts.
And why did you presume that I was in favor of finding someone to blame just because a bad thing happened? Did you not read my epistle, wherein I stated that the mother should' realize that there can be no blame to assign, because her daughter is not here to provide evidence of where any such blame should be placed. I spoke of "tough love" as being a way to redirect misbehavior, but that's not assigning blame.
The bottom line is a cold hard truth - self-blame after the fact won't bring her daughter back, and neither will assigning blame elsewhere. It's time for the mother to suck it up and administer some tough love for herself - accept reality, and move on. There are no prizes for playing the "if only I had...." game.
On the post: Mother's Lawsuit Attempts To Hold Snapchat, Instagram Responsible For Her Daughter's Suicide
Re: proximate result
Which will fail, because at no time can anyone find/produce any evidence that either Instagram or Snapchat espouse suicide as a good thing to do. And that's before we get to the willful disregard of the TOS, which will go go a long ways toward sinking all efforts to suck the platforms down the black hole of "think of the grieving mother, she must be compensated". (But do understand, I do feel bad for her. I just don't like seeing the judicial system abused for person gain. (In this case, the gain of one or more lawyers.))
What's happening here is that lacking the moral courage to accept her loss, the mother wants to lash out at "the boogeyman who took my daughter away from me". This is entirely different from the woman in Kansas (is that correct, I don't remember just now) that told her daughter's classmate, via social media, that she should just kill herself... and the girl did that very thing. That situation did call for some retribution, and it was delivered. Said difference being, one is a neutral platform, the other was a natural-born person using a neutral platform.
Nope, I give this case a -1, Mr. Clark - it ain't got no beat that I can dance to!
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Re:
No, No, NO! You should've written as his mother, like so:
"Hello, I'm Devin's mother, and he has asked me to write this for him", and so on.
But moommy was good, I'll give you that. ;)
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Re: Re: Heavily Moderated > Heavily Censored
Mike, I've never seen an MD behind your name, nor anything else that might have to do with psychiatry, so I'm fairly certain that you don't hold any magic keys to force a congenital liar to stop cold turkey. My advice: save your breath, you've got better fish to fry.
(Actually, to be selfish about it, if you did get Koby to stop lying, then who the hell are we gonna pick on?)
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Re: Re: Time to run away again coward
Since you've made it abundantly clear that you can't understand abstract thinking, I'll give you a concrete example, using your non-example.
The coal miners were, and still are losing their jobs, and thus are in danger of losing a lot more than just their lifestyle. That's understood. The journalists (some of them) simply said, "you can learn to code, and thus get another, different job".
Whereas the journalists' jobs are not in jeopardy, so when the persons you call "people" started harassing them, the platform stepped in with a notice of TOS violation ("Thou shalt not harass, etc."). The rest is history, and for good reason.
Since my meds are making me feel very fine this morning, let me guess - you're a product of "No Child Left Behind", aren't you? Because there are quite few knives in the drawer that are much sharper than you, we can tell.
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Heavily Moderated > Heavily Censored
First AC: Don't ignore this link.
Second AC: Your commenting-fu is weak.
First AC: Why, fuck you very much!
Pure gold right there!
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Re: Re: Re:
Steven Biss: Yes your Honor, my client is indeed bringing suit against all of those 150,000 account holders, because each of them claims to be his mother!
His Honor: Well, no reverse class-action for you. Pay the filing fees and serve suit on each individual, doing so in the appropriate jurisdiction for each such individual. The clerk will now enter into the record that this matter has been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the claimed defendants. Mr. Biss, thank you for your time, and have a great day!
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Re: Re: Family Friendly
Other replies to your missive nothwithstanding, America is a democratic republic.
That means that each individual citizen has a vote, a say in how this country is run. But as dictated by the Constitution, one's vote is wasted on only being able to elect a layer of middle-management. Sigh.
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Re: Re:
They don't. But his mother certainly does, she's the one that told him to clean up the place and make it fit for the family to come over and visit.
On the post: Wherein The Copia Institute Tells The Copyright Office That Link Taxes Are A Good Idea Only If You Want To Kill Off Journalism
Ya know....
It's trivially easy for a page's code to accept input from a viewer, via the textarea or other input commands. But it takes only one more line of code to determine that the input is a URL, and thus it should be treated as a link. (For reference, it's <input type=URL...>) Obviously, that can be changed, in the background, to simple text (<input type=text....>) and the user will see the same thing on the screen. As eventually posted, the URL will not be an actual link. Anyone can copy/paste it into an address bar, and that's a royal pain, but it's not a link, thus no link tax is forthcoming.
It does take a few more lines of code to sift through a textarea and find any links, usually by filtering for www, http/https, specific-news-source.com, etc, but it can be done, and the results would be modified such that browsers don't have anything to automatically call out as a link. Copy-pasta to the rescue, and no link-tax to be found here, either.
Truly devious coders can come up with other exotic ideas, I'm sure. I'll not elaborate here, don't wanna attract undue attention, you understand. ;)
On the post: Mother's Lawsuit Attempts To Hold Snapchat, Instagram Responsible For Her Daughter's Suicide
Re: This subject is touchy but...
Your second paragraph is spot on, but sadly, shifting the blame for being an ineffective parent does help someone - the lawyers. Specifically, their wallets. IMO, these are worse than ambulance chasers, they should've told her right off the bat that her desired suit has no chance of success.
In your first 'graph, I need to point out that TFS repeatedly found, in analysis of the complaint, that the mother did know of the daughter's problems, and did try to do something about them. Again sadly, she just didn't try hard enough. But the 'monitoring' was definitely going on, make no mistake.
Tough love - not everyone is capable of it.
On the post: Mother's Lawsuit Attempts To Hold Snapchat, Instagram Responsible For Her Daughter's Suicide
My thought is that this was written by two lawyers who didn't talk to each other. And sure enough, I was correct - one's in SF, the other is in Seattle. Hmmmm....
All I saw was effectively negativity - "should have done this or that", and the like. Nothing concrete, only supposition. Usually not enough to get a conviction. (But as ever, courts sometimes come to unfathomable conclusions.) Lacking anything positive, such as "they did directly do this or that, as a well established known cause", I see no chance of survival in the current form. However, if an amended complaint is permitted.... that'll be interesting to see.
On the post: Automakers Continue Efforts To Scuttle Popular Mass. 'Right To Repair' Law
Re:
You drove that point as "expertly" as your accused defendants of "right to rip off the motoring public".
First, you imitate the NHTSA in their confused conflation and/or separation of security/cybersecurity with safety, specifically on public highways. But in the end, the letter does iterate and reiterate that the Agency does not want to get in the business of defining security, that the congressmen should call upon the FTC for input of that nature.
Second, the Agency does specifically state, more than once, that it perceives a need for serviceability by authorized third parties. Note that the Agency once again does not define who's authorized, they leave that up to the lawmakers and/or the industry, as they should. Their input is valid only insofar as public safety is concerned, and privacy/personal security is the polar opposite of public (safety or otherwise).
Third, there are no "subject matter experts" vis-a-vis rights to repair, there are only sub-field (singular topic) experts - security, safety, privacy, feasibility, technical capability, training, standardization, things like that. The whole realm of right-to-repair is too new to have experienced whole-field experts, Louis Rossmann notwithstanding. And when one attempts to prioritize a specific sub-field over the others in a transparent attempt to scuttle the law entirely, then one is indeed asking for trouble in PublicVille.
And lastly, you run against the public grain.... stupidly so. What it all comes down to is money, plain and simple. The vast majority of the motoring public (which is still only a part of the overall public) is very unhappy with being gouged at the dealerships. I'll not list all the factors, they are numorous, but suffice it to say, if the public gets even so much as a whiff of freedom from that dealer lock-in, they're gonna go for it, tooth and nail.
Will the Massachusetts law need tweaking after it takes effect? Quite possibly, because that's the nature of the beast. But as a simple starting point, it's nuts on. It's needed, the public wants it, and all the car makers can come up with in defense is "what about (flavor-of-the-day whipping boy), won't somebody please think of the whipping boy!"
tl;dr:
The auto-pilot in your wheelhouse is going off-course, I strongly suggest that you revert to manual control. Ask yourself this question - who benefits if the law stands as currently written, and who benefits if it ends up in the boneyard? I'll give you a clue - 5 letters, rhymes with funny or honey, and sits in your wallet. I think you can figure it out from there.
(FWIW, I sincerely hope that you aren't as clueless as an orange two-year-old.)
On the post: Google Drive's Autodetector For Copyright Infringement Is Locking Up Nearly Empty Files
Re:
Don't expect the copyright office to help you with that. Hell, they're lucky if they can find their own asses with both hands, a flashlight, and a multi-color map.
But my guess is that no one holds any such copyrights. That in fact, Google's own bots were trained with numerous test case scenarios, and those were never removed from the "live" database.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re: A What?
Flagged for being an unmitigated asshole.
(No humor was wasted in the making of this post.)
On the post: Did We Miss Our Best Chance At Regulating The Internet?
I didn't know that downloads could extract or elicit anything, although I am familiar with the idea that the MAFIaa thinks all downloads are illicit.
So let me get this straight - you wanted to take individual musicians that were presumably unknowlegable in the ways of Hollywood Accounting, and throw them into the lion's den, is that about right? GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!
Either you were truly out of your mind at the time, or you were in cahoots with the Hollywood bastids, acting as shills for them. I don't care which was the case, here's a mallet and a funnel, now go pound sand!
And I did read the entire article. As to "maybe we'd have better regulation today, than what we currently have", that's not even laughable. My advice to you is, grow up, spend some time in the field with us peons. When you've got about 20 more years of experience, then call on us again.
tl:dr:
Bah! Humbug!
On the post: Smartmatic Sues MyPillow CEO For Defamation Over His Months Of Nonstop Election Conspiracy Theories
Re: Re: Re: 'What do you mean speech has consequences?! Not for
Would that opinion be lower than a whale turd on the bottom of the ocean? The kind where orange persons are so low that they need a ladder to climb up to the bottom of that turd? Tell us, sir, just how low is your opinion of these "fake humans posing as Americans"?
Personally, I view them as pod people, but YMMV.
Next >>