i think the biggest problem was the constant deliberate fiddling, on more than one occasion breaking laws and endangering lives, to make the cameras Profitable.
this involves catching not just the problem people, but also people caught out by the system being mucked around with.
also, it might be my imagination, but wouldn't, typically, if you ran a red light and had a T bone collision, the car running the light normally take the worse hit?
i always figured it'd be smart to select FOR jurors who knew at least something relevant. though balancing that against selecting against personal interest is, admittedly, a little tricky.
but if it could be done, it always seemed like it'd be smart.
it's significant, but there really is a line beyond which arguing about it is just silly. likewise spelling.
[the difference is the point where people start objecting compared to how good i am at them,really :D]
grammatically, i don't see a problem with 'i had seen'... i think.
but 'i saw in the news last week that' reads more easily.
he saw me
i saw him
he had seen me
he knew i had seen him
the news saw me [silly :D]
i saw the news
the news had seen me [also silly]
i had seen the news...
ah! i think i have found the problem, such as it is. it's the 'last week' bit. somehow, that little timing statement goes with 'i saw' but not 'i had seen' get rid of it and the problem goes away, or at least massively reduces.
i still couldn't explain in any detail why though. I'm not good at remember the names of the different things involved.
right, that great big ramble aside, i should say something about the article itself, shouldn't i? :D
this kind of screw up happens all the time. the only way to really fix it is to have strict guidelines with no flex in them at all about what can and can't be filed in the first place... and i don't see anyone going along with that, somehow.
of course, the next question is this: is it possible for him to sue ... err... someone that actually makes sense... over the fact that his name was revealed? if he did so, and won, that'd discourage such events arising again, I'd think?
too bad most of the problem causing entites will tie themselves [and anyone dim enough to listen] in knots with bizarre reasons why it doesn't work... if they even notice it.
wow... ... that's totally not my usual tone, is it? oh well. it's what i have to say.
'competing with free' just sounds like a fairly standard sentence, actually. probably initially showed up in various forms like 'you can't compete with a free product' or 'you can't compete with someone who's giving their stuff away for free' and so on. just guessing though.
now, terms that Really puzzle me, are those such as 'sidewalk'. i mean, sure, it's where you walk, and it's Beside the road... but what about the ones leading from the road to your house, for example?
then again, we call 'em footpaths. which is also weird. it's a path for your feet. i suppose 'pathfoots' is just dumb, so you get footpaths.
which has... nothing to do with this list.
aaaaaaaaaany way. some folks actually made money, and someone's writing about it. 'tis a good thing :)
Re: The difference between "discussion" and "arguing on the Internet"
i can understand this particular post getting that 'wall of text' response. it is pretty big. on the other hand, one and two liners don't really explain much either. [and i certainly read it all easily enough, not that i have much to say about it, all up.]
i think the tl;dr thing may be related to the short shelf life. i... can't quite explain that connection. maybe someone else will get it and do so (or not)
I'd actaully say avoiding asking direct questions is helpful. they typically get joke responses and/or angry flames about how the question is biased and blah blah blah. if you just make statements, even rhetorical questions, the kinds of people who'd throw a fit over such things Seem more inclined to just dismiss it and move on.
you're quite right about the article's shelf life being too short. [i think it was you... my brain is pretty dead right now. busy day]. i just read the latest one on the RSS feed. trying to find older ones that i didn't think to bookmark is a bit of an interesting experience. [of course, the fact that i went through a lot of pages before noticing the search feature didn't help there :D].
also, i wanted to show one of my friends one of the older ones. found it, linked it... she couldn't view it. which may have just been her computer, or may be due to how the archives are set up, i forget.
and, once again, i have no point, only thoughts. here they go.
you know, there was an objection to this one by some authors in New Zealand, too.
the issue being that google would be scanning 'out of print' books. where 'out of print' means 'not available/published in the USA' ... meaning 90% of everything made and published Here from the day of release.
whether it's a good idea or not, a number of authors were apparently unimpressed.
humm. all looks a little slippery to me, but perfectly reasonable if it's on the level.
'course, not being a business type, i just get by with the free local calling that the telcos are required to provide residential customers here, and the voice function in my instant messenger software :D
yeah, that's not even 2c worth, is it? call it 1 :D
heh. i still hold up TVNZ as the gold standard for how to do this: they locked the relevant music companies out and refused to negotiate so that they ended up buying AD SPACE for their music videos. which is... insanely expensive for that length of time on tv. didn't let up until that started to hurt enough that the deal was back to 'we'll give them to you, you show them. that is all'.
or at least, that's how i seem to remember it going.
honestly, if a carrier is giving in on this sort of thing for anything short of no cash changing hands, they're loosing out. really, they should be charging [though maybe not much] for the service. hehehe.
[i may have my terminology an details wrong here. much like American newspapers, i don't fact check much :D]
see, I've never quite got my head around how that sort is NOT signed under duress. your money's already gone, you can't get it back, the court costs are significantly more and you're unlikely to win...
and if it's signed under duress, how is it enforceable or binding?
i mean, you Could just not use it, but... if you disagree with the EULA doesn't it kinda conflict with the ... implied? contract involved when you bought the thing?
Re: Re: Re: Even if you read the linked part before clicking 'Accept'...
hold on...
didn't some US court previously rule that any T&C or EULA including a 'we reserve the right to change this at will' clause was invalid in it's entirety? i remember something like that showing up on techdirt.
so really, you only have to check for that clause. if it's there, no worries.
I'd say the answer is that a coffee can isn't a publication in the first place.
but then i realised that, really, it's a bit cheap to be using the photo in question without permission.
i could see an order to change it, i suppose. i could see a dismissal of the whole issue. if anyone ends up paying anyone money over it, though, there's something very wrong with the world.
[and there is. we knew this already.]
please note that this is not a legal opinion. this is a sane individual with no vested interests opinion :D
On the post: Arizona Dumping Redflex Cameras... But Giving Redflex An Award For Innovation?
Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
this involves catching not just the problem people, but also people caught out by the system being mucked around with.
also, it might be my imagination, but wouldn't, typically, if you ran a red light and had a T bone collision, the car running the light normally take the worse hit?
not always, mind you, but in most cases...
On the post: Jurors Required To Sign Promises Not To Google Details Of Case
but if it could be done, it always seemed like it'd be smart.
On the post: The Cognitive Mismatch Between Newspaper Execs And Newspaper Readers
take a look at 'other local media sites' and 'other local internet sites'
then look at 'print edition of other paper' ... it's in the same Place, but the percentage difference is pretty big.
On the post: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against No Longer Anonymous Commenter... After Commenter Was Revealed
it's significant, but there really is a line beyond which arguing about it is just silly. likewise spelling.
[the difference is the point where people start objecting compared to how good i am at them,really :D]
grammatically, i don't see a problem with 'i had seen'... i think.
but 'i saw in the news last week that' reads more easily.
he saw me
i saw him
he had seen me
he knew i had seen him
the news saw me [silly :D]
i saw the news
the news had seen me [also silly]
i had seen the news...
ah! i think i have found the problem, such as it is. it's the 'last week' bit. somehow, that little timing statement goes with 'i saw' but not 'i had seen' get rid of it and the problem goes away, or at least massively reduces.
i still couldn't explain in any detail why though. I'm not good at remember the names of the different things involved.
right, that great big ramble aside, i should say something about the article itself, shouldn't i? :D
this kind of screw up happens all the time. the only way to really fix it is to have strict guidelines with no flex in them at all about what can and can't be filed in the first place... and i don't see anyone going along with that, somehow.
of course, the next question is this: is it possible for him to sue ... err... someone that actually makes sense... over the fact that his name was revealed? if he did so, and won, that'd discourage such events arising again, I'd think?
On the post: WIPO Once Again Sides With Trademark Holder Over Common Sense
Re:
sanity check?
oktatabyebye.
tata.
that's like ... someone named 'mous' doing you up for trademark infringement for being anonymous. it's just dim. they're entirely different 'words'
actually, it'd Almost be understandable if it were just tatabyebye or oktata. but oktatabyebye is a Real stretch :S
On the post: Best Practices In Online Promotion Of New Music Offerings
nice to see a concrete list like that.
too bad most of the problem causing entites will tie themselves [and anyone dim enough to listen] in knots with bizarre reasons why it doesn't work... if they even notice it.
wow... ... that's totally not my usual tone, is it? oh well. it's what i have to say.
'competing with free' just sounds like a fairly standard sentence, actually. probably initially showed up in various forms like 'you can't compete with a free product' or 'you can't compete with someone who's giving their stuff away for free' and so on. just guessing though.
now, terms that Really puzzle me, are those such as 'sidewalk'. i mean, sure, it's where you walk, and it's Beside the road... but what about the ones leading from the road to your house, for example?
then again, we call 'em footpaths. which is also weird. it's a path for your feet. i suppose 'pathfoots' is just dumb, so you get footpaths.
which has... nothing to do with this list.
aaaaaaaaaany way. some folks actually made money, and someone's writing about it. 'tis a good thing :)
On the post: The Difference Between Reporting And Discussion
Re: The difference between "discussion" and "arguing on the Internet"
i think the tl;dr thing may be related to the short shelf life. i... can't quite explain that connection. maybe someone else will get it and do so (or not)
I'd actaully say avoiding asking direct questions is helpful. they typically get joke responses and/or angry flames about how the question is biased and blah blah blah. if you just make statements, even rhetorical questions, the kinds of people who'd throw a fit over such things Seem more inclined to just dismiss it and move on.
you're quite right about the article's shelf life being too short. [i think it was you... my brain is pretty dead right now. busy day]. i just read the latest one on the RSS feed. trying to find older ones that i didn't think to bookmark is a bit of an interesting experience. [of course, the fact that i went through a lot of pages before noticing the search feature didn't help there :D].
also, i wanted to show one of my friends one of the older ones. found it, linked it... she couldn't view it. which may have just been her computer, or may be due to how the archives are set up, i forget.
and, once again, i have no point, only thoughts. here they go.
On the post: Forrester Plan For 'Saving' The Music Industry: Annoying Windowed Releases?
On the post: The FCC, PTC And Bogus Indecency Counts
i can not see ANY legitimate reason for counting the same person twice because he sent complaints to two places.
it'd be sorta like counting a voter once for every polling booth he attended [hint: you're not allowed to do this! :D]
On the post: Facebook Ordered (Again) To Turn Over Source Code
Re: Make Money Running Facebook, Twitter, And Viral Web Applications
who'd hear the case? :S
[well, there's probably a way to do it, but it seems amusingly weird. kinda like 'who shaves the barber' :D]
On the post: Patent Holder Takes A Second Crack At Toyota Over Hybrid Technology
but no.
oh well.
On the post: Conde Nast Discovers That The Streisand Effect Reaches Russia Too
On the post: Complaints Against Google Book Scanning Project Reach Ridiculous Levels
the issue being that google would be scanning 'out of print' books. where 'out of print' means 'not available/published in the USA' ... meaning 90% of everything made and published Here from the day of release.
whether it's a good idea or not, a number of authors were apparently unimpressed.
On the post: Anonymity Online Under Attack: China And Australia
[though it is only the second.]
On the post: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?
'course, not being a business type, i just get by with the free local calling that the telcos are required to provide residential customers here, and the voice function in my instant messenger software :D
yeah, that's not even 2c worth, is it? call it 1 :D
On the post: Music Comes Back To Life On YouTube In The UK
or at least, that's how i seem to remember it going.
honestly, if a carrier is giving in on this sort of thing for anything short of no cash changing hands, they're loosing out. really, they should be charging [though maybe not much] for the service. hehehe.
[i may have my terminology an details wrong here. much like American newspapers, i don't fact check much :D]
On the post: Bad Ideas: Globalizing The Patent System
let's not.
and say we didn't.
On the post: Hyperlinked Contract Terms Are Enforceable
Re: Purchased Software
and if it's signed under duress, how is it enforceable or binding?
i mean, you Could just not use it, but... if you disagree with the EULA doesn't it kinda conflict with the ... implied? contract involved when you bought the thing?
On the post: Hyperlinked Contract Terms Are Enforceable
Re: Re: Re: Even if you read the linked part before clicking 'Accept'...
didn't some US court previously rule that any T&C or EULA including a 'we reserve the right to change this at will' clause was invalid in it's entirety? i remember something like that showing up on techdirt.
so really, you only have to check for that clause. if it's there, no worries.
assuming that ruling held up, anyway.
On the post: Trying To Apply Rules Designed For Publications To... Coffee Cans?
I'd say the answer is that a coffee can isn't a publication in the first place.
but then i realised that, really, it's a bit cheap to be using the photo in question without permission.
i could see an order to change it, i suppose. i could see a dismissal of the whole issue. if anyone ends up paying anyone money over it, though, there's something very wrong with the world.
[and there is. we knew this already.]
please note that this is not a legal opinion. this is a sane individual with no vested interests opinion :D
Next >>