Pepper spray, a hatchet and an Airsoft gun were used in the theater attack. Only one of these is an actual weapon
Which one would that be?
Pepper spray is a non-lethal weapon, intended for defensive use, but it can certainly be used offensively to attack and disable someone.
A hatchet is a tool for splitting wood, but it can be (ab)used as a weapon.
An Airsoft gun is a gun, and while it does not fire bullets or use gunpowder for propellant, and is principally intended for use as part of a team sports game, there's a very good reason why Airsoft players are required to wear goggles and other basic body protection at any reputable Airsoft range.
So how do you figure that one of those three "is a weapon" and the other two aren't?
Not that I disagree with the judge's final verdict, but I don't see how putting an image on the cover of a book does not make it not closely linked to the book.
I see how: because if you removed the image from the cover, it would not change a reader's understanding of the book in any meaningful way.
The "right to be forgotten" may be one of the creepiest things I've ever heard of. Let's dissect the phrase a little.
"Forgotten" is the past tense of "forget", which literally means "to stop remembering".
"To be forgotten" is not something you do; it's something someone else does: they stop remembering about you.
A right, in this context, is a limitation on the absolute freedom of others, enforceable by the law.
Generally speaking, rights are a good thing, but not always, and this one, taken literally, borders on the terrifying: the legal right to forcibly remove [certain facts about] yourself from the memory of others.
Considering that memory is the foundation of one's identity, you could take this one simple concept, turn up the liberalism just a tad, and write a really scary dystopian novel about it!
I think the quote is about the tendency of civilization to create more structure (new structure),
...which we could certainly use! From highways to power grids to Internet connectivity, our existing infrastructure is getting overloaded and needs to be generally expanded across the board to meet the needs of modern times.
Note to nitpickers: "Generally" means "in general, it needs to be expanded more than it doesn't." It does not mean "everything needs to be expanded indiscriminately;" it is possible to do this in an intelligent, rational, need-based manner.
Xerox, eh? That's kind of sad. For decades, their name was essentially synonymous with "making high-quality copies"... and now they've been seduced by the dark side and are abusing anti-copying technology.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Noble ideas, but doomed to failure
How is the web system of lock-in?
How is it not?
According to Wikipedia: "In economics, vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in or customer lock-in, makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services, unable to use another vendor without substantial switching costs." Replace the word "vendor" with "platform" and you have the very image of John Q. Public's relationship with the World Wide Web, and to be honest, of yours and mine as well. I bet most, if not all, of your personal email--the very foundation of your online identity--runs through webmail services. Would it not impose "substantial switching costs" to leave that behind, just to give one example?
You're talking about how they collapsed, which is really just details. Their collapse was inevitable; if it hadn't happened that way it would have happened in another way.
You're familiar with the concept of lock-in? The Web is a system that has a lock-in relationship with a significant fraction of the entire population of Earth. The idea that successfully replacing something like that is "no problem" takes a hard left at Wrong and drives straight on through the night, all the way to Delusionalville.
We already tried once to build a decentralized Internet: the Internet. And this is what has happened to it. What makes anyone think trying again will achieve a different result? (Insert Einstein's definition of insanity here.)
Centralization and hierarchy are the fundamental social pattern of human nature. For all the disadvantages that may come with them, they work, because the basic pattern seems to be hardwired into our brains. And by "work" I mean, specifically, "they are generally successful at creating a stable social structure." And the Internet is a social structure just as much as it is a technological one.
As much as certain readers may not wish to believe this, because it clashes with certain ideological principles, just try to name a counterexample. Anywhere in all of human history, can you point to a social structure comprised of 100 or more people that continued to exist and remained stable, or continued to grow and prosper, for more than 25 years, without a well-defined hierarchy shaped essentially like a pyramid?
Most attempts don't make it nearly that long before collapsing. One of the most notable examples in recent years was the Occupy Wall Street movement, which deliberately shunned hierarchy and leadership... and collapsed into insignificance almost right away. I don't think I've ever seen such a spectacularly sad waste of potential; they could have accomplished so much, and done a lot of good, if they had been properly organized!
So go ahead. Try to build a new Internet based on new technology to decentralize things again. It won't work, for essentially the same reason DRM doesn't work: as Techdirt likes to point out, trying to apply a technical solution to a social problem is doomed to failure.
"It is unacceptable for any company to charge consumers exorbitant fees to access the Internet while at the same time blocking them from using their own personal Wi-Fi hotspots to access the Internet,” said Travis LeBlanc, Chief of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau. “All companies who seek to use technologies that block FCC-approved Wi-Fi connections are on notice that such practices are patently unlawful."
Since his second sentence states plainly that blocking/jamming is illegal, is the first even necessary?
The point being made there is that experienced hunters have training in how to use a gun safely. Because a gun is a weapon, made for the specific purpose of causing harm, knowing how to use it safely is very important, and people who lack that knowledge can cause harm when they do not intend to, which results in a tragedy.
Therefore, good-faith gun-rights advocates don't pretend that a lot of gun owners weren't raised in a family where knowledge of gun safety can be assumed--in other words, they acknowledge that there are actually plenty of people out there who own guns and don't know how to use them safely, making them a danger to themselves and those around them, whereas other, more ideological gun-rights advocates never seem to care about points like this.
Yelp provides a platform by which the public can post reviews about public businesses so that the public can benefit from shared knowledge.
Yeah, that's the image they present to the public. In reality, they're running an extortion racket, manipulating the reviews that are shown to make businesses that pay them money look better and businesses that don't look worse, which, if people knew about it more, would destroy all confidence in the reliability of their site as a source of beneficial shared knowledge.
...do you even know what the Spanish Inquisition did?
You know, the guys who pioneered the concept of the presumption of innocence ("innocent until proven guilty") and the defendant's right of access to legal council? The people who effectively put an end to witch trials in Spain a century before the rest of Europe, by the simple expedient of requiring proof of the accused working black magic in order to convict? The guys who were one of the biggest civilizing forces of their day, and for that get remembered today as villains?
Apparently nobody respects the Spanish Inquisition.
On the post: Feds Keep Magically Finding Documents They Insisted Didn't Previously Exist
Re: Searched email after the leak? Why?
The NSA maintains that (it collected and searched every email Snowden sent) (after he leaked).
On the post: TSA At The Movies: Theater Chain Looks To Bring Security Theater To The Movie Theater
Re: Re:
On the post: TSA At The Movies: Theater Chain Looks To Bring Security Theater To The Movie Theater
Which one would that be?
Pepper spray is a non-lethal weapon, intended for defensive use, but it can certainly be used offensively to attack and disable someone.
A hatchet is a tool for splitting wood, but it can be (ab)used as a weapon.
An Airsoft gun is a gun, and while it does not fire bullets or use gunpowder for propellant, and is principally intended for use as part of a team sports game, there's a very good reason why Airsoft players are required to wear goggles and other basic body protection at any reputable Airsoft range.
So how do you figure that one of those three "is a weapon" and the other two aren't?
On the post: DOJ Issues First Annual Media Subpoena Report
That is a weirdly specific crime. What exactly does it entail?
On the post: Photographer Loses Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Mapmaker That Used His Photo With His Explicit Permission
Re: Re: Re: Interpretations...
I see how: because if you removed the image from the cover, it would not change a reader's understanding of the book in any meaningful way.
On the post: UK Orders Google To 'Forget' News Articles Discussing Previous Right To Be Forgotten Requests
"Forgotten" is the past tense of "forget", which literally means "to stop remembering".
"To be forgotten" is not something you do; it's something someone else does: they stop remembering about you.
A right, in this context, is a limitation on the absolute freedom of others, enforceable by the law.
Generally speaking, rights are a good thing, but not always, and this one, taken literally, borders on the terrifying: the legal right to forcibly remove [certain facts about] yourself from the memory of others.
Considering that memory is the foundation of one's identity, you could take this one simple concept, turn up the liberalism just a tad, and write a really scary dystopian novel about it!
On the post: Two Important Speeches: The Threats To The Future Of The Internet... And How To Protect An Open Internet
Re: Re: Re: Jerry Pournelle
...which we could certainly use! From highways to power grids to Internet connectivity, our existing infrastructure is getting overloaded and needs to be generally expanded across the board to meet the needs of modern times.
Note to nitpickers: "Generally" means "in general, it needs to be expanded more than it doesn't." It does not mean "everything needs to be expanded indiscriminately;" it is possible to do this in an intelligent, rational, need-based manner.
On the post: Your Toner Is No Good Here: Region-Coding Ink Cartridges... For The Customers
On the post: Two Important Speeches: The Threats To The Future Of The Internet... And How To Protect An Open Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Noble ideas, but doomed to failure
How is it not?
According to Wikipedia: "In economics, vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in or customer lock-in, makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services, unable to use another vendor without substantial switching costs." Replace the word "vendor" with "platform" and you have the very image of John Q. Public's relationship with the World Wide Web, and to be honest, of yours and mine as well. I bet most, if not all, of your personal email--the very foundation of your online identity--runs through webmail services. Would it not impose "substantial switching costs" to leave that behind, just to give one example?
On the post: Two Important Speeches: The Threats To The Future Of The Internet... And How To Protect An Open Internet
Re: Re: Noble ideas, but doomed to failure
On the post: Two Important Speeches: The Threats To The Future Of The Internet... And How To Protect An Open Internet
Re: Re: Noble ideas, but doomed to failure
You're familiar with the concept of lock-in? The Web is a system that has a lock-in relationship with a significant fraction of the entire population of Earth. The idea that successfully replacing something like that is "no problem" takes a hard left at Wrong and drives straight on through the night, all the way to Delusionalville.
On the post: Two Important Speeches: The Threats To The Future Of The Internet... And How To Protect An Open Internet
Re: Jerry Pournelle
On the post: Two Important Speeches: The Threats To The Future Of The Internet... And How To Protect An Open Internet
Noble ideas, but doomed to failure
Centralization and hierarchy are the fundamental social pattern of human nature. For all the disadvantages that may come with them, they work, because the basic pattern seems to be hardwired into our brains. And by "work" I mean, specifically, "they are generally successful at creating a stable social structure." And the Internet is a social structure just as much as it is a technological one.
As much as certain readers may not wish to believe this, because it clashes with certain ideological principles, just try to name a counterexample. Anywhere in all of human history, can you point to a social structure comprised of 100 or more people that continued to exist and remained stable, or continued to grow and prosper, for more than 25 years, without a well-defined hierarchy shaped essentially like a pyramid?
Most attempts don't make it nearly that long before collapsing. One of the most notable examples in recent years was the Occupy Wall Street movement, which deliberately shunned hierarchy and leadership... and collapsed into insignificance almost right away. I don't think I've ever seen such a spectacularly sad waste of potential; they could have accomplished so much, and done a lot of good, if they had been properly organized!
So go ahead. Try to build a new Internet based on new technology to decentralize things again. It won't work, for essentially the same reason DRM doesn't work: as Techdirt likes to point out, trying to apply a technical solution to a social problem is doomed to failure.
On the post: FCC Fines Company Caught Blocking Wi-Fi To Force Visitors On To Their Own, Absurdly-Priced Services
Since his second sentence states plainly that blocking/jamming is illegal, is the first even necessary?
On the post: New Yorker Decides US Has Too Much Free Speech; Dismisses 'Free Speech Extremists'
Re: Re: Word hurt
The point being made there is that experienced hunters have training in how to use a gun safely. Because a gun is a weapon, made for the specific purpose of causing harm, knowing how to use it safely is very important, and people who lack that knowledge can cause harm when they do not intend to, which results in a tragedy.
Therefore, good-faith gun-rights advocates don't pretend that a lot of gun owners weren't raised in a family where knowledge of gun safety can be assumed--in other words, they acknowledge that there are actually plenty of people out there who own guns and don't know how to use them safely, making them a danger to themselves and those around them, whereas other, more ideological gun-rights advocates never seem to care about points like this.
That's the distinction being drawn here.
On the post: Judge Not At All Impressed By Class Action Lawsuit Claiming Yelp Reviewers Are Really Employees
Re: No
Yeah, that's the image they present to the public. In reality, they're running an extortion racket, manipulating the reviews that are shown to make businesses that pay them money look better and businesses that don't look worse, which, if people knew about it more, would destroy all confidence in the reliability of their site as a source of beneficial shared knowledge.
On the post: Dianne Feinstein Worries That Net Neutrality Will Block ISPs From Censoring 'Terrorist' Content She Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: TCP Streams
On the post: Dianne Feinstein Worries That Net Neutrality Will Block ISPs From Censoring 'Terrorist' Content She Doesn't Like
Re: TCP Streams
Now if we can just get you to define "malicious"?
On the post: Dianne Feinstein Worries That Net Neutrality Will Block ISPs From Censoring 'Terrorist' Content She Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Letter to Dianne Feinstein
You know, the guys who pioneered the concept of the presumption of innocence ("innocent until proven guilty") and the defendant's right of access to legal council? The people who effectively put an end to witch trials in Spain a century before the rest of Europe, by the simple expedient of requiring proof of the accused working black magic in order to convict? The guys who were one of the biggest civilizing forces of their day, and for that get remembered today as villains?
Apparently nobody respects the Spanish Inquisition.
On the post: New Yorker Decides US Has Too Much Free Speech; Dismisses 'Free Speech Extremists'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: regarding publication freedom and varied media
Next >>