I have to admit the line "the reference to a 'parallel universe' are a sham" may be one of the funniest lines I've seen in a bullshit cease-and-desist threat letter in a long time. It doesn't seem like a sham at all. After all, O'Brien has not yet been convicted or sentenced, and thus it would have to be in a parallel universe.
I dunno. The letter is absolutely correct, to a point. It has a "clear meaning and innuendo" that is (or should be) obvious to everyone who reads it, exactly as the letter states, that O'Brien is a criminal who's managed to evade prosecution. It is malicious and deliberate, and it's hard to claim otherwise with a straight face.
Calling it defamation, though... that's tricky. It's only defamation if it's not true, afterall.
Well, in (highly unlikely) edge cases like that, there really is only one choice. It might sound cold, but it's the only decision that makes sense: the car must protect the safety of the people inside above all else.
There are two reasons for this. First, if that wasn't the case, who would want to buy it? (Sad, but true.)
Second--and this is even uglier, but it's a problem in the real world we live in today--is that it's a murder waiting to happen. If the car's programming had a built-in "sacrifice the people inside" code path, someone would find a way to hack the car, or fool its sensors somehow, and cause it to activate when it shouldn't.
Finally, we take intellectual property rights very seriously.
Wow. So a platform that was originally built by blatantly ripping off someone else's work, getting rich off of it, and using the money made off it to establish enough "legitimacy" to avoid consequences... now that they're established they take IP rights very seriously.
First thing I think of when I see this: Facebook has become the MPAA of the 21st century.
If a child runs in front of an autonomous car, should the car swerve to avoid the kid?
Of course! Why is this even a question?
If a kid (or anything or anyone else) moves directly in front of my car and presents a collision hazard, I'll brake, swerve, or do whatever else is necessary to avoid a crash. That's obvious.
Yes, exactly. A close friend of mine would happily "download an eyeball" if she could: she's been blind in one eye nearly all her life, due to a botched surgery in childhood that left scarring on her cornea.
Spoken like a true outsider with no clue what they're talking about. Yes, a lot of programming work gets outsourced to kids in other countries who don't know what they're doing. I know this all too well; I've been the guy who cleans up the mess the outsourced code monkeys leave behind, more times than I'd like to remember.
Wait, wait, wait... I'm presenting facts and logical arguments, and you're throwing around mockery and insults, and that makes me the one "beyond logical debate"?
Ahh yes...if they just knew the penalties they were facing...that would eliminate crime completely.
There is actually a case to be made for this. Let me state first, clearly and unambiguously, that I am not advocating following this example. Having said that, history does give us two examples of lawmakers who did successfully manage to bring crime within their domain to a screeching halt: Draco of Athens (for whom the term "draconian" is named), and Vlad Tepes, aka "Vlad The Impaler." (Who, it's worth noting, is still considered a great hero to this day in his native Romania; it was his neighbors--political enemies--who quite literally demonized him, calling him Drakula, which translates as "son of the dragon" or "son of The Devil," depending on who's doing the translating.) So yes, history demonstrates that deterrence does indeed work, and there is a point at which it apparently works completely.
Now again, I am not advocating following their example. There are other important factors that need to be taken into consideration when developing criminal justice policies for a modern, civilized society. But to just blithely dismiss deterrence like that makes you look horribly ignorant.
You specifically mention gun violence. This is an interesting case, because it combines two distinct things: violent crime, and guns. Would you agree that in almost all cases of intentional attack with a gun (ie. not counting the horror stories we've all heard about a gun going off accidentally, or a child finding a loaded pistol and not realizing it's not a toy, etc...) that if a gun had not been available, the violence would have still taken place anyway, by other means?
This being true, it makes sense to look at gun violence as a special case of violent crime in general, which, as I pointed out above (and as Techdirt has mentioned repeatedly over the years) has been on a steep decline for decades. The reason why gun violence in particular is so prevalent in the US as a subset of violence in general is a highly politicized question that both sides seem to agree can be blamed on the degree of availability of guns--the question is whether it's too high, or too low. (Deterrence again, in the latter POV.)
As for copyright infringement, think back to Disney's Aladdin: "Trouble? No, you're only in trouble if you get caught." When only a small fraction of 1% of people who engage in copyright infringement ever face any legal consequences for it, there's no deterrence even if the hypothetical penalties are insanely high.
If you want a better example, let's talk about kidnapping of children. It used to be thing in the USA. These days, it's nearly nonexistent, and most of what is termed "kidnapping" anymore involves a custodial dispute which one of the parents decided to resolve in a unilateral manner, frequently with the approval of the child in question--a far cry from what the average person would envision when they hear the word "kidnapped."
What changed? The FBI started taking kidnapping very seriously, and made it very clear that if you steal a child from their parents, you're not going to get away with it, and it worked.
Likewise, hijackings. You know why there hasn't been a single American airliner hijacked since 9/11? Because we made it clear that anyone who tries is going to get immediately mobbed by a plane full of passengers who all believe they have nothing to lose, and so the hijackers will never succeed in their goals.
When people know the penalties they face, and believe that they're likely to actually face them, it does have a strong tendency to eliminate crime. Sometimes even completely, as examples both ancient and modern show.
You're really going off the deep end on this one, Mason.
Ah yes, the classic holdout weapon of the debater who knows he has no case to make: mockery. Try to short-circuit the audience's reasoning by appealing to ridicule rather than facts and logic.
Sure... except that a EULA isn't a law; it's a "contract," and I say that in scare quotes because it lacks one of the most essential features of a genuine contract: a genuine contract is a bilateral affair, negotiated between two parties.
Second, studies have shown that users of electronic communications services often do not read or understand their providers’ privacy policies. There is no evidence that Appellants here read or understood the Sprint/Nextel policy.
Now that is a very interesting thing to see showing up in a court's ruling, especially as a matter of precedent. Imagine the implications for EULAs!
Remember the ridiculously harsh drug laws we passed during the war on drugs?
No, I don't remember any such thing. I remember a bunch of ridiculously lax laws that fail to treat drug dealers as what they are: murderers and worse than murderers. If we actually did treat them accordingly, if a person knew that if they got caught peddling addictive substances that destroy not only the life of their victim but the victim's family as well in all too many cases, that they would be punished as a person who destroys life is punished, you'd see a whole lot less drug dealing going on. (Which is why I object to the highly misleading term "war on drugs" in the first place. What kind of war is it where it's not presumed reasonable to kill enemy combatants as a matter of course? Some people think we need to end the war on drugs. I think we need to actually start it! That would be a far better use of our resources than, say, war in the Middle East.)
How about the 3 strikes laws, where people ended up serving 25 years for a minor 3rd offense? That was clearly a winner, wasn't it?
Which violent crimes are you calling 'minor', specifically, especially in the context of a person having established a pattern of violent crime and recidivism?
Also, in light of the way violent crime has been decreasing quite significantly since the passage of these laws, what is your basis for claiming that they're ineffective?
Won't even get into the sexism...you either see it or you don't.
Way to shift the burden of proof when you have nothing to back up your accusation.
A jury found Hobbs guilty of domestic battery and injury to other property. With his priors, the trial judge enhanced his sentence and sent Hobbs to High Desert State Prison for a maximum of 25 years.
Yeah, did you miss the part about how he was already a convicted felon several times over, and how he trashed her car?
Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. When I said "domestic violence doesn't mean spitting on someone", I didn't mean to imply anything about legal definitions of domestic violence, but rather that if you call the cops on someone for domestic violence, it's because you believe that you are in enough real, physical danger that the risk of the inevitable reprisal of this doesn't work is less than the immediate risk of doing nothing.
On the post: Irish Businessman Denis O'Brien Sues Parliament, Sends Legal Threat To Satirical Newspaper
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Irish Businessman Denis O'Brien Sues Parliament, Sends Legal Threat To Satirical Newspaper
Re:
On the post: Irish Businessman Denis O'Brien Sues Parliament, Sends Legal Threat To Satirical Newspaper
I dunno. The letter is absolutely correct, to a point. It has a "clear meaning and innuendo" that is (or should be) obvious to everyone who reads it, exactly as the letter states, that O'Brien is a criminal who's managed to evade prosecution. It is malicious and deliberate, and it's hard to claim otherwise with a straight face.
Calling it defamation, though... that's tricky. It's only defamation if it's not true, afterall.
On the post: DailyDirt: Lethal Machines
Re: Re:
There are two reasons for this. First, if that wasn't the case, who would want to buy it? (Sad, but true.)
Second--and this is even uglier, but it's a problem in the real world we live in today--is that it's a murder waiting to happen. If the car's programming had a built-in "sacrifice the people inside" code path, someone would find a way to hack the car, or fool its sensors somehow, and cause it to activate when it shouldn't.
On the post: Looks Like Facebook Is Building Its Own Content ID
Wow. So a platform that was originally built by blatantly ripping off someone else's work, getting rich off of it, and using the money made off it to establish enough "legitimacy" to avoid consequences... now that they're established they take IP rights very seriously.
First thing I think of when I see this: Facebook has become the MPAA of the 21st century.
On the post: Looks Like Facebook Is Building Its Own Content ID
Re: Re: Facebook?
On the post: Senate Punts CISA Vote Into September
Re:
On the post: Senate Punts CISA Vote Into September
Re: Oops
On the post: DailyDirt: Lethal Machines
Of course! Why is this even a question?
If a kid (or anything or anyone else) moves directly in front of my car and presents a collision hazard, I'll brake, swerve, or do whatever else is necessary to avoid a crash. That's obvious.
On the post: Universal Music's Anti-Piracy Ads Even Crazier Than You Can Imagine
Re: Re:
On the post: After The 'Maui Meltdown', TPP Has Missed A Key Deadline That Probably Means It's Doomed Whatever Is Now Agreed
I would really like to believe that... but wasn't that what we all thought about Fast Track just a few short weeks ago?
On the post: US Pushing To Kill Any Future Aereo With TPP
Re: Re: Not Fair.
On the post: Deputy Wants Immunity After Breaking Bones, Tearing Ligaments Of Suspect During Arrest; Appeals Court Quickly Shuts Him Down
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Deputy Wants Immunity After Breaking Bones, Tearing Ligaments Of Suspect During Arrest; Appeals Court Quickly Shuts Him Down
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Deputy Wants Immunity After Breaking Bones, Tearing Ligaments Of Suspect During Arrest; Appeals Court Quickly Shuts Him Down
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is actually a case to be made for this. Let me state first, clearly and unambiguously, that I am not advocating following this example. Having said that, history does give us two examples of lawmakers who did successfully manage to bring crime within their domain to a screeching halt: Draco of Athens (for whom the term "draconian" is named), and Vlad Tepes, aka "Vlad The Impaler." (Who, it's worth noting, is still considered a great hero to this day in his native Romania; it was his neighbors--political enemies--who quite literally demonized him, calling him Drakula, which translates as "son of the dragon" or "son of The Devil," depending on who's doing the translating.) So yes, history demonstrates that deterrence does indeed work, and there is a point at which it apparently works completely.
Now again, I am not advocating following their example. There are other important factors that need to be taken into consideration when developing criminal justice policies for a modern, civilized society. But to just blithely dismiss deterrence like that makes you look horribly ignorant.
You specifically mention gun violence. This is an interesting case, because it combines two distinct things: violent crime, and guns. Would you agree that in almost all cases of intentional attack with a gun (ie. not counting the horror stories we've all heard about a gun going off accidentally, or a child finding a loaded pistol and not realizing it's not a toy, etc...) that if a gun had not been available, the violence would have still taken place anyway, by other means?
This being true, it makes sense to look at gun violence as a special case of violent crime in general, which, as I pointed out above (and as Techdirt has mentioned repeatedly over the years) has been on a steep decline for decades. The reason why gun violence in particular is so prevalent in the US as a subset of violence in general is a highly politicized question that both sides seem to agree can be blamed on the degree of availability of guns--the question is whether it's too high, or too low. (Deterrence again, in the latter POV.)
As for copyright infringement, think back to Disney's Aladdin: "Trouble? No, you're only in trouble if you get caught." When only a small fraction of 1% of people who engage in copyright infringement ever face any legal consequences for it, there's no deterrence even if the hypothetical penalties are insanely high.
If you want a better example, let's talk about kidnapping of children. It used to be thing in the USA. These days, it's nearly nonexistent, and most of what is termed "kidnapping" anymore involves a custodial dispute which one of the parents decided to resolve in a unilateral manner, frequently with the approval of the child in question--a far cry from what the average person would envision when they hear the word "kidnapped."
What changed? The FBI started taking kidnapping very seriously, and made it very clear that if you steal a child from their parents, you're not going to get away with it, and it worked.
Likewise, hijackings. You know why there hasn't been a single American airliner hijacked since 9/11? Because we made it clear that anyone who tries is going to get immediately mobbed by a plane full of passengers who all believe they have nothing to lose, and so the hijackers will never succeed in their goals.
When people know the penalties they face, and believe that they're likely to actually face them, it does have a strong tendency to eliminate crime. Sometimes even completely, as examples both ancient and modern show.
Ah yes, the classic holdout weapon of the debater who knows he has no case to make: mockery. Try to short-circuit the audience's reasoning by appealing to ridicule rather than facts and logic.
It's kind of sad how well it works.
On the post: Summer Of The 4th Amendment: Appeals Court Says Mobile Phone Location Is Protected Under 4th Amendment
Re: Re:
On the post: Deputy Wants Immunity After Breaking Bones, Tearing Ligaments Of Suspect During Arrest; Appeals Court Quickly Shuts Him Down
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Summer Of The 4th Amendment: Appeals Court Says Mobile Phone Location Is Protected Under 4th Amendment
Now that is a very interesting thing to see showing up in a court's ruling, especially as a matter of precedent. Imagine the implications for EULAs!
On the post: Deputy Wants Immunity After Breaking Bones, Tearing Ligaments Of Suspect During Arrest; Appeals Court Quickly Shuts Him Down
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I don't remember any such thing. I remember a bunch of ridiculously lax laws that fail to treat drug dealers as what they are: murderers and worse than murderers. If we actually did treat them accordingly, if a person knew that if they got caught peddling addictive substances that destroy not only the life of their victim but the victim's family as well in all too many cases, that they would be punished as a person who destroys life is punished, you'd see a whole lot less drug dealing going on. (Which is why I object to the highly misleading term "war on drugs" in the first place. What kind of war is it where it's not presumed reasonable to kill enemy combatants as a matter of course? Some people think we need to end the war on drugs. I think we need to actually start it! That would be a far better use of our resources than, say, war in the Middle East.)
Which violent crimes are you calling 'minor', specifically, especially in the context of a person having established a pattern of violent crime and recidivism?
Also, in light of the way violent crime has been decreasing quite significantly since the passage of these laws, what is your basis for claiming that they're ineffective?
On the post: Deputy Wants Immunity After Breaking Bones, Tearing Ligaments Of Suspect During Arrest; Appeals Court Quickly Shuts Him Down
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Way to shift the burden of proof when you have nothing to back up your accusation.
Yeah, did you miss the part about how he was already a convicted felon several times over, and how he trashed her car?
Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. When I said "domestic violence doesn't mean spitting on someone", I didn't mean to imply anything about legal definitions of domestic violence, but rather that if you call the cops on someone for domestic violence, it's because you believe that you are in enough real, physical danger that the risk of the inevitable reprisal of this doesn't work is less than the immediate risk of doing nothing.
Next >>