Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Jun 2018 @ 6:57pm
Re:
Dogs. You forgot dogs. They are terribly fearful of dogs as well. They use a shoot on sight policy for dogs, close or far, that dog must be dangerous and needs to be put down. Bang, bang, bang. That is, if they can control themselves to only three shots.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Jun 2018 @ 7:42am
Re: Re: Re: AT&T monopoly origin
No he didn't, and BTW he's right.
Remove money and political parties from politics and the situation can be fixed. No money from Corporations, no partisanship directed by party bosses, elected officials listening to and being responsive to their constituents rather than their donors or party heads. It won't go fast, but it will come back to the will of the people.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Jun 2018 @ 4:16pm
Just the beginning, There are no greater rights than copyright
No surprise, though I will be worried when the monkey starts to send out take down notices. Not PETA or David Slater, but Naruto him/her self. They will work, of course.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Jun 2018 @ 8:07pm
Hydrogen squared Pittsburgh?
The picture in the linked article does not display H2P. Not being a Pitt fan, what the hell does H2P mean anyway, and why would Pitt trademark it?
Next question is when will Pitt invite 'NON-TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ALMA MATER IPA' to campus. I like IPA's, the more hops the better, at least for me. They make good, flavorful, natural preservatives, but the flavorful part is more important to me. I don't have to try and transport it from England to India in very slow boats.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Jun 2018 @ 3:59pm
Re: Re: Maybe there should be two
Well, those questions might be a function of the independent audit group I am suggesting. The point is to make Wikipedia ideologically independent and report facts. I understand that 'facts' can be interpreted differently (the winners write the history), but Wikipedia should report those things that actually happened, and maybe link to some different site that does interpretation.
That site should be viewed with severe skepticism, and though separate should not be left out, nor edit apposing points of view.
This is a discussion, what are your answers to the problems?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Jun 2018 @ 3:43pm
Re: Re: The new N-word. SJW
The problem is that when one takes on a particular persona, there are other things that get left behind (I have left this link previously, apparently you did not follow it. Do so, now. So that you will not live in such ignorance forever). If one is only about social justice, they might forget that there are other, legitimate, points of view. Labels don't necessarily qualify or quantify anyone, but they are easy to apply. Often, though, they are not just inaccurate, but don't tell a whole truth. Which is as much as a lie.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Jun 2018 @ 3:33pm
Re: Re: Maybe there should be two
My thoughts are directed twofold. The first to, maybe more publicly, express the efforts of Wikipedia at truthfulness. The 'Chinese wall' would go a long way toward accusations of corruption. The second is to remove a long standing perception of Wikipedia that it is not factual. I would like to see that change, and what better way than to show extended effort at being factual, rather than 'nuanced'.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Jun 2018 @ 3:17pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like an argument to make the infrastructure a utility giving each endpoint the best possible connection, and providers ancillary to that, and regulated but not by the FCC. It is just infrastructure, not communications. The infrastructure profit would come, over time, not next quarter.
Those providers should be able to compete for each and every end connection, independently, not just by area, or region, or building.
Well done. I never thought I would hear that from you.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Jun 2018 @ 3:07pm
BTW
There is another covenant that the USSC should overturn, as it is not likely that the legislatures every will, too much money involved. That covenant is that eminent domain can be used to enrich developers, rather than solely for public benefit. Yes it might increase some tax base, and it might re-purpose some land/buildings that have fallen on hard times and might be seen as blight, but giving developers a go ahead without letting the market decide if a particular development should go ahead, even if there is just one holdout, does not seem to fit with what I think the true purpose of the law, as it was intended. IMHO!
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Jun 2018 @ 2:51pm
Maybe there should be two
I like Wikipedia. But I rarely, if ever turn to them for anything that might be considered controversial. Maybe there should be two organizations, with any contributions split in some way between the two. The first would be Wikipedia, as it is. The second would be Wikipedia Audits (or something) who have responsibility, and authority, to check on entries that are considered 'controversial' with the intent to 'correct' (maybe by leaving some kind of question on a post, like the ones that exist for citations needed) or to make an irremovable post questioning why a post doesn't exist, for any reason (with sources from the public that go direct to them).
I don't know what the split should be, the Wikimedia foundation has the burden of hosting the website and its bandwidth and storage costs. However, while postings are not paid for, the auditing should be paid for, as this would be a fairly thankless job, with the only 'benefit' being a more reliable dictionary. The trouble comes up when there is not a 'Chinese wall' between any contribution and either posting or auditing efforts. There should be no ability to influence either. That means that the 'Chinese wall' should exist for Wikipedia as well. How to implement that is worth further discussion.
For example, companies are often caught trying to 'enhance' entries about their companies, and this 'catching' could, and should be made stronger by some independent agency that focuses solely on the dictionary (and it is not only companies that try to 'enhance' entries, there are partisans galore who attempt this, and my suggestion here is to thwart them all and make Wikipedia a reliable source). This effort should be directed at belaying the concept that the winners write the history. History should be fact, not nuanced by whomever tries to influence it, winner or loser.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Jun 2018 @ 1:06pm
Re: Re:
I agree, but that would mean that council members would need to know laws that police officers don't, which would mean the Supreme Court would have to reverse itself, again.
They would have to make it that all government workers would have to know all laws. Not a terrible idea, legislatures would have to reduce the number of laws for their own protection. I kind of like it.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Jun 2018 @ 4:01pm
Re: Re: Re: fun time..
Those took a bit more than just us going out and 'fixing' some country. Actually, they were our last two, actually declared wars, though we have been 'fixing' a few more recently, in a war like manner, without declaring war, or succeeding.
In addition, I wonder about whether they are, as yet, fixed. Or ever will be. Or, unless they get into the warlike world domination mode, again, if we want to fix them more.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Jun 2018 @ 12:56pm
Re: fun time..
Why arnt we FIXING Central and south America...
Name one time where our efforts at 'fixing' another country worked. We've screwed a lot of them up, but I cannot find evidence of any 'fixes', not that lasted. We tend to dump one regime, considered bad at the time, and get another that is often as bad, and sometimes worse, for various values of worse.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Jun 2018 @ 11:36am
Re: Sculptures...
The issue with your analysis is that the sculpture is a finite good. There is no reason for the sculptor to expect income after the sale of his one item, especially when it was purchased to be in a public place that does not have an entrance fee. It is not like a book or a record or a movie, which charge for each physical copy or performance. Now if he was selling miniature copies of his work, it might be different.
If it were in a museum, then the sale would have to have had to negotiate a portion of entrance fees at the time of sale. I have never heard of a museum making such a deal, though I suppose it is possible.
On the post: Verizon's Sad Attempt To Woo Millennials Falls Flat On Its Face
Re: Re:
/s
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Classic sign of amateur journalists
On the post: Pennsylvania Cops Abusing A Bad Law To Arrest People For Saying Angry Things To Them
Re:
On the post: AT&T Begins Testing Its Power In The Wake Of Merger Mania & The Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: AT&T monopoly origin
Remove money and political parties from politics and the situation can be fixed. No money from Corporations, no partisanship directed by party bosses, elected officials listening to and being responsive to their constituents rather than their donors or party heads. It won't go fast, but it will come back to the will of the people.
On the post: The Monkey Selfie Case Continues, But The Dancing Baby One Does Not
Just the beginning, There are no greater rights than copyright
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Take Petition Asking Whether Eighth Amendment Protections Apply To Asset Forfeiture
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Take Petition Asking Whether Eighth Amendment Protections Apply To Asset Forfeiture
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Voodoo Brewery Changes Beer Name By Dipping It In Snark In Response To Pitt Trademark C&D
Hydrogen squared Pittsburgh?
Next question is when will Pitt invite 'NON-TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ALMA MATER IPA' to campus. I like IPA's, the more hops the better, at least for me. They make good, flavorful, natural preservatives, but the flavorful part is more important to me. I don't have to try and transport it from England to India in very slow boats.
On the post: Wikipedia Makes The Case For Google & Facebook To Give Back To The Commons, Rather Than Just Take
Re: Re: Maybe there should be two
That site should be viewed with severe skepticism, and though separate should not be left out, nor edit apposing points of view.
This is a discussion, what are your answers to the problems?
On the post: Leaked ICE Manual Shows Gov't Allowing Informants To Engage In Illegal Behavior, Impersonate Lawyers, Journalists, And Doctors
Re: Re: The new N-word. SJW
The problem is that when one takes on a particular persona, there are other things that get left behind (I have left this link previously, apparently you did not follow it. Do so, now. So that you will not live in such ignorance forever). If one is only about social justice, they might forget that there are other, legitimate, points of view. Labels don't necessarily qualify or quantify anyone, but they are easy to apply. Often, though, they are not just inaccurate, but don't tell a whole truth. Which is as much as a lie.
On the post: Wikipedia Makes The Case For Google & Facebook To Give Back To The Commons, Rather Than Just Take
Re: Re: Maybe there should be two
On the post: Court Says ISPs Can't Use Net Neutrality Repeal to Dodge Lawsuits For Shitty Service
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those providers should be able to compete for each and every end connection, independently, not just by area, or region, or building.
Well done. I never thought I would hear that from you.
That is you, isn't it?
On the post: Probable Cause Doesn't Excuse Retaliatory Arrest, Supreme Court Rules
BTW
On the post: Wikipedia Makes The Case For Google & Facebook To Give Back To The Commons, Rather Than Just Take
Maybe there should be two
I don't know what the split should be, the Wikimedia foundation has the burden of hosting the website and its bandwidth and storage costs. However, while postings are not paid for, the auditing should be paid for, as this would be a fairly thankless job, with the only 'benefit' being a more reliable dictionary. The trouble comes up when there is not a 'Chinese wall' between any contribution and either posting or auditing efforts. There should be no ability to influence either. That means that the 'Chinese wall' should exist for Wikipedia as well. How to implement that is worth further discussion.
For example, companies are often caught trying to 'enhance' entries about their companies, and this 'catching' could, and should be made stronger by some independent agency that focuses solely on the dictionary (and it is not only companies that try to 'enhance' entries, there are partisans galore who attempt this, and my suggestion here is to thwart them all and make Wikipedia a reliable source). This effort should be directed at belaying the concept that the winners write the history. History should be fact, not nuanced by whomever tries to influence it, winner or loser.
On the post: Probable Cause Doesn't Excuse Retaliatory Arrest, Supreme Court Rules
Re: Re:
They would have to make it that all government workers would have to know all laws. Not a terrible idea, legislatures would have to reduce the number of laws for their own protection. I kind of like it.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: fun time..
In addition, I wonder about whether they are, as yet, fixed. Or ever will be. Or, unless they get into the warlike world domination mode, again, if we want to fix them more.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: fun time..
Name one time where our efforts at 'fixing' another country worked. We've screwed a lot of them up, but I cannot find evidence of any 'fixes', not that lasted. We tend to dump one regime, considered bad at the time, and get another that is often as bad, and sometimes worse, for various values of worse.
Maybe if we used different tactics.
On the post: Artist Files Completely Frivolous Copyright Lawsuit Against The NRA For Briefly Showing Public Sculpture In Stupid Video
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Artist Files Completely Frivolous Copyright Lawsuit Against The NRA For Briefly Showing Public Sculpture In Stupid Video
Re: Sculptures...
If it were in a museum, then the sale would have to have had to negotiate a portion of entrance fees at the time of sale. I have never heard of a museum making such a deal, though I suppose it is possible.
On the post: Artist Files Completely Frivolous Copyright Lawsuit Against The NRA For Briefly Showing Public Sculpture In Stupid Video
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>