It is truly too bad that some people just refuse to "get it".
I'm sorry to be the one to break the bad news to you, Mr. Ilori, but until you come to a complete understanding that neither you, nor the UN, nor any other body of persons has any power whatsoever over these bad actors (in your case, African governments), you are just peeing in the wind.
To wit, your only weapon available for use to bring these bad actors into line with your thinking is actual war, with weaponry that does not discriminate good from bad, it just kills, period. You can't shame these bastards, you can't ostracize them, you can't defund them, nor disturb their finances signficantly, and you most certainly can't just shake your finger at them and say "naughty boy" - none of those options work on people in power. They understand only one thing, and that is the credible threat of losing their personal life (lives). Only at that point can you "persuade them to see the light".
And for the record, we citizens of the US are having the same problem - assholes in both State and Federal governments who think that just because they are in a position of power, they have free reign to do whatever is best for them, and screw what everyone else thinks about them and their actions. What I said above about the African dictators applies in our own home as well.
Well, all except the bit about fearing for their lives. We citizens have some work to do on that part, about forcing them to straighten up and fly right, or get the hell out of Dodge. Civilized behavior, and all that, I'm sure you understand.
That uncreated storage would be an additional cost, something that looms large in planning and budgeting... particularly in the public sector.
So far, excepting Texas, the general grid can handle the transfer of enormous amount of power for short durations. Since wire is less costly than pretty much any storage medium of equivalent capacity, guess way the wind blows....
As above, yes the word is often used in patent language. Much of this stems from the fact that what works once should work again, and since patents have been around for about as long as our country.... you can probably guess why this word, and others, seem to be "out of step" with today's common vocabulary, but are part and parcel of the patent world.
As an example, I looked up something that I happen to know from personal experience. Check out how many times "plurality" appears in this patent:
... and this is from 1994. Dig into the referred patents that go back in time, and you keep finding the word, over and over. And wouldn't you know it, the patent passes the examiner's litmus test, despite the fact that it's re-inventing the wheel for about the 15th or 20th time.
Yes, provided that you limit the scope of your inquiry to a certain topic, or to a certain source of those FOIA's, and probably a time/date range as well. Too broad a request will likely get you a "Too Burdonsome" response.
Which is why a defendant can say "prove that you're entitled to this data, or else bugger off". Particularly where journalists and their sources are concerned.
"Plurality" simply means "a number greater than one". IOW, there are two or more units under discussion. The word conveys an exact meaning in fewer letters/syllables than other phrase.
... begging people to block them for at least a decade.
"At least a decade" is accurate insofar as it goes, but that's because of simple arithmetic. Try about 28 years and counting. We'll give it three months or so of peaceful browsing, since the date that Tim Berners-Lee first turned on the Internet. But that's being generous of me, it could be an even shorter interval, I'm not sure anymore.
Anyone else here remember using Fido, Archie (and Veronica & Jughead, of course), Telnet, FTP, Gopher, Lycos, on and on....? Good times, good times.
But you would think that for public names like this, there would be a bit more human involvement?
Seriously? Do you have any idea how many people are on Facebook? Try 2.2 BILLION. Yeah, thought that would wake you up.
Furthermore, beaucoup of them are named John Stossel, so... should Fb separate all of them out for special scrutiny? And wouldn't you know it, Fb gets more than 500,000 postings each and every minute throughout the day, every day, for all time. They are currently sitting on more than 300 PETABYTES of user generated content, and that's increasing at nearly 4 petabytes a day. Can you say "I want to be their storage provider!"?
Facing this kind of scale, it's a wonder that they were able to watch the doings of #45. John Stossel would rank pretty bleeping far down the list, I'm sure.
I believe that everyone would be better off with fully open social media platforms with zero moderation or fact checking.
And I agree, it would be a better thing all around. But first, there's that little matter of purging society of all of its Spock-begotten assholes. Find a way to do that legally, and I'm all in with you.
Fuckn' A, but you're fuckin' right, this fuckin' isn't a fuckin' daycare center! Somefuckin'body better show that fuckin' overly sensitive fuckin' Michael where to fuckin' find the fuckin' door.
Fuck me to tears, Koby, but you have repeatedly demonstrated a willful ignorance of both how things work, and history itself. I've tried to let you slide, because you can elucidate your thought patterns quite nicely, but for the most part, you insist on basing your conclusions on distinctly incorrect assumptions that have been countered with fact, time and time again.
I'm not even going to refer you the The Popehat Post on Section 230, you've had ample opportunity to read and digest it ere now. Instead, I'm going to flag you as a troll, and I tell you now, each and every time I see your name on a post, I'm going to flag it automatically. You need to learn.... unless you like playing with the children in the room, instead of the adults.
from the ask-not-how-you-can-ruin-the-Internet dept
It's too bad that the intro line can't be more than one line in length, the above being a perfect example. It should've been able to finish the quote thusly:
.... ask how the Internet might ruin you, if you don't shape up and fly right!"
.... when Authentic Manufacturers find out that online resellers suddenly won't deal with them either. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the phone conversation goes something like this:
AM: Whaddya mean, you won't let us sell on your platform?
Platform Operator: Well, it's too expensive to check to see if you and your goods are the real-meal-deal, so we' rejecting all sources of possible counterfeiting.
AM: But we are the real-meal-deal!
PO: And how much money do you want to send to us, my Nigerian Prince?
They rely on recognized company agents to make that determination. Or they occasionally get a snootful, and as seen in the case of Gibson and their imported wood, they simply look at the documentation and go "AHA!", and tick another check box for the month's quota. All very much on the up and up, doncha know...
What I can’t understand is why any members of Congress would be so willing to give trademark owners their wishlist when the results would be so disadvantageous for their constituents.
I have one word for you, Eric - Dollar Signs. Your closing words on the trademark-holder's lobbying efforts, and Congress' non-resistance to such efforts, says it all.
And here I had been holding Nadler in high regard because of his handling of the impeachment inquiries in the House. That man has now hit the Reset button, big time.
On the post: Social Media Regulation In African Countries Will Require More Than International Human Rights Law
It is truly too bad that some people just refuse to "get it".
I'm sorry to be the one to break the bad news to you, Mr. Ilori, but until you come to a complete understanding that neither you, nor the UN, nor any other body of persons has any power whatsoever over these bad actors (in your case, African governments), you are just peeing in the wind.
To wit, your only weapon available for use to bring these bad actors into line with your thinking is actual war, with weaponry that does not discriminate good from bad, it just kills, period. You can't shame these bastards, you can't ostracize them, you can't defund them, nor disturb their finances signficantly, and you most certainly can't just shake your finger at them and say "naughty boy" - none of those options work on people in power. They understand only one thing, and that is the credible threat of losing their personal life (lives). Only at that point can you "persuade them to see the light".
And for the record, we citizens of the US are having the same problem - assholes in both State and Federal governments who think that just because they are in a position of power, they have free reign to do whatever is best for them, and screw what everyone else thinks about them and their actions. What I said above about the African dictators applies in our own home as well.
Well, all except the bit about fearing for their lives. We citizens have some work to do on that part, about forcing them to straighten up and fly right, or get the hell out of Dodge. Civilized behavior, and all that, I'm sure you understand.
On the post: Misquoting Einstein Is Fast And Stupid, But Not Accurate
Re: Re: Quotes are stupid
If that was not an intentional misinterpretation, then it's double the funny.
On the post: Misquoting Einstein Is Fast And Stupid, But Not Accurate
Re: Re: Challenge Accepted
That uncreated storage would be an additional cost, something that looms large in planning and budgeting... particularly in the public sector.
So far, excepting Texas, the general grid can handle the transfer of enormous amount of power for short durations. Since wire is less costly than pretty much any storage medium of equivalent capacity, guess way the wind blows....
On the post: Misquoting Einstein Is Fast And Stupid, But Not Accurate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Challenge Accepted
Sorry, I should've paid closer attention.
As above, yes the word is often used in patent language. Much of this stems from the fact that what works once should work again, and since patents have been around for about as long as our country.... you can probably guess why this word, and others, seem to be "out of step" with today's common vocabulary, but are part and parcel of the patent world.
As an example, I looked up something that I happen to know from personal experience. Check out how many times "plurality" appears in this patent:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5477765A/en
... and this is from 1994. Dig into the referred patents that go back in time, and you keep finding the word, over and over. And wouldn't you know it, the patent passes the examiner's litmus test, despite the fact that it's re-inventing the wheel for about the 15th or 20th time.
Ah, the power of language, ain't it grand.
On the post: Clearview Suffers Brief Bout Of Better Judgment, Drops Subpoena Demanding Activists' Communications With Journalists
Re: FOIA FOIAs
Yes, provided that you limit the scope of your inquiry to a certain topic, or to a certain source of those FOIA's, and probably a time/date range as well. Too broad a request will likely get you a "Too Burdonsome" response.
On the post: Clearview Suffers Brief Bout Of Better Judgment, Drops Subpoena Demanding Activists' Communications With Journalists
Re: Re:
Which is why a defendant can say "prove that you're entitled to this data, or else bugger off". Particularly where journalists and their sources are concerned.
On the post: Misquoting Einstein Is Fast And Stupid, But Not Accurate
Re: Re: Challenge Accepted
"Plurality" simply means "a number greater than one". IOW, there are two or more units under discussion. The word conveys an exact meaning in fewer letters/syllables than other phrase.
On the post: CIA, NSA Block Ads Network-Wide To Protect Agencies. Ron Wyden Says Rest Of Gov't Should Do The Same.
Should that not be "accurate count"?
On the post: CIA, NSA Block Ads Network-Wide To Protect Agencies. Ron Wyden Says Rest Of Gov't Should Do The Same.
Re: Re:l
"At least a decade" is accurate insofar as it goes, but that's because of simple arithmetic. Try about 28 years and counting. We'll give it three months or so of peaceful browsing, since the date that Tim Berners-Lee first turned on the Internet. But that's being generous of me, it could be an even shorter interval, I'm not sure anymore.
Anyone else here remember using Fido, Archie (and Veronica & Jughead, of course), Telnet, FTP, Gopher, Lycos, on and on....? Good times, good times.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Seriously? Do you have any idea how many people are on Facebook? Try 2.2 BILLION. Yeah, thought that would wake you up.
Furthermore, beaucoup of them are named John Stossel, so... should Fb separate all of them out for special scrutiny? And wouldn't you know it, Fb gets more than 500,000 postings each and every minute throughout the day, every day, for all time. They are currently sitting on more than 300 PETABYTES of user generated content, and that's increasing at nearly 4 petabytes a day. Can you say "I want to be their storage provider!"?
Facing this kind of scale, it's a wonder that they were able to watch the doings of #45. John Stossel would rank pretty bleeping far down the list, I'm sure.
(source: https://kinsta.com/blog/facebook-statistics/)
On the post: Misquoting Einstein Is Fast And Stupid, But Not Accurate
Re: Challenge Accepted
AC, you beat me to it, but it's likely that I would've been even more verbose. Good job.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Re:
And I agree, it would be a better thing all around. But first, there's that little matter of purging society of all of its Spock-begotten assholes. Find a way to do that legally, and I'm all in with you.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Re:
Fuckn' A, but you're fuckin' right, this fuckin' isn't a fuckin' daycare center! Somefuckin'body better show that fuckin' overly sensitive fuckin' Michael where to fuckin' find the fuckin' door.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Re: That knife cuts both ways
Fails for the fact that the idiots can't fact-check a true fact with nothing more than emotional assumptions.
But I like the way you're thinking!
On the post: The Rule Of Fences, And Why Congress Needs To Temper Its Appetite To Undermine Internet Service Provider Liability Protection
Re:
I dunno whether to give this a Insightful or a Funny vote... so I gave it both!
On the post: The Rule Of Fences, And Why Congress Needs To Temper Its Appetite To Undermine Internet Service Provider Liability Protection
Re: Remember The First Half
Fuck me to tears, Koby, but you have repeatedly demonstrated a willful ignorance of both how things work, and history itself. I've tried to let you slide, because you can elucidate your thought patterns quite nicely, but for the most part, you insist on basing your conclusions on distinctly incorrect assumptions that have been countered with fact, time and time again.
I'm not even going to refer you the The Popehat Post on Section 230, you've had ample opportunity to read and digest it ere now. Instead, I'm going to flag you as a troll, and I tell you now, each and every time I see your name on a post, I'm going to flag it automatically. You need to learn.... unless you like playing with the children in the room, instead of the adults.
On the post: The Rule Of Fences, And Why Congress Needs To Temper Its Appetite To Undermine Internet Service Provider Liability Protection
It's too bad that the intro line can't be more than one line in length, the above being a perfect example. It should've been able to finish the quote thusly:
.... ask how the Internet might ruin you, if you don't shape up and fly right!"
On the post: The SHOP SAFE Act Is A Terrible Bill That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces
I can't wait for this to backfire...
.... when Authentic Manufacturers find out that online resellers suddenly won't deal with them either. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the phone conversation goes something like this:
AM: Whaddya mean, you won't let us sell on your platform?
Platform Operator: Well, it's too expensive to check to see if you and your goods are the real-meal-deal, so we' rejecting all sources of possible counterfeiting.
AM: But we are the real-meal-deal!
PO: And how much money do you want to send to us, my Nigerian Prince?
On the post: The SHOP SAFE Act Is A Terrible Bill That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces
Re: Re: Re:
They rely on recognized company agents to make that determination. Or they occasionally get a snootful, and as seen in the case of Gibson and their imported wood, they simply look at the documentation and go "AHA!", and tick another check box for the month's quota. All very much on the up and up, doncha know...
On the post: The SHOP SAFE Act Is A Terrible Bill That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces
I have one word for you, Eric - Dollar Signs. Your closing words on the trademark-holder's lobbying efforts, and Congress' non-resistance to such efforts, says it all.
And here I had been holding Nadler in high regard because of his handling of the impeachment inquiries in the House. That man has now hit the Reset button, big time.
Next >>