Re: Re: Well that's one way to deal with bullies/trolls...
Except this doesn't stop bullying, it participates in this behavior by telling the potential victims that they don't have the right to speak up. Or appear in public. Or exist online. They should just hole up somewhere inconspicuous.
That was not a solution, it only serves to mask the problem by pretending it doesn't exist since the possible victims are not there to complain about it.
Simply put, it is a case of "worse than doing nothing".
... they paid for their use of Facebook by driving profits to the company
Which is a well-known business model.
As long as you don't pay a fee, it's free for you. How the company otherwise generates revenue doesn't change this fact. They might want FB to better disclose what they do with the data you provide (for free again), but that's the point of privacy laws. Technically, advertising that the service is free is not a lie.
If that is their new fight, there are way worse offenders than FB. Games that advertise being "free to play", but push you very hard to spend in micro-transactions are often way more misleading than a service that keeps its promise of not charging you a dime.
Quick note about the alphabet soup here.
ICE is not tasked with border enforcement and immigration control. CBP is.
ICE is a taskforce created after 9/11 to "enforce" immigration within the borders. So basically finding illegals immigrants and "escorting" them out... when they don't reveal themselves through being arresting for some other crime. Which means, they are the ones pushing illegal but otherwise harmless immigrants out. Not the "bad hombre" Trump was talking about at some point.
Re: Re: Re: France: For when you thought it wasn't possible to s
Not sure how much sarcasm was in that comment, but the younger generation is already pretty open to outside influence. The older generation, in particular those who hold most of the political power, is the one that is reacting badly to those foreign influences.
Add to this the large "author's right is sacred" frame of mind, and a willingness to cater to the large "cultural industry" (an oxymoron in my opinion) and you have a law that completely ignores what rights the people have in the matter.
You only have to listen to any of the ministers of culture (former or current) to get an idea about their priorities. Some of their speeches are egregiously condescending, borderline contemptuous for the public. Listening to them, authors are superior beings that bestow their art to the masses and must be protected from the rabble that might pirate their work. Although these same ministers' actions somehow tend to subordinate the authors to the will of their producers, who are the ones with the real influence.
It's a mess, both in concept and execution. Then, they yell "cultural exception" like that's supposed to excuse everything.
Mr. Schwarz should have self-moderated and not tweeted what he did...
And sadly, that's exactly what hecklers want you to do.
They want you to avoid saying things, moderate yourself far more than is legally required and avoid "offending sensibilities".
Note that those hecklers are the very same who will in turn complain that others are too sensitive and should quit complaining about the hecklers' protected speech.
First, your math is all kinds of wrong... But we get the idea.
Second, I agree that there are far too many partisan voters who will not vote for an opposition candidate ever, although you might have some success in stopping them from voting (republicans have several tools in the bag, and democrats are particularly easier to convince since many actually care enough not to vote for a criminal).
The problem is that there have been many factors in Trump's favor, so it's going to be super-tough to weigh them appropriately.
Russian troll farms, Clinton's poor strategy choices, Clinton's known corporate bias, Trump's image of successful businessman (though a complete sham), Comey's public announcement of investigation on Clinton, Obama's choice not to reveal Russian efforts... and so much more that I can't just list it all.
Each definitely had some influence. How much? Who cares at this point.
Was there "collusion" between Trump and Putin? Who cares. We have a lot more to impeach Trump on that this doesn't matter and can't even be proven conclusively at this point. (Though there is some body of pretty convincing evidence in that direction.)
What's important now is looking forward. Namely preparing for two events:
Trump's potential impeachment.
The 2020 election.
If you keep on harping on past subjects that you can't prove strongly enough, you're just going to gift the election to Republicans once more.
For the impeachment, focus on what we have proof on, sometimes kindly provided by Trump himself. For the election, focus on positive communication about your side. Smear campaigns seem to work much better in favor of republicans for some reason. I won't say what I think this means about republicans, but I'll think it very loudly.
Another option is the same idea as "one-issue voters".
They support the extreme copyright positions of the (wrongly named) Creative Future, and are completely indifferent as to the means that the Hollywood front uses to that goal, or the other positions it might advocate.
Indifference is not support, but I agree that it doesn't reflect well on them either way.
It is.
However, you need to consider 1. the purpose and 2. the policy of the specific service you use. In this case, you have to consider that you want to use it for broadcasting, so you must consider a service that resists illegitimate DMCA requests. Or at least won't hold a "strike" against you after the DMCA claims proves to be unfounded.
As a personal storage backup, cloud services are a good option, but even then it should not be your primary storage.
According to past cop testimony, you're suspicious if you're too nervous when talking with a cop. You're also suspicious if you're too relaxed when talking to a cop. You're suspicious if you're making a traffic violation, but you're suspicious if you're abiding by the rules. Whatever they decide to judge you on, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And most importantly, they don't care about past judgment or constitutionality. You might be able to prevail in court later on, but you will still lose both time and money. They might lose, but you never win.
Also note that, even when they lose, that's never on their own dime. So they don't really lose, the taxpayers do.
Operating on a tip that from someone claiming to have purchased heroin from the home of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas, the Houston PD SWAT team secured a no-knock warrant and kicked in the door roughly five hours later.
The bigger issue here, though, is that in this particular case you now have material which should it break in combat is illegal for the military to repair.
Note that the article explains that it goes beyond just the illegality of it.
There would likely be an argument of force majeure to be made in court if your hardware breaks in the middle of a war zone and you took necessary steps to repair in order to survive the fight.
However, the problem is wider as the army can't even train to repair the equipment or to manufacture critical pieces on site. So even if you can have the court waive the charge of "someone made an illegal field repair to save his life and possibly the interests of his country", you might not have anyone with the skills to make the repair in the first place.
So the situation is way more critical than that.
Congratulations on missing the point. The important point is: are you trying to make something new/original or reproduce something as close to possible to the original...
How much technical knowledge and "creativity" is required in the process is irrelevant. We do agree in the end, but it's important to underline that this kind of technical "creativity" is not what the courts consider relevant.
Creativity in that case is about "creating something original", not about "using a process that requires personal judgment". What matters is the end, not the means.
The concept is the same: trying to get a reproduction that is as exact as possible. The digital 3D model is just an intermediate step to that end, much like the film used in analog photography or the file in digital photography. This doesn't change the fact that this attempts to make a reproduction without originality.
I gave some examples of what might be considered "added originality" - and that has yet to be tried in court - but a direct scan is definitely not.
In a way, this case being tossed is because of those other cases that never get brought to court for lack of finding anything. The end doesn't justify the means because you necessarily involve non-criminals in fishing expeditions.
If cops could 100% find criminals without ever making mistakes or (worse yet) willfully charging innocents, there wouldn't be a need for due process. But, because we are prone to failure and ill intentions, we need safeguards. The procedures that law enforcement must follow are the safeguards and letting criminals go when procedures are not followed are the way LEOs are signaled that they messed up. (Note that I'm not even sure the people in this case are criminals to begin with. I don't know enough of the context to confirm it.)
I could agree that it doesn't feel like a satisfactory outcome for two reasons:
first because you might have caught an actual criminal, but you have to let him go. However, that is the cost society has to pay if due process is to mean anything.
second because the cop who so blatantly violated the procedures and law that specifically apply to him is not held responsible. He's free to do it again, only to let tax payers bear the cost of litigation. I can understand how you don't want to hold individual policemen accountable for each failure, but there should be good faith attempt to follow due process. It's often hard to tell, but the case here is not.
Funny how the loudest "Free Speech advocates" out there are some of the quickest to file suit when criticized.
Most of this special kind of hypocrite seems to be the type to advocate for "free speech" as in "you owe me a platform to spew my hatred", which is, funny enough, not a free speech issue.
In this case, it looks more like a case of "you can't sue me for what I say, but I can sue you for what you say... because reasons." Still a big hypocrisy, but nothing really new.
On the post: Be Careful What You Wish For: TikTok Tries To Stop Bullying On Its Platforms... By Suppressing Those It Thought Might Get Bullied
Re: Re: Well that's one way to deal with bullies/trolls...
Except this doesn't stop bullying, it participates in this behavior by telling the potential victims that they don't have the right to speak up. Or appear in public. Or exist online. They should just hole up somewhere inconspicuous.
That was not a solution, it only serves to mask the problem by pretending it doesn't exist since the possible victims are not there to complain about it.
Simply put, it is a case of "worse than doing nothing".
On the post: Hungary Has Fined Facebook For 'Misleading Consumers' Because It Promoted Its Service As 'Free'
So they admit it's free.
Which is a well-known business model.
As long as you don't pay a fee, it's free for you. How the company otherwise generates revenue doesn't change this fact. They might want FB to better disclose what they do with the data you provide (for free again), but that's the point of privacy laws. Technically, advertising that the service is free is not a lie.
If that is their new fight, there are way worse offenders than FB. Games that advertise being "free to play", but push you very hard to spend in micro-transactions are often way more misleading than a service that keeps its promise of not charging you a dime.
On the post: Disney's Decision Not To Renew SecuROM License Bricks 'Tron: Evolution'
Re: Re: Re:
Don't be too relaxed.
None of these exemptions are permanent: they have to be re-affirmed every three years.
On the post: California Supreme Court Closes Warrantless Vehicle Search Loophole
Re: Re: Re: High-Risk Payment Gateway Provider
5 to 20 per day? Inacceptable.
You should obviously nerd harder. :D
On the post: DHS Wanted To Add US Citizens To The Long List Of People Subjected To Mandatory Face Scans At Airports... But Has Backed Down For Now
Re: Re:
Quick note about the alphabet soup here.
ICE is not tasked with border enforcement and immigration control. CBP is.
ICE is a taskforce created after 9/11 to "enforce" immigration within the borders. So basically finding illegals immigrants and "escorting" them out... when they don't reveal themselves through being arresting for some other crime. Which means, they are the ones pushing illegal but otherwise harmless immigrants out. Not the "bad hombre" Trump was talking about at some point.
On the post: France, As Promised, Is First Out Of The Gate With Its Awful Copyright Directive Law: Ignores Requirements For User Protections
Re: Re: Re: France: For when you thought it wasn't possible to s
Not sure how much sarcasm was in that comment, but the younger generation is already pretty open to outside influence. The older generation, in particular those who hold most of the political power, is the one that is reacting badly to those foreign influences.
Add to this the large "author's right is sacred" frame of mind, and a willingness to cater to the large "cultural industry" (an oxymoron in my opinion) and you have a law that completely ignores what rights the people have in the matter.
You only have to listen to any of the ministers of culture (former or current) to get an idea about their priorities. Some of their speeches are egregiously condescending, borderline contemptuous for the public. Listening to them, authors are superior beings that bestow their art to the masses and must be protected from the rabble that might pirate their work. Although these same ministers' actions somehow tend to subordinate the authors to the will of their producers, who are the ones with the real influence.
It's a mess, both in concept and execution. Then, they yell "cultural exception" like that's supposed to excuse everything.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: That Time Twitter Nazis Got A Reporter Barred From Twitter Over Some Jokes
Re:
And sadly, that's exactly what hecklers want you to do.
They want you to avoid saying things, moderate yourself far more than is legally required and avoid "offending sensibilities".
Note that those hecklers are the very same who will in turn complain that others are too sensitive and should quit complaining about the hecklers' protected speech.
On the post: Study Says Russian Trolls Didn't Have Much Influence On Election; But It's More Complicated Than That
Re: Re:
First, your math is all kinds of wrong... But we get the idea.
Second, I agree that there are far too many partisan voters who will not vote for an opposition candidate ever, although you might have some success in stopping them from voting (republicans have several tools in the bag, and democrats are particularly easier to convince since many actually care enough not to vote for a criminal).
The problem is that there have been many factors in Trump's favor, so it's going to be super-tough to weigh them appropriately.
Russian troll farms, Clinton's poor strategy choices, Clinton's known corporate bias, Trump's image of successful businessman (though a complete sham), Comey's public announcement of investigation on Clinton, Obama's choice not to reveal Russian efforts... and so much more that I can't just list it all.
Each definitely had some influence. How much? Who cares at this point.
Was there "collusion" between Trump and Putin? Who cares. We have a lot more to impeach Trump on that this doesn't matter and can't even be proven conclusively at this point. (Though there is some body of pretty convincing evidence in that direction.)
What's important now is looking forward. Namely preparing for two events:
If you keep on harping on past subjects that you can't prove strongly enough, you're just going to gift the election to Republicans once more.
For the impeachment, focus on what we have proof on, sometimes kindly provided by Trump himself. For the election, focus on positive communication about your side. Smear campaigns seem to work much better in favor of republicans for some reason. I won't say what I think this means about republicans, but I'll think it very loudly.
On the post: ICE Says Students Duped By Its Fake College Sting Should Have Known It Was A Sting
Re: Hasn't it always been like this for federal enforcement?
Actually, I think they would have more work but - indeed - less result.
Catching real criminals is way harder than manufacturing them yourself.
On the post: Why Won't Creative Future's Members Comment About This Hollywood Front Group Smearing A Well Respected Law Professor?
Or they can choose to silence you, for a price.
On the post: Why Won't Creative Future's Members Comment About This Hollywood Front Group Smearing A Well Respected Law Professor?
Re: Sometimes silence says a lot
Another option is the same idea as "one-issue voters".
They support the extreme copyright positions of the (wrongly named) Creative Future, and are completely indifferent as to the means that the Hollywood front uses to that goal, or the other positions it might advocate.
Indifference is not support, but I agree that it doesn't reflect well on them either way.
On the post: UNC Gave Racists $2.5 Million To Settle A Lawsuit That Hadn't Been Filed Yet, And The Racists Are Abusing The DMCA To Hide The Details
Re:
It is.
However, you need to consider 1. the purpose and 2. the policy of the specific service you use. In this case, you have to consider that you want to use it for broadcasting, so you must consider a service that resists illegitimate DMCA requests. Or at least won't hold a "strike" against you after the DMCA claims proves to be unfounded.
As a personal storage backup, cloud services are a good option, but even then it should not be your primary storage.
On the post: Oregon Supreme Court Shuts Down Pretextual Traffic Stops; Says Cops Can't Ask Questions Unrelated To The Violation
Are people honestly answering this one when they do?
US Police must have the easiest job in the world.
On the post: Oregon Supreme Court Shuts Down Pretextual Traffic Stops; Says Cops Can't Ask Questions Unrelated To The Violation
Re: Re: Re: No I don't, and no I don't
According to past cop testimony, you're suspicious if you're too nervous when talking with a cop. You're also suspicious if you're too relaxed when talking to a cop. You're suspicious if you're making a traffic violation, but you're suspicious if you're abiding by the rules. Whatever they decide to judge you on, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And most importantly, they don't care about past judgment or constitutionality. You might be able to prevail in court later on, but you will still lose both time and money. They might lose, but you never win.
Also note that, even when they lose, that's never on their own dime. So they don't really lose, the taxpayers do.
On the post: Officer Charged With Felony Murder Now Facing Seven More Charges Over Deadly No-Knock Raid
Re:
In this story, we're now several steps after literally swatting someone.
From one of the earlier articles on this story:
On the post: The End Of Ownership, Military Edition: Even The US Military Can't Fix Its Own Equipment Without Right To Repair Laws
Re: Re: Boondoggles R' US
Note that the article explains that it goes beyond just the illegality of it.
There would likely be an argument of force majeure to be made in court if your hardware breaks in the middle of a war zone and you took necessary steps to repair in order to survive the fight.
However, the problem is wider as the army can't even train to repair the equipment or to manufacture critical pieces on site. So even if you can have the court waive the charge of "someone made an illegal field repair to save his life and possibly the interests of his country", you might not have anyone with the skills to make the repair in the first place.
So the situation is way more critical than that.
On the post: The Curious Case Of The Bogus CC License On A 3D Scan Of A 3000-Year-Old Bust Of Nefertiti
Re: Re: Re: Comparison
Congratulations on missing the point. The important point is: are you trying to make something new/original or reproduce something as close to possible to the original...
How much technical knowledge and "creativity" is required in the process is irrelevant. We do agree in the end, but it's important to underline that this kind of technical "creativity" is not what the courts consider relevant.
Creativity in that case is about "creating something original", not about "using a process that requires personal judgment". What matters is the end, not the means.
On the post: The Curious Case Of The Bogus CC License On A 3D Scan Of A 3000-Year-Old Bust Of Nefertiti
Re: Re:
The concept is the same: trying to get a reproduction that is as exact as possible. The digital 3D model is just an intermediate step to that end, much like the film used in analog photography or the file in digital photography. This doesn't change the fact that this attempts to make a reproduction without originality.
I gave some examples of what might be considered "added originality" - and that has yet to be tried in court - but a direct scan is definitely not.
On the post: Court Tosses 82 Pounds Of Marijuana After Deputy Fails To Even Pretend His Traffic Stop Was Anything But Pretextual
Re:
In a way, this case being tossed is because of those other cases that never get brought to court for lack of finding anything. The end doesn't justify the means because you necessarily involve non-criminals in fishing expeditions.
If cops could 100% find criminals without ever making mistakes or (worse yet) willfully charging innocents, there wouldn't be a need for due process. But, because we are prone to failure and ill intentions, we need safeguards. The procedures that law enforcement must follow are the safeguards and letting criminals go when procedures are not followed are the way LEOs are signaled that they messed up. (Note that I'm not even sure the people in this case are criminals to begin with. I don't know enough of the context to confirm it.)
I could agree that it doesn't feel like a satisfactory outcome for two reasons:
On the post: This Week In Free Speech Hypocrites: 'Free Speech' Supporter Sheila Gunn Reid Gleefully Sues Someone For Calling Her A Neo-Nazi
Funny how the loudest "Free Speech advocates" out there are some of the quickest to file suit when criticized.
Most of this special kind of hypocrite seems to be the type to advocate for "free speech" as in "you owe me a platform to spew my hatred", which is, funny enough, not a free speech issue.
In this case, it looks more like a case of "you can't sue me for what I say, but I can sue you for what you say... because reasons." Still a big hypocrisy, but nothing really new.
Next >>