When was the last time Child Porn blew up in a place like Boston?
That would be that daycare center in California where perfectly decent child care workers were terrorized by LEOs and child protection over pretty much non-existent evidence. Last I heard, the prosecutors and cops still believed, "They was robbed!" We wound up with a bunch of draconian laws on the books despite there being no substance to the accusations.
From their point of view, end users are merely eye balls to be sold on a platter.
It could be argued that things would be better for everyone if they dropped this adversarial view.
That's not adversarial. It's predatory. It's thinking of us as meat wandering in a herd and the highest we could aspire to is to provide a meal for one of the hungry lions circling about.
I propose whenever any of us sees a lion out there, stampede over their asses and grind them to dust!
Money. Google has it and she wants it. That's the beginning and the end of this.
Au contraire. She's butt-hurt that Google's a non-union shop and it's consorting with another non-union shop to exploit the workers, all of whom should be working in union shops except for bastards like Google who make it possible for non-union shops to employ workers outside the tender loving care of the union, obviously to exploit said workers.
She's just another form of monopolist, the "union jobs are the only fair jobs" kind.
It's too bad the shareholders or CEO didn't want to cover the difference, but that's hardly a surprise.
It's also too bad they were so cheap and didn't want to pay their employees what they thought was a decent wage or there never would've been a reason to bring in a union in the first place. However, it's impossible to convince many employers that workers wouldn't be satisfied and would always demand more even when they're too lazy to earn what they're being given already.
Chicken, egg. Pot, kettle. I hated being an employee. Consulting wasn't much better, but at least I didn't need to care about office politics, or kiss the boss' shoes for gifting me that precious job. I could at least consider myself a "business partner", avoiding that master/slave relationship.
My union just fought for and received a increase in raises and a cost of living pay increase for me while my employer wanted to continue to let wages stagnant despite the increases in the cost of living over the last several years.
It's just a coincidence that now your employer will be letting a few people go in order to afford your wage and benefit increase, and you'll now have to work harder filling the roles they handled previously. Your union dues will now be hiked too as there are fewer working union members.
It's too bad the shareholders or CEO didn't want to cover the difference, but that's hardly a surprise. They're planning on closing down the plant and shipping it all off to Mexico or China anyway, and this will just accelerate that.
Good job, grievance committee.
You should find another industry to work in. This one appears to hate workers.
... they warned us about the One Day WordPerfect Course graduate. "They think they know everything there is to know." "Stand aside. I'm an expert!" These people should never be let anywhere near the controls of anything unsupervised. If only we could get these weekend warriors to test their weapons on themselves before pointing them at others, we'd need to worry about this a lot less often. A little knowledge can be dangerous.
Economic regulation in its purest form is a market correction mechanism to provide the need for companies to consider other things than money.
Weasel words.
What is the clear evidence against regulation here?
What is the clear evidence in favor of regulation? You appear to be assuming the market is inherently unfair. Why? I assume the market is skewed by outsiders when they muscle in between us who're doing what we each want to do.
I want this, and am willing to pay so much. You're selling what I want to buy and will sell for $blah. Why would we want anyone or anything sticking its nose into our private affair? What does either of us have to gain from that?
Shouldn't we be suspicious of those who do want to muscle into our private affair?
... but no regulation is rarely the best starting point. Bad legislation is easier to correct than no regulation plus you have made an experience about how not to regulate!
So, your starting assumption is that a free market doesn't work. I assume the opposite. The more free the market, the better it works. Once you introduce compulsion upon the actors to act in specific ways for reasons of policy, the market mechanisms work less efficiently. You don't get what you want because that's illegal or artificially (taxation) more expensive than it should be. I also don't get what I want either for the same reasons.
Who is this government or regulator who thinks it knows better what we want? What are its motivations or prejudices? Are they doing good for all or just muscling in to get a cut of our action? Why should that be tolerated when we are happy to deal freely between each other?
Government is just another gang, the biggest on the block, offering protection for a cut of our action. I think I, with the help of my friends who think likewise, don't need their protective services. I don't even approve of what they think I need to be protected from. I really disapprove of how they do all of that.
Caps, on "unlimited data?" Throttling vs. optimizing? Your "business partners" vs. my wishes?
"With 1 in 3 Americans now watching videos on their smartphone, and another 100 million on tablets, the business case for mobile is clear," ...
Yes it is. I will happily continue to do without. They may prattle on all they want about the landscape having changed and this is now how it's done. It's not how I want it done, so every day they insist on foisting on us this Frankenstein Monster way of doing things, I'll continue to withhold my hard earned cash from them. If it was offered as I often hear Europeans can get it, I'd likely reconsider, but it isn't so no.
I pay my ISP for net connectivity and can easily do without a cellphone. It's just an easily foregone luxury item. They don't get to own me. I decide who my precious dollars enrich and how much, not them.
All they're doing is slowly but surely pricing themselves out of business. It'll happen eventually no matter what their micromanaging MBAs may try next. I for one won't miss them.
I have to wonder if Netflix will ever try a more nuclear option, serving the VPN providers with a cease and desist?
What would be the upside for Netflix? Why would they want to screw over their paying customers? Because their suppliers are complaining? I'd rather lose the supplier than lose satisfied paying customers. If the supplier wants to lose market share or go out of business all together, just keep complaining. It's not like they're selling life sustaining pharmaceuticals that people can't live without.
There's plenty of others out there offering entertainment for dollars, or for free. Lots of people are sick to death of the whole business and just pirate, enriching no-one. Netflix customers want to pay for content. They just hate the stupid terms of the deal the MafiAA insists on using which they know they shouldn't have to tolerate.
... they could open themselves up to legal action.
I think it's a safer assumption to accept you can't "open yourself up to legal action." Anything and everything is always open to legal action. Any litigation professional can tell you that. The trick is whether that action has any chance of prevailing, but the lawyer will be happy to encourage you for ever and a day as long as they're getting their billable hours paid.
Yeah, it's a con job and people have been complaining about it at least as long ago as Shakespeare's day, but with the help of politicians it still works despite what anyone with sense may want. They're supposed to advise clients away from frivolous actions, but they needn't care if the client ignores such advice, as long as they get paid.
... to deliver what people actually want to see...
... and are, oddly enough, more than willing and happy to pay for ("Argh! Gawd damned pirates!"). Are you listening Hollywood? No, I didn't think so. You can't hear much with your head buried in the sand. I guess it's time to bribe some more politicians who I'm sure will happily assure you they can fix this hiccup legislatively. Ha, ha, ha.
The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Working perfectly as designed and intended, despite what those idiots wish might be the case. We reject your interpretation of reality, and substitute our own working version. Your move, and HAND.
Rock on, Netflix. Ignore that kafuffle coming from the peanut gallery. Definitely not your problem.
I think there is a huge difference between mass surveillance and bulk collection. It starts with the very basic concept that one is active and directed and the other is passive and wide ranging.
You are such a pathetic being. No, don't take that as criticism, it's not. It's just that you are such a pathetic being!!!
No value judgment, no approbation whatsoever, except you are such a pathetic being!!! What? You take exception to that? How?!?
Does anyone else think that this feels like an article on quantum physics?
It sounds like someone attempting to explain Einsteinian forces with Newtonian physics.
On the other hand, I'm still trying to get beyond the visual resemblance of May to the wicked witch from the Wizard Of Oz movie, and I'm pretty much stuck so far. All I've got is she's in (rainy) Britain and "I'm melting!" Oops. Maybe there's a rainbow at the end.
Of course, that doesn't even begin to touch on her so far questionable intellectual, or legislative, achievements. She does appear to have an amazing propensity to shrug off negative performance reviews. So, par for the typical politician.
I hope she dies soon. I suspect she'll be much happier that way. Still, I've got to say, what an ugly woman!
On the post: Administration Says Child Porn Provides A 'Model' For Hunting Terrorists Online
Re:
How the hell should we know?!? You should be asking that nutcase inside your skull. Gahd, people!?!
On the post: Administration Says Child Porn Provides A 'Model' For Hunting Terrorists Online
Re:
That would be that daycare center in California where perfectly decent child care workers were terrorized by LEOs and child protection over pretty much non-existent evidence. Last I heard, the prosecutors and cops still believed, "They was robbed!" We wound up with a bunch of draconian laws on the books despite there being no substance to the accusations.
On the post: Interactive Advertising Bureau Bars Adblock Plus From Conference, When It Should Be Listening To Them
Re: Truth in advertising
That's not adversarial. It's predatory. It's thinking of us as meat wandering in a herd and the highest we could aspire to is to provide a meal for one of the hungry lions circling about.
I propose whenever any of us sees a lion out there, stampede over their asses and grind them to dust!
On the post: Singer Sues Google For Not Asking Her Permission To Use A Licensed Song In Its Cell Phone Commercial
Re: Re:
Au contraire. She's butt-hurt that Google's a non-union shop and it's consorting with another non-union shop to exploit the workers, all of whom should be working in union shops except for bastards like Google who make it possible for non-union shops to employ workers outside the tender loving care of the union, obviously to exploit said workers.
She's just another form of monopolist, the "union jobs are the only fair jobs" kind.
On the post: How The UK's Counter-Terrorism And Security Act Has Made Law Enforcement Into The Literal Grammar Police
Re: I dunno...
They might assume you mis-spelled "smothered." Damned sticky keyboard keys!
On the post: How The UK's Counter-Terrorism And Security Act Has Made Law Enforcement Into The Literal Grammar Police
Re:
I noticed that too. I guess we now need to start a War On Autocomplete, because that sort of thing is rampant these days.
On the post: Body Cam Footage Leads To Federal Indictment Of Abusive Las Vegas Cop
Re: Re:
It's also too bad they were so cheap and didn't want to pay their employees what they thought was a decent wage or there never would've been a reason to bring in a union in the first place. However, it's impossible to convince many employers that workers wouldn't be satisfied and would always demand more even when they're too lazy to earn what they're being given already.
Chicken, egg. Pot, kettle. I hated being an employee. Consulting wasn't much better, but at least I didn't need to care about office politics, or kiss the boss' shoes for gifting me that precious job. I could at least consider myself a "business partner", avoiding that master/slave relationship.
On the post: Body Cam Footage Leads To Federal Indictment Of Abusive Las Vegas Cop
Re:
It's just a coincidence that now your employer will be letting a few people go in order to afford your wage and benefit increase, and you'll now have to work harder filling the roles they handled previously. Your union dues will now be hiked too as there are fewer working union members.
It's too bad the shareholders or CEO didn't want to cover the difference, but that's hardly a surprise. They're planning on closing down the plant and shipping it all off to Mexico or China anyway, and this will just accelerate that.
Good job, grievance committee.
You should find another industry to work in. This one appears to hate workers.
On the post: Another Lawmaker Is Trying To Create A Photography-Free Zone For Police Officers
Careful out there, diabetics.
Perhaps heroin users should carry a vial of insulin with them so this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
On the post: Portuguese 'Anti-Piracy' Site Blocking Used Against US Video Game Developer
When I started learning sysadmin stuff ...
"Is this thing loaded?" Bang. "Ow." Thud.
On the post: Here's Verizon's Shiny New Assault On Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re:
Weasel words.
What is the clear evidence in favor of regulation? You appear to be assuming the market is inherently unfair. Why? I assume the market is skewed by outsiders when they muscle in between us who're doing what we each want to do.
I want this, and am willing to pay so much. You're selling what I want to buy and will sell for $blah. Why would we want anyone or anything sticking its nose into our private affair? What does either of us have to gain from that?
Shouldn't we be suspicious of those who do want to muscle into our private affair?
On the post: Here's Verizon's Shiny New Assault On Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, your starting assumption is that a free market doesn't work. I assume the opposite. The more free the market, the better it works. Once you introduce compulsion upon the actors to act in specific ways for reasons of policy, the market mechanisms work less efficiently. You don't get what you want because that's illegal or artificially (taxation) more expensive than it should be. I also don't get what I want either for the same reasons.
Who is this government or regulator who thinks it knows better what we want? What are its motivations or prejudices? Are they doing good for all or just muscling in to get a cut of our action? Why should that be tolerated when we are happy to deal freely between each other?
Government is just another gang, the biggest on the block, offering protection for a cut of our action. I think I, with the help of my friends who think likewise, don't need their protective services. I don't even approve of what they think I need to be protected from. I really disapprove of how they do all of that.
Welcome to the protection racket.
On the post: Here's Verizon's Shiny New Assault On Net Neutrality
Caps, on "unlimited data?" Throttling vs. optimizing? Your "business partners" vs. my wishes?
Yes it is. I will happily continue to do without. They may prattle on all they want about the landscape having changed and this is now how it's done. It's not how I want it done, so every day they insist on foisting on us this Frankenstein Monster way of doing things, I'll continue to withhold my hard earned cash from them. If it was offered as I often hear Europeans can get it, I'd likely reconsider, but it isn't so no.
I pay my ISP for net connectivity and can easily do without a cellphone. It's just an easily foregone luxury item. They don't get to own me. I decide who my precious dollars enrich and how much, not them.
All they're doing is slowly but surely pricing themselves out of business. It'll happen eventually no matter what their micromanaging MBAs may try next. I for one won't miss them.
On the post: VPN Providers Laugh Off Netflix's New Futile War On VPNs
Re:
What would be the upside for Netflix? Why would they want to screw over their paying customers? Because their suppliers are complaining? I'd rather lose the supplier than lose satisfied paying customers. If the supplier wants to lose market share or go out of business all together, just keep complaining. It's not like they're selling life sustaining pharmaceuticals that people can't live without.
There's plenty of others out there offering entertainment for dollars, or for free. Lots of people are sick to death of the whole business and just pirate, enriching no-one. Netflix customers want to pay for content. They just hate the stupid terms of the deal the MafiAA insists on using which they know they shouldn't have to tolerate.
On the post: VPN Providers Laugh Off Netflix's New Futile War On VPNs
Re: Maybe Netflix should. ..
What's the billing address of an anonymous charge card you bought at a corner store?
On the post: VPN Providers Laugh Off Netflix's New Futile War On VPNs
Re: Re: Stopping VPN use: Pros vs Cons
I think it's a safer assumption to accept you can't "open yourself up to legal action." Anything and everything is always open to legal action. Any litigation professional can tell you that. The trick is whether that action has any chance of prevailing, but the lawyer will be happy to encourage you for ever and a day as long as they're getting their billable hours paid.
Yeah, it's a con job and people have been complaining about it at least as long ago as Shakespeare's day, but with the help of politicians it still works despite what anyone with sense may want. They're supposed to advise clients away from frivolous actions, but they needn't care if the client ignores such advice, as long as they get paid.
On the post: VPN Providers Laugh Off Netflix's New Futile War On VPNs
Piracy!!! Thieving, stinking pirates!
... and are, oddly enough, more than willing and happy to pay for ("Argh! Gawd damned pirates!"). Are you listening Hollywood? No, I didn't think so. You can't hear much with your head buried in the sand. I guess it's time to bribe some more politicians who I'm sure will happily assure you they can fix this hiccup legislatively. Ha, ha, ha.
The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Working perfectly as designed and intended, despite what those idiots wish might be the case. We reject your interpretation of reality, and substitute our own working version. Your move, and HAND.
Rock on, Netflix. Ignore that kafuffle coming from the peanut gallery. Definitely not your problem.
On the post: What's The Difference Between 'Mass Surveillance' And 'Bulk Collection'? Does It Matter?
Re:
You are such a pathetic being. No, don't take that as criticism, it's not. It's just that you are such a pathetic being!!!
No value judgment, no approbation whatsoever, except you are such a pathetic being!!! What? You take exception to that? How?!?
HAND.
On the post: What's The Difference Between 'Mass Surveillance' And 'Bulk Collection'? Does It Matter?
Re:
It sounds like someone attempting to explain Einsteinian forces with Newtonian physics.
On the other hand, I'm still trying to get beyond the visual resemblance of May to the wicked witch from the Wizard Of Oz movie, and I'm pretty much stuck so far. All I've got is she's in (rainy) Britain and "I'm melting!" Oops. Maybe there's a rainbow at the end.
Of course, that doesn't even begin to touch on her so far questionable intellectual, or legislative, achievements. She does appear to have an amazing propensity to shrug off negative performance reviews. So, par for the typical politician.
I hope she dies soon. I suspect she'll be much happier that way. Still, I've got to say, what an ugly woman!
On the post: 'More Realistic' Modelling Of TPP's Effects Predicts 450,000 US Jobs Lost, Contraction Of Economy
Re: Re: Re: That is right up the POTUS alley
Next >>