And what would you suggest doing with that power instead?
This is the blind spot that small-government types never seem to "get": power exists. Power derives from resources, and the more resources that exist, the more power will exist. It can be economic, social, or force-based in nature, but in the end, power is power.
The question is, given a certain amount of power concentrated in a certain area, who will control this power? History tells us that someone always does end up controlling it; the only meaningful questions are "who?" and "under what organizational structure?"
Take power away from whoever currently holds it, (the state, in this case,) and it does not evaporate into a happy, magical shower of sparkles, rainbows, and more liberty for everyone. History tells us that one thing consistently happens when the current power-holder loses power without a well-defined mechanism for transferring it: you get a power vacuum, and that's an unstable mess, uglier than even the worst of tyranny. (Just look at Somalia, or a good part of the Middle East.)
For all the problems it can bring, "the existence of the state," particularly a state of the constitutional republic variety, is the lesser of a few dozen evils.
I actually liked the show from the beginning. Most of the criticism of the show that I've seen is obviously from people who didn't understand what it was supposed to be about.
They always seemed to work in the ZOMG THIS IS A LAME SUPERHERO SHOW WITH NO SUPERHEROES!!! angle. Any such complaint can be ignored, because the entire point of Agents of SHIELD is that it's not about the superheroes; it's about the less glamorous ordinary folk who have to deal with the ramifications of the stuff that happens in the movies. And when you keep in mind that that's what you're supposed to be watching, it really is an interesting show.
Science fiction often points to hibernation as a way to avoid the boredom of space travel, so it only makes sense to actually see if such a medical procedure is feasible.
...or they could try the time-honored, tested and true remedy to avoid boredom: entertainment! No medical procedures necessary.
The simple fact that we're asking questions like "should Comcast be allowed to merge with TWC or not?" rather than reasonable questions like "should Comcast be broken up as an illegal, anticompetitive monopoly or not?" or "should Comcast execs be prosecuted for the crimes that the company has committed or not?" shows just how insane the current political climate is.
The lead author, Sydney Do, a Ph.D. candidate in aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, said via email that in his view “the Mars One Concept is unsustainable” because of the current state of technology and its “aggressive expansion approach” of quickly adding more and more people rather than keeping the settlement at a fixed size for a period of time.
So even with well under a thousand planned colonists on the entire planet, people are warning about overpopulation issues? :P
So, it's reasonable to at least question Randazza's statements on the matter, but considering it "bribery" seems like a pretty big stretch
Does it? Sounds to me like exactly what it was, and just because it was done to support something good (and I agree that an Anti-SLAPP law is good) doesn't mean it wasn't bribery or that it wasn't despicable. And the way Randazza is scrambling to hide it just underscores that point: he knows what he did was wrong.
This seems like the sort of thing where Techdirt would be taking him to task, but here we appear to be seeing a "the ends justify the means" mentality taking hold. It was in support of a good cause, therefore it wasn't really anything bad.
To give some perspective, in the fighting that followed, approximately 32,000 Americans died, around 1.5% of the population of the 13 colonies. 1.5% of the population of the USA today is nearly 4.75 million deaths. Anyone really want these guys to be successful?
Speaking of educating oneself on the subject of history, you ought to read an actual account of the Boston Massacre.
It went something like this: A few Colonial troublemakers incited a riot, and worked to bring more and more people to the scene so they could stir up more trouble. The British soldiers exercised extreme restraint for several hours, making a show of force to try to persuade the colonists to disperse, while they were being taunted and having things thrown at them and literally dared to fire on the crowd.
After one of the Colonials physically attacked him with a club, one soldier lost his cool and fired his musket. In the confusion that followed, several other soldiers fired, and a grand total of five people ended up dead. Not much of a massacre, really, but then the media got ahold of it and blew the whole thing out of proportion, and before anyone knew it there was a war on.
So yeah, it actually does sound a lot like Ferguson, except the whole part about the rabble-rousers actually being successful in inciting serious social upheaval. Thankfully, that hasn't happened yet, and I hope it never does.
Re: Re: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
It is a safe harbor. It says "if you meet these conditions, you're safe." That's what a safe harbor is.
Not when the conditions turn it into a tool of extortion. Then it's a tool of extortion.
I agree that it's not a great safe harbor *for users* and that CDA 230 is a GREATLY preferable safe harbor, but it is still absolutely a safe harbor.
No. Not only is it horrible for users, as I've been pointing out all along it's horrible for sites as well. It takes extortion and gives it legal protection, and if what the bad guys want is to be rid of you and your meddling innovative business model, if they actually see you as a threat, it does nothing to protect the sites and you know that just as well as I do!
YouTube.
YouTube? Seriously?
OK, you're gonna have to walk me through the chain of reasoning there because everything I've seen on the case (including your own coverage) says the exact opposite: in spite of the DMCA that theoretically should have protected it, they came within a hair's breadth of being sued out of existence, and would have if they hadn't been acquired by Google. It's why I've been using YouTube as one of the prime examples of why the DMCA Takedown system does not keep people safe.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
That's not what I'm asking. Yes, if someone extorts you, and you do what they want, of course they're not going to cause more trouble for you; you belong to them now; you're an asset, and they know you'll be available for further shakedowns in the future.
But there have been many cases when what the copyright interests wanted wasn't to extort a site, but to destroy it. Just look at MegaUpload, YouTube, Aereo, and any number of similar cases. In every case, it's come out that they bent over backwards to comply with the law and even go above and beyond its formal requirements, but that didn't help. Has there ever been even a single case when these so-called "safe harbors" kept a site safe when the bad guys wanted it gone?
Re: Re: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
YouTube is one of the prime examples of the DMCA not being a safe harbor. They did everything the law required of them and still got hauled into court anyway, and if they hadn't been acquired by a company with the as deep of pockets as Google had, that would have been the end of Google, as it was for similar sites that didn't end up getting acquired by Google.
So my challenge stands: name even one site that the DMCA's alleged "safe harbors" have ever managed to actually keep safe.
Re: Re: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
Yes, that's exactly my point. If it has strings attached, that's not a safe harbor. When the MAFIAA can come up to you and say "this is a nice site you got here; it would be a shame if something were to happen to it" and you have to acquiesce to their demands in order to protect your site, it is not a safe harbor, it is a tool of extortion.
On the post: A Tale of Two Riots: 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' Vs. 'Bring Out The BearCat'
Re: So your saying
This is the blind spot that small-government types never seem to "get": power exists. Power derives from resources, and the more resources that exist, the more power will exist. It can be economic, social, or force-based in nature, but in the end, power is power.
The question is, given a certain amount of power concentrated in a certain area, who will control this power? History tells us that someone always does end up controlling it; the only meaningful questions are "who?" and "under what organizational structure?"
Take power away from whoever currently holds it, (the state, in this case,) and it does not evaporate into a happy, magical shower of sparkles, rainbows, and more liberty for everyone. History tells us that one thing consistently happens when the current power-holder loses power without a well-defined mechanism for transferring it: you get a power vacuum, and that's an unstable mess, uglier than even the worst of tyranny. (Just look at Somalia, or a good part of the Middle East.)
For all the problems it can bring, "the existence of the state," particularly a state of the constitutional republic variety, is the lesser of a few dozen evils.
On the post: Marvel Goes DMCA Crazy Over Leaked Avengers 2 Trailer, Then Puts It On Its Own YouTube Page
Re: They are trying to redirect people
They always seemed to work in the ZOMG THIS IS A LAME SUPERHERO SHOW WITH NO SUPERHEROES!!! angle. Any such complaint can be ignored, because the entire point of Agents of SHIELD is that it's not about the superheroes; it's about the less glamorous ordinary folk who have to deal with the ramifications of the stuff that happens in the movies. And when you keep in mind that that's what you're supposed to be watching, it really is an interesting show.
On the post: Senator Leahy Slams DEA For Impersonating A Woman On Facebook
Unethical and potentially dangerous?
On the post: Bit-Actor Sues Fox For $250 Million Over Stereotypical Mob Character In The Simpsons, Says It's Based On A Role He Hadn't Performed Yet
On the post: DailyDirt: How Can We Get To Mars?
...or they could try the time-honored, tested and true remedy to avoid boredom: entertainment! No medical procedures necessary.
On the post: Guy Comcast Got Fired Now Suing Comcast For Violating Federal Privacy Law
On the post: DailyDirt: Moving To Outer Space (Temporarily)
So even with well under a thousand planned colonists on the entire planet, people are warning about overpopulation issues? :P
On the post: DailyDirt: Moving To Outer Space (Temporarily)
On the post: Police Officer Blames Everyone Else But Police Officers For The Public's General Distrust Of Law Enforcement
Re:
Yeah, before the invention of the telegraph and the railroad, let alone radio and the Internet, it took a while for news to get around. ;)
On the post: China Turns From 'Pirate' Nation To Giant Patent Troll
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Does it? Sounds to me like exactly what it was, and just because it was done to support something good (and I agree that an Anti-SLAPP law is good) doesn't mean it wasn't bribery or that it wasn't despicable. And the way Randazza is scrambling to hide it just underscores that point: he knows what he did was wrong.
This seems like the sort of thing where Techdirt would be taking him to task, but here we appear to be seeing a "the ends justify the means" mentality taking hold. It was in support of a good cause, therefore it wasn't really anything bad.
Well, no. Come on, call a spade a spade here.
On the post: Innovation Works Better, Faster With Openness, Not Lock-In
Re: Re: Re: This is a battle I've fought my whole career
On the post: Police Officer Blames Everyone Else But Police Officers For The Public's General Distrust Of Law Enforcement
Re: Re:
On the post: Police Officer Blames Everyone Else But Police Officers For The Public's General Distrust Of Law Enforcement
Re:
It went something like this: A few Colonial troublemakers incited a riot, and worked to bring more and more people to the scene so they could stir up more trouble. The British soldiers exercised extreme restraint for several hours, making a show of force to try to persuade the colonists to disperse, while they were being taunted and having things thrown at them and literally dared to fire on the crowd.
After one of the Colonials physically attacked him with a club, one soldier lost his cool and fired his musket. In the confusion that followed, several other soldiers fired, and a grand total of five people ended up dead. Not much of a massacre, really, but then the media got ahold of it and blew the whole thing out of proportion, and before anyone knew it there was a war on.
So yeah, it actually does sound a lot like Ferguson, except the whole part about the rabble-rousers actually being successful in inciting serious social upheaval. Thankfully, that hasn't happened yet, and I hope it never does.
On the post: Police Officer Blames Everyone Else But Police Officers For The Public's General Distrust Of Law Enforcement
Re: Re: a sick joke... of our own making
On the post: Everybody Knows FBI Director James Comey Is Wrong About Encryption, Even The FBI
For the FBI to have a way in by the front door would mean they have my password and/or private key.
On the post: GitHub Promises To Alert Users To DMCA Notices Before Taking Content Down
Re: Re: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
Not when the conditions turn it into a tool of extortion. Then it's a tool of extortion.
No. Not only is it horrible for users, as I've been pointing out all along it's horrible for sites as well. It takes extortion and gives it legal protection, and if what the bad guys want is to be rid of you and your meddling innovative business model, if they actually see you as a threat, it does nothing to protect the sites and you know that just as well as I do!
YouTube? Seriously?
OK, you're gonna have to walk me through the chain of reasoning there because everything I've seen on the case (including your own coverage) says the exact opposite: in spite of the DMCA that theoretically should have protected it, they came within a hair's breadth of being sued out of existence, and would have if they hadn't been acquired by Google. It's why I've been using YouTube as one of the prime examples of why the DMCA Takedown system does not keep people safe.
On the post: GitHub Promises To Alert Users To DMCA Notices Before Taking Content Down
Re: Re: Re: Re: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
But there have been many cases when what the copyright interests wanted wasn't to extort a site, but to destroy it. Just look at MegaUpload, YouTube, Aereo, and any number of similar cases. In every case, it's come out that they bent over backwards to comply with the law and even go above and beyond its formal requirements, but that didn't help. Has there ever been even a single case when these so-called "safe harbors" kept a site safe when the bad guys wanted it gone?
On the post: GitHub Promises To Alert Users To DMCA Notices Before Taking Content Down
Re: Re: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
So my challenge stands: name even one site that the DMCA's alleged "safe harbors" have ever managed to actually keep safe.
On the post: GitHub Promises To Alert Users To DMCA Notices Before Taking Content Down
Re: Re: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
Next >>