Just whom do you think conservatives that don't like Trump are going to vote for? A third party that won't get anywhere close to winning, and will aid Trump by doing so?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 May 2020 @ 2:21pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
You're suggesting that conservative are not allowed to dislike Trump. Reasonable people, from the entire spectrum of political thought, can come to the realization that Trump's blatant incompetence with regard to handling the pandemic is killing people without any consideration to their political standing.
Unreasonable people will blindly vote the party line. You pretend to be a reasonable person, but you suggest blindly voting the party line, proving you are not necessarily reasonable.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 May 2020 @ 1:37pm
Tropes vs historical chords
Unfortunately I have this feeling that the tropes in this article will be looked upon like a series of notes found in two pieces of music. Neither should stand, but lawyers will be lawyers and courts and jury's will be courts and jury's. When the details are put, out of context, to the test there will be to little to differentiate them and plenty to call them the same. Which leaves us with the first to publish the winner, even if there is some 17th century evidence of an actual former publisher.
If I understand the article correctly though, there is prior art preceding each of these, and it would seem that there are some players missing from this game. Both the entities in this article could be smacked down by some or many of those other players (as in "this whole "Omegaverse" concept spun out of fanfiction based on the TV show "Supernatural." And then a bunch of common tropes emerged:"), if they were as picayune as Ms. Cain.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 May 2020 @ 10:33am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
It is the responsibility of the communicator to ensure that the communicatee understands what the communicator intends. If conservatives fail to be seen as conservatives it is not the viewers fault. It is the conservatives fault for sending the wrong message.
I could call myself a snow angel (substitute any fictional being for snow angel), and try to get everyone around me to believe that I am a snow angel, but if I don't display the characteristics of a snow angel (whatever those are) they are not going to believe that I am in fact a snow angel. The same goes for conservatives who display characteristics that are beyond what other conservatives see themselves as, and therefore get labeled as something else. You can be a bigot and a conservative but expect to be seen as something else by folks who are conservative but not bigoted.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 May 2020 @ 10:18am
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Your position is that all conservatives are bigoted and that it is not possible for one to be conservative without being bigoted. Another way to look at this is that all bigots are conservative. I don't think that either position is correct.
It may be that some, maybe even a majority of conservatives, are bigoted, and that there are some bigots that are not conservative. Your insistence that conservative and bigoted are 100% conflated is what gets you in trouble.
The fact that at least some of the bigoted speech was from, at least self professed conservatives (in your mind), means that they were silenced for being conservative, not that they are bigoted. I bet that there are some who are conservative but not bigoted people who wholeheartedly disagree with you, and haven't been silenced,
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 May 2020 @ 8:39am
Deflection
Asa Hutchinson appears to be trying to create a shitstorm where none exists to hide the failure of Arkansas' Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program to create a secure website, which is a shitstorm. It's a classic 'hey, look over there' scenario, and ripe for a Streisand Effect nomination, with Asa playing the wizard behind the curtain.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 May 2020 @ 8:28am
Re: Explain This To Me
Twisty wording. Bigoted viewpoints may be what most conservative hold, but that doesn't mean that any platform must also hold them and allow their bigoted speech. I don't think Techdirt has expressed an opinion about that type of speech, other than calling it bigoted.
Techdirt has expressed the opinion that platforms, as private entities, have the right to not carry that type of speech. Techdirt does not claim that bigoted speech is not being silenced, they claim that the platforms have a right to do so. So they are not saying it isn't happening, what they are saying is that the speech is not being silenced because it is conservative, it is being silenced because it is bigoted, and that the platforms that do so have a perfect right to do so.
Untwist your thinking. The silencing is not because conservative, the silencing is because bigoted.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 May 2020 @ 6:54pm
Re: Re: OMG Clever!
Did you even bother to read the linked article? Here, let me help you, and the original piece. You mention faulty conclusions without mentioning what those faulty conclusions are. You suggest key facts are missing without detailing what those missing facts might be. You suggest the author has an agenda without giving any evidence as to what that agenda might be, or that it even exists.
What DoorDash did is underhanded and not in the interest of the restaurants it does it to. It does it for its own benefit, and leaves a trail of incompetence that leads back to the restaurants and not DoorDash. That is scummy.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 May 2020 @ 7:53am
Down and dirty via naivety
First off, thanks to Bent Franklin for posting this in the Chat Window. Two services are mentioned in the article above, and the thing that distinguishes the difference between the two is that one is doing something without the permission of the business owner, and the other is doing things by contract. Neither appears to be doing things with the restaurants well being in mind.
DoorDash is inserting itself without the permission of the business owner, and it appears that Yelp is abetting that effort, in the simplest terms by not insuring that complaints are directed at the appropriate wrongdoer. The error created by DoorDash, and their failure to operate in a manner that evinces quality causes the end customer to be angry at the restaurant, rather than the delivery company that has no aboveboard relationship to the restaurant. DoorDash fails to relate the menu and prices correctly, and then fails to perform the delivery correctly, and then dishonestly allows the restaurant to take the hit for poor performance.
The other company Timothy mentions is GrubHub (and I suppose it will be further discussed in the future article he mentioned). Apparently they obtain a contract with the restaurants they 'represent', but after reading the article discussing what they do it appears that they do nothing more than some advertising on their own pages and make a referral by redirecting a phone number they generate to the restaurant and charging a fee for that referral. Those fees are often more than the total cost of the order, or more than the profit on the order. Other problems occur in that when looking for a restaurants phone number, but the GrubHub number appears higher in the search list than the restaurants actual phone number.
The thing that struck me was how naive the restaurant owners were in signing those contracts. Possibly thinking that having their restaurant listed on one of GrubHubs sites was a great marketing opportunity, they failed to consider the actual cost of those referrals with regard to their gross margins.
Two different scams targeting the same industry. Restaurants are historically one of the most difficult to make a go of, partly because while they retail their product, unlike other retailers, they also manufacture their product. Grasping the nuances needed to not only control those two significantly different processes, but to create a concept that consolidates all the intricacies that make one operation not only different but better than the guy down the street is not an easy skill set to come by. Then to be beguiled by outside entities with only their own best interest in mind is likely to be the straw that breaks the bank.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 May 2020 @ 6:56am
Re: Re: Just a question.
In looking for an imbalance the Copyright Office has overlooked a potential source, and maybe due to being a co-opted organization. Zealousness in practice of what they see as their duty, protecting their IP, and your Slashdot article and its source discuss a prime example of something that has been discussed on Techdirt before, for example. It is acts like these and many others that the Copyright Office are ignoring when they fail to take the public into account and focus only on the 'rights holders' who rarely have created anything.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 May 2020 @ 6:29pm
Re:
You do realize that it is the EU putting pressure on Google to put pressure on everyone else that is causing this, don't you? It is evidenced by the uselessness of other EU edicts, whereby this fall right in line.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 May 2020 @ 6:07pm
Cookie Preferences
I prefer chocolate chip, or pecan sandies, thank you very much. Though macaroons would do in a pinch. Can you accommodate me, daily? A dozen would do nicely.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 May 2020 @ 5:59pm
Re: Contact tracing
I have a tendency to agree with Bruce. False positives and false negatives are a big issue. Additionally, as pointed out above, not everyone has a cell phone. I don't, though I do have some tablets I don't carry them with me everywhere, and both Bluetooth and WiFi are turned off, unless I have a personal need for them, after which they are turn off again. Then there are the issues with testing, which include cost, accuracy, and availability and maybe some I haven't thought of.
On the other hand, knowing that you have had contact with a person suspected of being a Covid-19 carrier is better than not knowing. I have some doubts about how many will sit through some TV program where they read out numbers for you to see if your a winner. I don't have TV, so it wouldn't work for me. They might be better off with a website where you could look up to see if you 'won'. But not much better. How many times will any individual check, or how often?
Contact tracing would be better if it was comprehensive (included everybody) and easier, but that is not actually practical. And given Bruce's issues, as well as the above, not likely to become comprehensive.
The most practical solution I see is to test everyone, weekly, for several weeks. But then again that isn't actually practical either.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 May 2020 @ 3:13pm
Re:
Yes, they are a sponsor, but knowing Mike I seriously doubt they will have any editorial input. I suspect that if they try, they will get dropped as a sponsor. Note also that it does not appear that anyone else stepped up.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 May 2020 @ 2:57pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bypass Ad Blockers?
I also use a password manager, though PassWordSafe no longer has a Linux build, but there is a clone called pasaffe that works with the pwsafe database. I never use a login from a different site. If I need to log into a site, and it feel it is worth it, I sign up, and use both a unique username and as long a password as they will allow.
I also use a VPN and open source DNS servers. Given that, Q-name minimization does seem a bit much.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 May 2020 @ 1:27pm
Re: Re: Bypass Ad Blockers?
I use both Privacy Badger and uBlock Origin plus a script blocker (and some others). I have gotten rid of all my ad blockers after finding out some bad things about how they work. I still, every now and then, get some website asking me to turn off my ad blocker. I presume they really want the javascript enabled, and leave.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 May 2020 @ 12:48pm
Would the rest of the system get it right like this guy.
"There are, already in existence, a bunch of professional organizations and "established" channels of communication to share medical research and ideas... and none of those seem to be as useful or effective in the short term..."
Could it be that communicating through established channels might get someone disciplined or fired? Could it be that exchanging information that others might consider to be proprietary get one sued? Is it possible that some of those professional organizations are entrenched in the 'protect our IP' above all else syndrome? Do the bylaws of those professional organizations prohibit members from aiding and abetting industrial espionage and sharing useful information about the disease progression might be viewed as such?
Maybe the entirety of the health care community should be committed to that part of the Hippocratic Oath where they pledge to 'first do no harm' and come to the realization that a cure and immunization is the goal here, not profit or controlling that which is found to work.
On the post: So Wait, People Really Think The Barr DOJ's Investigation Into Google Is In Good Faith?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He will evade and confront, as the rules for that Ferengi game Tongo allow.
On the post: So Wait, People Really Think The Barr DOJ's Investigation Into Google Is In Good Faith?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
Just whom do you think conservatives that don't like Trump are going to vote for? A third party that won't get anywhere close to winning, and will aid Trump by doing so?
On the post: So Wait, People Really Think The Barr DOJ's Investigation Into Google Is In Good Faith?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
You're suggesting that conservative are not allowed to dislike Trump. Reasonable people, from the entire spectrum of political thought, can come to the realization that Trump's blatant incompetence with regard to handling the pandemic is killing people without any consideration to their political standing.
Unreasonable people will blindly vote the party line. You pretend to be a reasonable person, but you suggest blindly voting the party line, proving you are not necessarily reasonable.
On the post: How A Feud Among Wolf-Kink Erotica FanFic Authors Demonstrates What The Copyright Office Got Wrong In Its DMCA Report
Tropes vs historical chords
Unfortunately I have this feeling that the tropes in this article will be looked upon like a series of notes found in two pieces of music. Neither should stand, but lawyers will be lawyers and courts and jury's will be courts and jury's. When the details are put, out of context, to the test there will be to little to differentiate them and plenty to call them the same. Which leaves us with the first to publish the winner, even if there is some 17th century evidence of an actual former publisher.
If I understand the article correctly though, there is prior art preceding each of these, and it would seem that there are some players missing from this game. Both the entities in this article could be smacked down by some or many of those other players (as in "this whole "Omegaverse" concept spun out of fanfiction based on the TV show "Supernatural." And then a bunch of common tropes emerged:"), if they were as picayune as Ms. Cain.
On the post: So Wait, People Really Think The Barr DOJ's Investigation Into Google Is In Good Faith?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
It is the responsibility of the communicator to ensure that the communicatee understands what the communicator intends. If conservatives fail to be seen as conservatives it is not the viewers fault. It is the conservatives fault for sending the wrong message.
I could call myself a snow angel (substitute any fictional being for snow angel), and try to get everyone around me to believe that I am a snow angel, but if I don't display the characteristics of a snow angel (whatever those are) they are not going to believe that I am in fact a snow angel. The same goes for conservatives who display characteristics that are beyond what other conservatives see themselves as, and therefore get labeled as something else. You can be a bigot and a conservative but expect to be seen as something else by folks who are conservative but not bigoted.
On the post: So Wait, People Really Think The Barr DOJ's Investigation Into Google Is In Good Faith?
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Your position is that all conservatives are bigoted and that it is not possible for one to be conservative without being bigoted. Another way to look at this is that all bigots are conservative. I don't think that either position is correct.
It may be that some, maybe even a majority of conservatives, are bigoted, and that there are some bigots that are not conservative. Your insistence that conservative and bigoted are 100% conflated is what gets you in trouble.
The fact that at least some of the bigoted speech was from, at least self professed conservatives (in your mind), means that they were silenced for being conservative, not that they are bigoted. I bet that there are some who are conservative but not bigoted people who wholeheartedly disagree with you, and haven't been silenced,
On the post: Arkansas Can't Secure Financial Assistance Site So Governor Decides To Call The Person Discovering The Breach A Criminal
Deflection
Asa Hutchinson appears to be trying to create a shitstorm where none exists to hide the failure of Arkansas' Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program to create a secure website, which is a shitstorm. It's a classic 'hey, look over there' scenario, and ripe for a Streisand Effect nomination, with Asa playing the wizard behind the curtain.
On the post: So Wait, People Really Think The Barr DOJ's Investigation Into Google Is In Good Faith?
Re: Explain This To Me
Twisty wording. Bigoted viewpoints may be what most conservative hold, but that doesn't mean that any platform must also hold them and allow their bigoted speech. I don't think Techdirt has expressed an opinion about that type of speech, other than calling it bigoted.
Techdirt has expressed the opinion that platforms, as private entities, have the right to not carry that type of speech. Techdirt does not claim that bigoted speech is not being silenced, they claim that the platforms have a right to do so. So they are not saying it isn't happening, what they are saying is that the speech is not being silenced because it is conservative, it is being silenced because it is bigoted, and that the platforms that do so have a perfect right to do so.
Untwist your thinking. The silencing is not because conservative, the silencing is because bigoted.
On the post: The Great Pizza Arbitrage Scheme Of 2020 Is Spotlighting The Strangeness Of Food Delivery Services
Re: Re: OMG Clever!
Did you even bother to read the linked article? Here, let me help you, and the original piece. You mention faulty conclusions without mentioning what those faulty conclusions are. You suggest key facts are missing without detailing what those missing facts might be. You suggest the author has an agenda without giving any evidence as to what that agenda might be, or that it even exists.
What DoorDash did is underhanded and not in the interest of the restaurants it does it to. It does it for its own benefit, and leaves a trail of incompetence that leads back to the restaurants and not DoorDash. That is scummy.
On the post: The Great Pizza Arbitrage Scheme Of 2020 Is Spotlighting The Strangeness Of Food Delivery Services
Down and dirty via naivety
First off, thanks to Bent Franklin for posting this in the Chat Window. Two services are mentioned in the article above, and the thing that distinguishes the difference between the two is that one is doing something without the permission of the business owner, and the other is doing things by contract. Neither appears to be doing things with the restaurants well being in mind.
DoorDash is inserting itself without the permission of the business owner, and it appears that Yelp is abetting that effort, in the simplest terms by not insuring that complaints are directed at the appropriate wrongdoer. The error created by DoorDash, and their failure to operate in a manner that evinces quality causes the end customer to be angry at the restaurant, rather than the delivery company that has no aboveboard relationship to the restaurant. DoorDash fails to relate the menu and prices correctly, and then fails to perform the delivery correctly, and then dishonestly allows the restaurant to take the hit for poor performance.
The other company Timothy mentions is GrubHub (and I suppose it will be further discussed in the future article he mentioned). Apparently they obtain a contract with the restaurants they 'represent', but after reading the article discussing what they do it appears that they do nothing more than some advertising on their own pages and make a referral by redirecting a phone number they generate to the restaurant and charging a fee for that referral. Those fees are often more than the total cost of the order, or more than the profit on the order. Other problems occur in that when looking for a restaurants phone number, but the GrubHub number appears higher in the search list than the restaurants actual phone number.
The thing that struck me was how naive the restaurant owners were in signing those contracts. Possibly thinking that having their restaurant listed on one of GrubHubs sites was a great marketing opportunity, they failed to consider the actual cost of those referrals with regard to their gross margins.
Two different scams targeting the same industry. Restaurants are historically one of the most difficult to make a go of, partly because while they retail their product, unlike other retailers, they also manufacture their product. Grasping the nuances needed to not only control those two significantly different processes, but to create a concept that consolidates all the intricacies that make one operation not only different but better than the guy down the street is not an easy skill set to come by. Then to be beguiled by outside entities with only their own best interest in mind is likely to be the straw that breaks the bank.
On the post: Does The US Copyright Office Not Know That Copyright Policy's Main Stakeholders Are The Public?
Re: Re: Just a question.
In looking for an imbalance the Copyright Office has overlooked a potential source, and maybe due to being a co-opted organization. Zealousness in practice of what they see as their duty, protecting their IP, and your Slashdot article and its source discuss a prime example of something that has been discussed on Techdirt before, for example. It is acts like these and many others that the Copyright Office are ignoring when they fail to take the public into account and focus only on the 'rights holders' who rarely have created anything.
On the post: Yes, This Site Uses Cookies, Because Nearly All Sites Use Cookies, And We're Notifying You Because We're Told We Have To
Re: Re: Cookie Preferences
I don't mind oatmeal raisin, in fact my cardiologist prefers them. Fuck my cardiologist. :-)
On the post: Yes, This Site Uses Cookies, Because Nearly All Sites Use Cookies, And We're Notifying You Because We're Told We Have To
Re:
You do realize that it is the EU putting pressure on Google to put pressure on everyone else that is causing this, don't you? It is evidenced by the uselessness of other EU edicts, whereby this fall right in line.
On the post: Yes, This Site Uses Cookies, Because Nearly All Sites Use Cookies, And We're Notifying You Because We're Told We Have To
Cookie Preferences
I prefer chocolate chip, or pecan sandies, thank you very much. Though macaroons would do in a pinch. Can you accommodate me, daily? A dozen would do nicely.
On the post: After FBI Successfully Breaks Into IPhones, Bill Barr Says It's Time For Legislated Encryption Backdoors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's change a few words for accuracy shall we?
What makes you think they want to use whatever they collect in court? Blackmail does not require a court. In fact courts kinda frown upon it.
On the post: The Case For Contact Tracing Apps Built On Apple And Google's Exposure Notification System
Re: Contact tracing
I have a tendency to agree with Bruce. False positives and false negatives are a big issue. Additionally, as pointed out above, not everyone has a cell phone. I don't, though I do have some tablets I don't carry them with me everywhere, and both Bluetooth and WiFi are turned off, unless I have a personal need for them, after which they are turn off again. Then there are the issues with testing, which include cost, accuracy, and availability and maybe some I haven't thought of.
On the other hand, knowing that you have had contact with a person suspected of being a Covid-19 carrier is better than not knowing. I have some doubts about how many will sit through some TV program where they read out numbers for you to see if your a winner. I don't have TV, so it wouldn't work for me. They might be better off with a website where you could look up to see if you 'won'. But not much better. How many times will any individual check, or how often?
Contact tracing would be better if it was comprehensive (included everybody) and easier, but that is not actually practical. And given Bruce's issues, as well as the above, not likely to become comprehensive.
The most practical solution I see is to test everyone, weekly, for several weeks. But then again that isn't actually practical either.
On the post: Our New Blog Series Exploring Tech In The Time Of COVID
Re:
Yes, they are a sponsor, but knowing Mike I seriously doubt they will have any editorial input. I suspect that if they try, they will get dropped as a sponsor. Note also that it does not appear that anyone else stepped up.
On the post: How Most Of The Anti-Internet Crew Misread The News That The NY Times Is Getting Rid Of 3rd Party Advertisers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bypass Ad Blockers?
I also use a password manager, though PassWordSafe no longer has a Linux build, but there is a clone called pasaffe that works with the pwsafe database. I never use a login from a different site. If I need to log into a site, and it feel it is worth it, I sign up, and use both a unique username and as long a password as they will allow.
I also use a VPN and open source DNS servers. Given that, Q-name minimization does seem a bit much.
On the post: How Most Of The Anti-Internet Crew Misread The News That The NY Times Is Getting Rid Of 3rd Party Advertisers
Re: Re: Bypass Ad Blockers?
I use both Privacy Badger and uBlock Origin plus a script blocker (and some others). I have gotten rid of all my ad blockers after finding out some bad things about how they work. I still, every now and then, get some website asking me to turn off my ad blocker. I presume they really want the javascript enabled, and leave.
On the post: Emergency Room Doctor: Getting Best COVID-19 Treatment Ideas Via WhatsApp
Would the rest of the system get it right like this guy.
Could it be that communicating through established channels might get someone disciplined or fired? Could it be that exchanging information that others might consider to be proprietary get one sued? Is it possible that some of those professional organizations are entrenched in the 'protect our IP' above all else syndrome? Do the bylaws of those professional organizations prohibit members from aiding and abetting industrial espionage and sharing useful information about the disease progression might be viewed as such?
Maybe the entirety of the health care community should be committed to that part of the Hippocratic Oath where they pledge to 'first do no harm' and come to the realization that a cure and immunization is the goal here, not profit or controlling that which is found to work.
Next >>