The training for an M-16 is identical to the training for an AR-15. The only meaningful difference between the two is lack of burst fire for the AR-15, but since that is almost never used for training, the difference is largely academic. Heck, burst fire is rarely used in combat.
I can't really think of a situation where I'd rather have burst than a hammer pair (two quick pulls of the trigger) and a shot to the head or groin. The latter is how the military is trained to shoot so in a combat situation few people are going to switch to burst (it's also slightly more likely to cause jams).
That being said, I absolutely disagree with police using AR-15s. The AR-15 fires the same round that the M-16 does, the 5.56mm. A 5.56 round is designed for maximum penetration and fragmentation and tends to easily travel through walls, normal vehicles, and other obstacles. It's a high velocity, low mass bullet. It's great for long range combat against armored enemies that may be hiding behind cover.
The reason 9mm is so popular in police forces is because it's the opposite...a low velocity (relatively speaking), high mass bullet that tends to expand on impact. This causes it to have moderately high stopping power but flatten and stop when hitting walls and other obstacles. This is good for unarmored targets in an urban area where you are trying to minimize potential collateral damage if you miss your target.
AR-15s are a danger to everyone around the police forces, almost more than any theoretical school shooter they could come up against. It's using a weapon designed for a "weapon's free" environment against an opposing military force in an urban environment filled will civilians. It's stupid and reckless, and there is no justification that makes killing innocent civilians to fight against a crazy person acceptable when it can be avoided by using different weapons.
The military also tends to have more than one of the things. Oh, that particular truck is in maintenance? Oh well, we've got six more. Vehicles are always broken down, but the military tends to have extras (for good reason, training requirements are rarely as high as operational requirements, and the inventory is based on operational requirements).
If you only have one MRAP, and you only maintain it semi-annually rather than weekly like the military does, I'm amazed they work at all.
Also, an MRAP has a bit more parts than a tractor. They don't look very fancy on the outside but there is some serious gear in an MRAP or most other military vehicles (the lowly 7-ton has a supercharged engine with a ton of electronic components and failsafes). They don't work well without maintenance...but since they always have a crew of people maintaining it, it's working as intended.
Either way there's no reason for the police, especially school police, to have an MRAP. We already have a National Guard, with people actually trained to use this stuff. It seems silly to give it to unqualified personnel.
Trademark law also protects the markholder's goodwill from misappropriation. It incentivizes the markholder to create higher quality goods because he knows that his goodwill will be protected. People want the knock-off only because the markholder has invested time, energy, and money into his goodwill. The infringer profits by free riding and reaping where he has not sown.
Irrelevant. For this to be true, there would have to be actual confusion between the markholder and the "free-rider." If, as pointed out, there is no confusion (consumers know the goods are counterfeit) then there is no goodwill lost (because, well, consumers know they aren't the same company).
If you cannot establish that consumers were confused or mislead due to trademark then any other protection relating to trademark law is meaningless. It's not a valid point because to discuss markholder's goodwill first you must establish market confusion. And market confusion is already the primary negative aspect of violating trademark law (which Mike has repeatedly stated he is not against) so the reputation of the injured party is moot.
What if he didn't butt-dial the police? What if the NSA is feeding cops the data and then they just tell the criminal they butt-dialed, after they've taken his phone as "evidence?" Perhaps a more sophisticated version of planting drugs on the body?
Three times does seem to be quite the coincidence, I've never had my phone accidentally dial the police...my last call, sure, but were the criminals commonly calling the police?
more dissembling by Masnick - How so? He stated exactly what he believes on the issue; you may disagree with those opinions, but nowhere did he conceal his true intention. Or are you using that word without knowing what it means?
Also, the rest of your post is a nice strawman. Nowhere did Mike state that software cannot be patented. He said that most software cannot be patented. He pointed out 11 cases of bogus software patents being denied.
Most software patents end up being abstract ideas that, because of the technical language used, are approved and then relentlessly litigated to the benefit of no one except lawyers and those suing. Mike is lauding the reduction in bad patents being viable for abusive lawsuits, not saying that patents need to go away.
You can tell this by the concluding paragraph, where he talks about how software developers should be excited that they can be more innovative because they can invent without fear that they will be litigated into bankruptcy by some BS company that has never actually used the "patent" in a commercial product.
Try again, this time when you actually refute the article itself, not some made-up article you invented in your head. Thanks.
I think the burden is on the skeptics who want to change the status quo. If patent rights are so onerous and terrible, why has the U.S. thrived for more than two centuries under them?
This is a fallacy. You would need to show evidence that the U.S. thrived because of patent rights. Note that just because something valuable has a patent does not mean that the patent created the value (see: false cause, also: correlation does not equal causation).
That being said, I'm curious as to why you're asking these questions, when Mike has specifically stated his positions on IP and patents numerous times, both in comments and in his articles.
He is against abuse of copyright, patent, and trademark law used to discourage innovation, and his website is filled with examples of that abuse along with how and why it discourages innovation. He is for a reform of IP laws that encourage innovation and creation while protecting the public domain and consumers from abuse and exploitation.
So, to give an example, Mike would likely be for something like GOG.com, which promotes DRM-free software sales, because it offers reasonably-priced, pro-consumer content and has been very successful in offering one of the few services that offers comparable value to piracy. He would likely be against something like The Sims franchise, which monetizes every object and update in the game and tries to squeeze every last penny from their customers while restricting user generated content purely to force people to buy their sub-par offerings.
In both cases, "IP" exists within the products. So is he pro-IP, because he would support GOG.com, or Lewis C. K. when he offered his show for $5, or numerous other individuals who monetized their content in a pro-consumer way. He is also anti-IP, in the cases of companies like EA or Adobe who lock down their products and make them painful to use for paying customers, or HBO who refuses to give legal alternatives to their service at a reasonable price, or the dozens of companies that use DMCA takedowns to bully small creators into giving them money just because they used a tiny part of their content, or patent trolls who buy patents purely to sue actual innovators without creating anything on their own.
Also, after that, he may be anti-run-on sentence, but I think my point was made =).
As a former UF student, I can assure you that Waldo is rather famous in the area. I drove through the town numerous times while going to and from Miami to visit family. Thankfully I knew about the traps and would always drive 5mph under the speed limit.
One interesting thing is that Florida state law (at least when I lived there) does not allow for tickets under 5mph over the speed limit. The tickets don't even have a value for anything under "5 mph over". So if you got pulled over for going 57 in a 55 zone, you could have the ticket easily thrown out...
...assuming you were being charged with speeding. Waldo broke this rule by charging you with a "moving violation" for speeds even 1 mph over the limit. The fee was set in stone...they couldn't increase it based on how fast you were going, but it let them cheat Florida state law.
I really hated driving through that place and remember literally seeing three to four cops parked around trees and under bridges every time I drove through. The funny part is I assumed the town had more than 7 cops; I wonder now if they ever actually dealt with any real crimes.
Probably not. Pretty funny to see the local scam on an internet news site.
This is sort of like locking your car. If someone really wants in your car, they're eventually going to get in, regardless of your security measures. But if it's locked, and someone is walking along trying door handles to steal change from your center console, that locked door is enough to make them move on.
Incidentally, encryption is also like locking your car...it doesn't necessarily mean your car is full of heroine, it could just mean you don't want someone taking your glasses. I've never understood why people seem to assume if you are trying to be secure online it means you must be "hiding something."
Interestingly, as I am currently viewing this website from a government computer running Windows 7 and IE 8, my computer gives me a certificate warning whenever I go to Techdirt. I assume it's because the site is encrypted and I'm using really old software.
Should I be worried about Mike doing MITM attacks on me? =)
No worries, it's a minor thing, though if she's a fanatic, and you're not, you're really missing out on a great show.
Agreed. I've yet to meet someone who's watched more than a couple Doctor Who episodes who isn't a fan. I'm sure there's someone (it can be a bit cheesy at times) but so far every skeptical person loves it by the end of the first season. I was one of those skeptical people...and now I think bowties are cool =).
Now, let me think what other books that might exist that I could argue contain dark literature, sexual elements, and creatures that aren't human? Oh, I know! How about the bible?
Nah, you're not seeing it from the right frame of view. Vampires are fictional evil monsters that destroy our children. The bible is a historical record of REAL angels, demons, and God.
Obviously. Now go give me two Hail Mary's, and Our Father, and promise never to do it again.
Like most great computer inventions, email was developed by multiple independent teams of engineers trying to solve the same problem.
Computers are generally too complex to truly "invent" something on an individual scale...if you think a lone person invented it, it was probably already attempted by a team. Specific interfaces, graphics, and hardware aesthetics can be "invented" by individuals...programming solutions tend to be created by software engineers working together.
I'm sure there are exceptions out there but, like most inventions, you can trace the inspiration for any great idea to all the great ideas before it.
"The US has serious issues with lawsuits, and it's diminishing anyone's interest in being a leader or trying to apply context to rules. Don't blame the schools, blame the legal system that got them there."
*Gasp* I, well, completely agree. Hold on, I need to reflect on the fact that this is the first thing I've seen you write that I've agreed with. I even had to check your profile to make sure it was the same person.
There's a simple solution to this; the same thing we do in the military. If a student does something that you believe is bad behavior, write it down in their student record and talk to them about it (assuming it's minor). If more things happen, and that record starts getting full of infractions, then consider more severe action.
Also, the parents MUST be involved in every step...it is unacceptable for a school to decide this stuff on their own (I would immediately disenroll my child from any school that showed illegal behavior...that is not something I want my daughter to be exposed to).
The "lawsuit mentality" is destroying people for stupid, illogical reasons.
I felt the same way. HUGE "scientific" stretches in that article.
First of all, it ignores a TON of potentially mitigating factors. It ignores education opportunities, social class, parenting, genetic predisposition...all things that influence intelligence.
Not only that, the ENTIRE sample apparently went to bed between 11:41 pm and 12:29 am on school nights, and apparently staying up for an extra 48 minutes in the middle of the night took you from "very dull" to "very bright" (whatever that means, no actual IQ values were listed).
I'm fairly smart, graduated number 9 in my high school class with a full scholorship in computer engineering to University of Florida, and have been in advanced classes my entire life. I don't think my parents ever let me stay up past 10:00 pm on a school night. By this article's logic, I should be dumber than a box of rocks.
Granted, I naturally tend to stay up late and sleep in on weekends (my work prevents me from doing so during the week) but I'm pretty sure the logic and conclusions reached by that article are almost completely coincidental.
Sigh. This is why a third of America doesn't believe in evolution. They read bad science based on it and assume the whole thing is a bunch of BS.
I guess that's why you wrote that "People who are skeptical of this statement are even smarter." Or does that mean the skeptical people like to sleep in? =)
Like Bob said, the government has the same concerns. In the military if you're caught looking at porn (or even for porn) on your government computer you are looking at disciplinary action. Depending on the rank of the individual the consequences will be more severe (so a E-3 may get a written counseling in their record but an E-8 would probably receive an NJP at least, effectively ending their career).
To me the real issue isn't that they're looking at porn at work (although, come on, really?), it's that they don't have anything to do otherwise. That screams poor management and/or overhiring. My guess is both.
I personally feel, as a government employee, I have an obligation to work hard on the taxpayer's dime. Does that mean I work 100% of the time I'm at the office? No...I occasionally write posts on Techdirt =). But for the most part when I'm at work I'm doing something productive.
The fact that these guys can go to work all day with nothing to do is terrible, and means that we either need to cut down the number of employees at these places or find a better way to employ them.
AC, I notice you didn't ask what "net neutrality," "broadband," "bandwidth," "FCC," and numerous other terms used in the article mean. I'm sure someone reading the article might not know what those are, so where's the righteous thunder?
This blog has talked about CDNs numerous times, and they're fairly common knowledge, at least as much as net neutrality and FCC. It's reasonable to assume the people reading the article know what they are, or if they don't, have the ability to quickly look them up.
The article wasn't about CDNs, it was about why CDNs are not a violationt of net neutrality. If you don't know what either of those things are the article probably won't make much sense to you, just like a debate on ESPN about the Patriot's offense won't make much sense if you have never watched or played a game of football. How many times have you heard one of the sportscasters say "The quarterback, who is the person who leads the offensive team and is responsible for calling plays, threw the ball for a first down, which is when the offense moves more than 10 yards past the line of scrimmage, which is blah blah blah..."
They don't do this because it's assumed that the people watching have a basic understanding of football. Likewise, a tech blog assumes people have a basic understanding of technology. You apparently don't, and then get upset when it's not spelled out for you.
Techdirt has no obligation to pander to your ignorance. The article was about something more complex than the individual terms used and your lack of knowledge on that term means that you need to find out what it is if you want to understand the article.
Sorry if that's too much for you, but it's not the author's fault and not the fault of people who called you out for being lazy.
What is your definition of "hate speech," and it what country are you referring to?
It the U.S. the only form of "hate speech" that is illegal is speech that directly induces individuals to violence (e.g. a mob leader saying "Kill that guy!" and the mob proceeds to kill the guy would be a violation of the law, but someone saying in the middle of town "all of group X should die!" without inciting direct violence is protected speech and perfectly legal). Even in the first example it would have to be shown that the speech had a causual connection to the actions taken.
Copyright infringement is not innate. A particular expression of anything is assumed legal until challenged by the copyright holder, NOT the other way around. If the opposite were true, YouTube's Content ID would simply prevent anyone but the individual with the original copyright from uploading content loaded into the system. It doesn't, because until the copyright holder sends legal notice that the particular work is infringing, it is assumed to be legal.
Therefore blocking The Pirate Bay is blocking free speech, exactly as the article stated.
The government could impose the death penalty for copyright infringement and it still would not create a future where the bulk of people who want to be independent artists can reliably make a good living from their work.
Interestingly, this is a provable statement. In North Korea the punishment for possessing "unauthorized" materials is typically death or close, yet there are reports that pirated music from South Korea is extremely popular among children in North Korean schools.
These kids risk their entire families and their own lives yet still "infringe." Forbidding humans to share art and ideas is like forbidding humans to love. You can try all you want, but you'll never succeed, you'll just push it underground.
On the post: LA School District Reluctantly Gives Up The Grenade Launchers The Pentagon Gave Them
Re: Re:
I can't really think of a situation where I'd rather have burst than a hammer pair (two quick pulls of the trigger) and a shot to the head or groin. The latter is how the military is trained to shoot so in a combat situation few people are going to switch to burst (it's also slightly more likely to cause jams).
That being said, I absolutely disagree with police using AR-15s. The AR-15 fires the same round that the M-16 does, the 5.56mm. A 5.56 round is designed for maximum penetration and fragmentation and tends to easily travel through walls, normal vehicles, and other obstacles. It's a high velocity, low mass bullet. It's great for long range combat against armored enemies that may be hiding behind cover.
The reason 9mm is so popular in police forces is because it's the opposite...a low velocity (relatively speaking), high mass bullet that tends to expand on impact. This causes it to have moderately high stopping power but flatten and stop when hitting walls and other obstacles. This is good for unarmored targets in an urban area where you are trying to minimize potential collateral damage if you miss your target.
AR-15s are a danger to everyone around the police forces, almost more than any theoretical school shooter they could come up against. It's using a weapon designed for a "weapon's free" environment against an opposing military force in an urban environment filled will civilians. It's stupid and reckless, and there is no justification that makes killing innocent civilians to fight against a crazy person acceptable when it can be avoided by using different weapons.
On the post: LA School District Reluctantly Gives Up The Grenade Launchers The Pentagon Gave Them
Re: Re: Re: starting
If you only have one MRAP, and you only maintain it semi-annually rather than weekly like the military does, I'm amazed they work at all.
Also, an MRAP has a bit more parts than a tractor. They don't look very fancy on the outside but there is some serious gear in an MRAP or most other military vehicles (the lowly 7-ton has a supercharged engine with a ton of electronic components and failsafes). They don't work well without maintenance...but since they always have a crew of people maintaining it, it's working as intended.
Either way there's no reason for the police, especially school police, to have an MRAP. We already have a National Guard, with people actually trained to use this stuff. It seems silly to give it to unqualified personnel.
On the post: New Study Confirms: Internet Is Contributing To Massive Profit Levels At Legacy Entertainment Firms
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Info
Who's fault is that?
On the post: Intellectual Property Maximalist Lobbying Group Proposes A New Trademark SOPA (Plus Girl Scout Badges...)
Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant. For this to be true, there would have to be actual confusion between the markholder and the "free-rider." If, as pointed out, there is no confusion (consumers know the goods are counterfeit) then there is no goodwill lost (because, well, consumers know they aren't the same company).
If you cannot establish that consumers were confused or mislead due to trademark then any other protection relating to trademark law is meaningless. It's not a valid point because to discuss markholder's goodwill first you must establish market confusion. And market confusion is already the primary negative aspect of violating trademark law (which Mike has repeatedly stated he is not against) so the reputation of the injured party is moot.
On the post: Slick Dude Butt-Dials 911 On His Way To A Drug Deal, Is Promptly Arrested
What if he didn't butt-dial the police? What if the NSA is feeding cops the data and then they just tell the criminal they butt-dialed, after they've taken his phone as "evidence?" Perhaps a more sophisticated version of planting drugs on the body?
Three times does seem to be quite the coincidence, I've never had my phone accidentally dial the police...my last call, sure, but were the criminals commonly calling the police?
Hmmmmmmm...
Slowly backs away...
On the post: Be Happy: Software Patents Are Rapidly Disappearing Thanks To The Supreme Court
Re: more dissembling by Masnick
Also, the rest of your post is a nice strawman. Nowhere did Mike state that software cannot be patented. He said that most software cannot be patented. He pointed out 11 cases of bogus software patents being denied.
Most software patents end up being abstract ideas that, because of the technical language used, are approved and then relentlessly litigated to the benefit of no one except lawyers and those suing. Mike is lauding the reduction in bad patents being viable for abusive lawsuits, not saying that patents need to go away.
You can tell this by the concluding paragraph, where he talks about how software developers should be excited that they can be more innovative because they can invent without fear that they will be litigated into bankruptcy by some BS company that has never actually used the "patent" in a commercial product.
Try again, this time when you actually refute the article itself, not some made-up article you invented in your head. Thanks.
On the post: Be Happy: Software Patents Are Rapidly Disappearing Thanks To The Supreme Court
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is a fallacy. You would need to show evidence that the U.S. thrived because of patent rights. Note that just because something valuable has a patent does not mean that the patent created the value (see: false cause, also: correlation does not equal causation).
That being said, I'm curious as to why you're asking these questions, when Mike has specifically stated his positions on IP and patents numerous times, both in comments and in his articles.
He is against abuse of copyright, patent, and trademark law used to discourage innovation, and his website is filled with examples of that abuse along with how and why it discourages innovation. He is for a reform of IP laws that encourage innovation and creation while protecting the public domain and consumers from abuse and exploitation.
So, to give an example, Mike would likely be for something like GOG.com, which promotes DRM-free software sales, because it offers reasonably-priced, pro-consumer content and has been very successful in offering one of the few services that offers comparable value to piracy. He would likely be against something like The Sims franchise, which monetizes every object and update in the game and tries to squeeze every last penny from their customers while restricting user generated content purely to force people to buy their sub-par offerings.
In both cases, "IP" exists within the products. So is he pro-IP, because he would support GOG.com, or Lewis C. K. when he offered his show for $5, or numerous other individuals who monetized their content in a pro-consumer way. He is also anti-IP, in the cases of companies like EA or Adobe who lock down their products and make them painful to use for paying customers, or HBO who refuses to give legal alternatives to their service at a reasonable price, or the dozens of companies that use DMCA takedowns to bully small creators into giving them money just because they used a tiny part of their content, or patent trolls who buy patents purely to sue actual innovators without creating anything on their own.
Also, after that, he may be anti-run-on sentence, but I think my point was made =).
On the post: Dept. Of Law Enforcement Investigates Notorious 'Speed Trap' Town Whose Seven Officers Wrote Up More Than 11,000 Tickets Last Year
Re: Re:
One interesting thing is that Florida state law (at least when I lived there) does not allow for tickets under 5mph over the speed limit. The tickets don't even have a value for anything under "5 mph over". So if you got pulled over for going 57 in a 55 zone, you could have the ticket easily thrown out...
...assuming you were being charged with speeding. Waldo broke this rule by charging you with a "moving violation" for speeds even 1 mph over the limit. The fee was set in stone...they couldn't increase it based on how fast you were going, but it let them cheat Florida state law.
I really hated driving through that place and remember literally seeing three to four cops parked around trees and under bridges every time I drove through. The funny part is I assumed the town had more than 7 cops; I wonder now if they ever actually dealt with any real crimes.
Probably not. Pretty funny to see the local scam on an internet news site.
On the post: Thai Gov't Accused Of Instituting Mass Internet Surveillance... To See If You're Reading Anything The King Doesn't Like
Re: Re: More man-in-the-middle attacks
Incidentally, encryption is also like locking your car...it doesn't necessarily mean your car is full of heroine, it could just mean you don't want someone taking your glasses. I've never understood why people seem to assume if you are trying to be secure online it means you must be "hiding something."
On the post: Thai Gov't Accused Of Instituting Mass Internet Surveillance... To See If You're Reading Anything The King Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: More man-in-the-middle attacks
Should I be worried about Mike doing MITM attacks on me? =)
On the post: The Miraculous Works Of The Criminal Justice System
Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused
Agreed. I've yet to meet someone who's watched more than a couple Doctor Who episodes who isn't a fan. I'm sure there's someone (it can be a bit cheesy at times) but so far every skeptical person loves it by the end of the first season. I was one of those skeptical people...and now I think bowties are cool =).
On the post: Texas Religious Leaders Try To Get Public Libraries To Ban Vampire Books For Them
Nah, you're not seeing it from the right frame of view. Vampires are fictional evil monsters that destroy our children. The bible is a historical record of REAL angels, demons, and God.
Obviously. Now go give me two Hail Mary's, and Our Father, and promise never to do it again.
On the post: Why Is Huffington Post Running A Multi-Part Series To Promote The Lies Of A Guy Who Pretended To Invent Email?
Computers are generally too complex to truly "invent" something on an individual scale...if you think a lone person invented it, it was probably already attempted by a team. Specific interfaces, graphics, and hardware aesthetics can be "invented" by individuals...programming solutions tend to be created by software engineers working together.
I'm sure there are exceptions out there but, like most inventions, you can trace the inspiration for any great idea to all the great ideas before it.
On the post: Why Is Huffington Post Running A Multi-Part Series To Promote The Lies Of A Guy Who Pretended To Invent Email?
Re:
Or were you using an example of one? =)
On the post: Student's Story About Shooting A Pet Dinosaur With A Gun Ends In Suspension, Arrest
Re: Re: No Leaders
*Gasp* I, well, completely agree. Hold on, I need to reflect on the fact that this is the first thing I've seen you write that I've agreed with. I even had to check your profile to make sure it was the same person.
There's a simple solution to this; the same thing we do in the military. If a student does something that you believe is bad behavior, write it down in their student record and talk to them about it (assuming it's minor). If more things happen, and that record starts getting full of infractions, then consider more severe action.
Also, the parents MUST be involved in every step...it is unacceptable for a school to decide this stuff on their own (I would immediately disenroll my child from any school that showed illegal behavior...that is not something I want my daughter to be exposed to).
The "lawsuit mentality" is destroying people for stupid, illogical reasons.
On the post: DailyDirt: Correlations For Being Smart
Re:
First of all, it ignores a TON of potentially mitigating factors. It ignores education opportunities, social class, parenting, genetic predisposition...all things that influence intelligence.
Not only that, the ENTIRE sample apparently went to bed between 11:41 pm and 12:29 am on school nights, and apparently staying up for an extra 48 minutes in the middle of the night took you from "very dull" to "very bright" (whatever that means, no actual IQ values were listed).
I'm fairly smart, graduated number 9 in my high school class with a full scholorship in computer engineering to University of Florida, and have been in advanced classes my entire life. I don't think my parents ever let me stay up past 10:00 pm on a school night. By this article's logic, I should be dumber than a box of rocks.
Granted, I naturally tend to stay up late and sleep in on weekends (my work prevents me from doing so during the week) but I'm pretty sure the logic and conclusions reached by that article are almost completely coincidental.
Sigh. This is why a third of America doesn't believe in evolution. They read bad science based on it and assume the whole thing is a bunch of BS.
I guess that's why you wrote that "People who are skeptical of this statement are even smarter." Or does that mean the skeptical people like to sleep in? =)
On the post: More Federal Employees Caught Using Work Computers To Access Porn, Claim 'Boredom' Made Them Do It
Re: Re: Re:
To me the real issue isn't that they're looking at porn at work (although, come on, really?), it's that they don't have anything to do otherwise. That screams poor management and/or overhiring. My guess is both.
I personally feel, as a government employee, I have an obligation to work hard on the taxpayer's dime. Does that mean I work 100% of the time I'm at the office? No...I occasionally write posts on Techdirt =). But for the most part when I'm at work I'm doing something productive.
The fact that these guys can go to work all day with nothing to do is terrible, and means that we either need to cut down the number of employees at these places or find a better way to employ them.
On the post: Can We Kill This Ridiculous Shill-Spread Myth That CDNs Violate Net Neutrality? They Don't
Re: Re: This *is* a tech blog, after all
This blog has talked about CDNs numerous times, and they're fairly common knowledge, at least as much as net neutrality and FCC. It's reasonable to assume the people reading the article know what they are, or if they don't, have the ability to quickly look them up.
The article wasn't about CDNs, it was about why CDNs are not a violationt of net neutrality. If you don't know what either of those things are the article probably won't make much sense to you, just like a debate on ESPN about the Patriot's offense won't make much sense if you have never watched or played a game of football. How many times have you heard one of the sportscasters say "The quarterback, who is the person who leads the offensive team and is responsible for calling plays, threw the ball for a first down, which is when the offense moves more than 10 yards past the line of scrimmage, which is blah blah blah..."
They don't do this because it's assumed that the people watching have a basic understanding of football. Likewise, a tech blog assumes people have a basic understanding of technology. You apparently don't, and then get upset when it's not spelled out for you.
Techdirt has no obligation to pander to your ignorance. The article was about something more complex than the individual terms used and your lack of knowledge on that term means that you need to find out what it is if you want to understand the article.
Sorry if that's too much for you, but it's not the author's fault and not the fault of people who called you out for being lazy.
On the post: Recording Industry Exec Says It's Not Censorship To Block Sites He Doesn't Like
Re:
It the U.S. the only form of "hate speech" that is illegal is speech that directly induces individuals to violence (e.g. a mob leader saying "Kill that guy!" and the mob proceeds to kill the guy would be a violation of the law, but someone saying in the middle of town "all of group X should die!" without inciting direct violence is protected speech and perfectly legal). Even in the first example it would have to be shown that the speech had a causual connection to the actions taken.
Copyright infringement is not innate. A particular expression of anything is assumed legal until challenged by the copyright holder, NOT the other way around. If the opposite were true, YouTube's Content ID would simply prevent anyone but the individual with the original copyright from uploading content loaded into the system. It doesn't, because until the copyright holder sends legal notice that the particular work is infringing, it is assumed to be legal.
Therefore blocking The Pirate Bay is blocking free speech, exactly as the article stated.
On the post: The Copyright Folly: Making A Living As A Creator Has Always Been Difficult, Stronger Copyright Doesn't Fix It
Interestingly, this is a provable statement. In North Korea the punishment for possessing "unauthorized" materials is typically death or close, yet there are reports that pirated music from South Korea is extremely popular among children in North Korean schools.
These kids risk their entire families and their own lives yet still "infringe." Forbidding humans to share art and ideas is like forbidding humans to love. You can try all you want, but you'll never succeed, you'll just push it underground.
Next >>