Services like Locast are doing them a favor by helping ensure that their channels actually get watched.
No, it is an anti-favor.
The broadcast signal is not meant to be watched by anyone.
Period.
Broadcast watchers are not paying stations directly for watching; stations can't sell broadcast watcher habits to advertisers; stations can't tailor ads to maximize advertiser takings from broadcaster watcher pockets; and, with rebroadcasters, stations can't control the boundaries of their viewing area for blackouts and local business advertising.
No, broadcast television is not meant to be watched. It only exists to create a barrier to competition in the station's viewing area. Stations wouldn't even bother with a broadcast signal, if the FCC didn't require it as a condition for anti-competition. My observation is that their signal is often weak or offline, because they don't care about it -- so long as they log enough time online to satisfy the FCC the station has met its obligation.
A rebroadcaster cannot exist in that environment. No matter where the rebroadcaster kicks the ball, the broadcasters will just move the goalposts somewhere else.
Re: "Get caught again and I'll wrist-slap you a little harder!"
Wait....you expected the DHS inspector general to care about a civil rights violation? When DHS was created explicitly to violate civil rights wholesale?
Most rental contracts these days have a clause making criminal activity a violation of the terms, justifying eviction. To see some examples, search "rental clause for illegal activity." (link)
In fact, many of these make crimes committed against tenants grounds for eviction. (I.e., Evan comes uninvited and beats up Alice is grounds for evicting Alice.)
Correct attribution: $1,500 plus -- no doubt everyone will invest that amount for each detail -- to get their paper correct in every detail.
So...999 of 1000 future papers will still be misattributed, because no one can confirm the correct attribution in this ocean of misattribution. (Yes, Ben Shoemate's site has the correct attribution and says so...but 999,999 other sites will swear to their misattribution. This is the web, after all.)
Sigh.
The only thing that surprises me is that it didn't get attributed to good ol' Ben Franklin.
If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it. -- Pierre Gallois
Predictive Policing is nothing more than an attempt by police to use the above principle to hide their racism.
I think this would all be more easily solved by tattooing the suspect's national ID# barcode around each forearm. Then the insurance and the car registration could be tied to the ID in a national database -- problem solved.
All the cops would have to do is yell, "All suspects outta the car. Hands up!" and the suspect(s) can yell, "Hands up, don't shoot!" A quick scan of the barcode(s) and the police will immediately know whether there's something about the suspect(s) that should make them be in fear of their lives -- and, if so, would justify an Immaculate Self-Defense while they remain safely in the seat of their Armored Suspect Service vehicle.
(The above is Certified Satire.)
Only in today's America would today's police be insensitive to the taking of a long step in the direction of the above.
I'm betting that -- by complete and total random coincidence that only an insane, malicious and unreasonable skeptic would doubt -- the backups got deleted at the same time.
Let the FCC RIP. All it is, is a one-stop target for regulatory capture anyway.
I think we should give the telcoms and ISP's what they say they want: effective regulation from three dozen different departments of government. FTC for billing and marketing, SEC for monopolization, HUD and BIA and USDA for broadband coverage, and etc.
At least they couldn't one-stop capture the regulation anymore.
Sometimes I wonder if the cops bring along a chesty stripper for the Judge to closely inspect while he signs the unread warrant.
But the reality is, the officers come waving a claim of probable cause -- and the only thing the judge does is decide if their claims do constitute probable cause. Since the application is basically ex parte there's no one to argue for citizen rights or to check for errors or malfeasance.
Typo'd addresses and cop lies are matters for the court hearing and trial, assuming the cops arrest anyone to bring to court. If they do find somethig good, the errors fall under the "good faith" exception and the lies get explained as "oops, good faith errors" or fall down the same "good luck proving that" rathole as the parallel construction.
If the cops don't find anything good -- as in this case -- cop stonewalling usually buries it...no proof.
Either way, usually no consequences. Where's the incentive to do better?
Oh, right, the bleeping bleeping bleep bleep of a bleep cameras...
Any wonder that we want the cops to wear cameras and they don't?
Perhaps what we are looking at here is a wastebasket. One in which you dump scarce resources and unwanted customers. Give it a fresh coat of paint and show iti off as a bright new compeititor -- all the while snickering into your fist because you know it is just a wastebasket.
Someone should sue them for censorship. I bet it takes them 10 seconds to figure out why it is not censorship for a company like them to do this. And I also bet they're too dumb to see the parallel.
After reading of similar events in the past: I theorize that officers (fed and state) prefer a witness be murdered in many cases. The reason would be simple: it is easier to get a life sentence conviction for murder than (in this case) what they probably thought to be a he/she said rape case.
It's otherwise hard to see why -- as in this case -- officers so frequently clue in perpetrators about talking witnesses...and then leave those witnesses swinging in the breeze, without protection.
Suppose the goal is to identify practical means of distinguish:
1) A poll that wiil influence the election
2) A poll that will influence an election in an incorrect way
To accomplish (1) you will need to know the forecast model that is used and whether or not it is correctly applied and/or applied without bias. How do you propose that a media company might practically do that?
To accomplish (2) you need to know the eventual outcome of the election. To predict that, I suppose you plan to use a poll...which takes us back to (1).
The forecasting model is the common feature of all the items I named. It comes to a question of which a particular model -- or any model, for that matter -- will produce correct results.
I suppose, of course you could use the time-honored method of blockinig polls that, in your opinion, influence the election in the direction you don't like...
On the post: Report: TSA Is Spending $1 Billon On Bag Scanners That 'May Never Meet Operational Needs'
If you just assume "all of the members" you'll be right about 95% of the time.
On the post: Locast Shuts Down, As Yet Again A Bad Interpretation Of Copyright Law Makes The World Worse
That's not why broadcast TV exists
No, it is an anti-favor.
The broadcast signal is not meant to be watched by anyone.
Period.
Broadcast watchers are not paying stations directly for watching; stations can't sell broadcast watcher habits to advertisers; stations can't tailor ads to maximize advertiser takings from broadcaster watcher pockets; and, with rebroadcasters, stations can't control the boundaries of their viewing area for blackouts and local business advertising.
No, broadcast television is not meant to be watched. It only exists to create a barrier to competition in the station's viewing area. Stations wouldn't even bother with a broadcast signal, if the FCC didn't require it as a condition for anti-competition. My observation is that their signal is often weak or offline, because they don't care about it -- so long as they log enough time online to satisfy the FCC the station has met its obligation.
A rebroadcaster cannot exist in that environment. No matter where the rebroadcaster kicks the ball, the broadcasters will just move the goalposts somewhere else.
On the post: Investigation: CBP Targeted Journalists, Illegally Shared Info With Mexico, And Attempted To Cover It All Up
Re: "Get caught again and I'll wrist-slap you a little harder!"
Wait....you expected the DHS inspector general to care about a civil rights violation? When DHS was created explicitly to violate civil rights wholesale?
On the post: Tampa Bay PD's 'Crime-Free Housing' Program Disproportionately Targeted Black Residents, Did Nothing To Reduce Crime
Re:
Most rental contracts these days have a clause making criminal activity a violation of the terms, justifying eviction. To see some examples, search "rental clause for illegal activity." (link)
In fact, many of these make crimes committed against tenants grounds for eviction. (I.e., Evan comes uninvited and beats up Alice is grounds for evicting Alice.)
On the post: Misquoting Einstein Is Fast And Stupid, But Not Accurate
Futility
Correct attribution: $1,500 plus -- no doubt everyone will invest that amount for each detail -- to get their paper correct in every detail.
So...999 of 1000 future papers will still be misattributed, because no one can confirm the correct attribution in this ocean of misattribution. (Yes, Ben Shoemate's site has the correct attribution and says so...but 999,999 other sites will swear to their misattribution. This is the web, after all.)
Sigh.
The only thing that surprises me is that it didn't get attributed to good ol' Ben Franklin.
On the post: New Report On Predictive Policing Shows How New Tech Is Giving Us Little More Than The Same Old Racism
Predictive Policing is nothing more than an attempt by police to use the above principle to hide their racism.
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
Ideal conception
I think this would all be more easily solved by tattooing the suspect's national ID# barcode around each forearm. Then the insurance and the car registration could be tied to the ID in a national database -- problem solved.
All the cops would have to do is yell, "All suspects outta the car. Hands up!" and the suspect(s) can yell, "Hands up, don't shoot!" A quick scan of the barcode(s) and the police will immediately know whether there's something about the suspect(s) that should make them be in fear of their lives -- and, if so, would justify an Immaculate Self-Defense while they remain safely in the seat of their Armored Suspect Service vehicle.
(The above is Certified Satire.)
Only in today's America would today's police be insensitive to the taking of a long step in the direction of the above.
On the post: Billy Mitchell Lets His Site Lapse, With A Critic Of His High Score Claims Swooping In To Take It Over
I see a future with...
Fleets of slogging lawsuits marching shore-to-shore.
On the post: Minnesota Troopers Decided Being Sued For Excessive Force Was The Perfect Time To Delete Emails And Text Messages
Re: Re:
Honestly from the "kill em all" lot would look too much like incitement to murder.
On the post: Minnesota Troopers Decided Being Sued For Excessive Force Was The Perfect Time To Delete Emails And Text Messages
Re:
I'm betting that -- by complete and total random coincidence that only an insane, malicious and unreasonable skeptic would doubt -- the backups got deleted at the same time.
Ain't it funny how life is like that?
On the post: Biden 'Competition Council' Urges Biden FCC To Do Things It Can't Do Because Biden Hasn't Fully Staffed It Yet
FCC RIP
Let the FCC RIP. All it is, is a one-stop target for regulatory capture anyway.
I think we should give the telcoms and ISP's what they say they want: effective regulation from three dozen different departments of government. FTC for billing and marketing, SEC for monopolization, HUD and BIA and USDA for broadband coverage, and etc.
At least they couldn't one-stop capture the regulation anymore.
On the post: Parler Was Allowed Back In The Apple App Store Because It Will Block 'Hate Speech,' But Only When Viewed Through Apple Devices
No loss
Oh, well. Apple is for elitists anyway.
On the post: Chicago PD Oversight Says Officers Racked Up 100 Misconduct Allegations During A Single Wrong Address Raid
The usual story
Sometimes I wonder if the cops bring along a chesty stripper for the Judge to closely inspect while he signs the unread warrant.
But the reality is, the officers come waving a claim of probable cause -- and the only thing the judge does is decide if their claims do constitute probable cause. Since the application is basically ex parte there's no one to argue for citizen rights or to check for errors or malfeasance.
Typo'd addresses and cop lies are matters for the court hearing and trial, assuming the cops arrest anyone to bring to court. If they do find somethig good, the errors fall under the "good faith" exception and the lies get explained as "oops, good faith errors" or fall down the same "good luck proving that" rathole as the parallel construction.
If the cops don't find anything good -- as in this case -- cop stonewalling usually buries it...no proof.
Either way, usually no consequences. Where's the incentive to do better?
Oh, right, the bleeping bleeping bleep bleep of a bleep cameras...
Any wonder that we want the cops to wear cameras and they don't?
On the post: FBI Informants Still Committing Serious Crimes Thousands Of Times A Year
They say crime doesn't pay...
...but crime DOES pay if you're a snitch.
On the post: The Dish 'Fix' For The T-Mobile Merger Is Looking More And More Like A Ridiculous Mess
Dish: wastebasket?
Perhaps what we are looking at here is a wastebasket. One in which you dump scarce resources and unwanted customers. Give it a fresh coat of paint and show iti off as a bright new compeititor -- all the while snickering into your fist because you know it is just a wastebasket.
On the post: Data Broker Looking To Sell Real-Time Vehicle Location Data To Government Agencies, Including The Military
Re:
Spy technology is used for regulating the unwashed masses, never the nobility.
On the post: Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely
Re:
Someone should sue them for censorship. I bet it takes them 10 seconds to figure out why it is not censorship for a company like them to do this. And I also bet they're too dumb to see the parallel.
On the post: Twitch's No Good, Very Bad Time Continues: Part 2
Must be something
Any news on whether Twitch is now a wholly owned subsidiary of RIAA? Of Hell? (Would there be a difference?)
On the post: Appeals Court Strips Immunity From Detectives Who Turned A Rape Report Into 18 Hours Of Terror For The Victim
Murder is better
After reading of similar events in the past: I theorize that officers (fed and state) prefer a witness be murdered in many cases. The reason would be simple: it is easier to get a life sentence conviction for murder than (in this case) what they probably thought to be a he/she said rape case.
It's otherwise hard to see why -- as in this case -- officers so frequently clue in perpetrators about talking witnesses...and then leave those witnesses swinging in the breeze, without protection.
On the post: How Should Social Media Handle Election Polls That Turned Out To Be Misinformation?
Re: Re: Should we forecast?
Suppose the goal is to identify practical means of distinguish:
1) A poll that wiil influence the election
2) A poll that will influence an election in an incorrect way
To accomplish (1) you will need to know the forecast model that is used and whether or not it is correctly applied and/or applied without bias. How do you propose that a media company might practically do that?
To accomplish (2) you need to know the eventual outcome of the election. To predict that, I suppose you plan to use a poll...which takes us back to (1).
The forecasting model is the common feature of all the items I named. It comes to a question of which a particular model -- or any model, for that matter -- will produce correct results.
I suppose, of course you could use the time-honored method of blockinig polls that, in your opinion, influence the election in the direction you don't like...
Next >>