Stop voting for only two parties. Change needs to happen at the individual level, not the top of government. Only then will we actually see lasting change.
While I agree with the sentiment, because of how our voting system works, we'll be stuck in a two party system forever. With a winner take all (also called 'First past the post') system, people will naturally gravitate towards a two-party system. I believe it's backed mathematically, but I don't have those proofs on hand.
(For more information, look for CGP Grey's Youtube videos on the topic of the 'Animal Kingdom' and how different voting systems work.)
Re: Re: Re: Or in tl;dr format: 'When all you have is hammer...'
See, now I'm imagining a world where the accused have rights, and where they're just told "Look, if you have kids, we have a daycare for them for the day. We'll send an Uber/Lyft/Taxi/Autonomous-Vehicle to your house to pick you up. If you aren't there and ready, then we'll put out a warrant."
And now I'm sad we don't live in that world.
We couldn't use a GPS tracker bracelet because of privacy concerns, right...? So why is putting them in jail acceptable? I wonder if that should be offered as an option... Until trial, you may either: Sit in jail, pay bail, or wear a GPS tracker.
Isn't there something about not being allowed to lie about what you're doing to shareholders...?
"To put it in perspective, we’re operating in 41 states, we have thousands of franchise agreements, and generally we have good relationship with the communities we serve," Rutledge added. "We live up to our commitments and we have in New York State; in fact we’re well ahead of our obligations in terms of speed upgrades and in the build-out itself."
Elsevier is in charge of monitoring the effects of Open Science research. (They also invest heavily in the space, so this is the conflict of interest.)
To help them figure out which papers are having the most impact, they're using CiteScore to determine this. They helped develop CiteScore's methodology, but not independently. CiteScore's ratings show Elsevier's papers higher rated than a competitor's, which isn't surprising.
The methodology for CiteScore is freely available.
So the solution is just that Elsevier shouldn't be monitoring the system, it should be some other third party? And if this 3rd party uses CiteScore, then that's fine?
Re: Re: Re: Re: More 'Acceptable' Collateral Damage
It means that there is little or no correlation between the party of the representative and whether he voted for the bill.
In other words, if you took one random Congressperson, the odds are more likely than not that they would support the bill.
Further, knowing how they voted on the bill does not allow you to guess their party affiliation with better than 50% accuracy. (Yes, technically there are more than two parties so it'd be lower than 50%, but that's pretty minimal.)
While I appreciate her expertise in the matter, I would respectfully recommend that Professor Samuelson use less 'um', 'uh', and 'er' in her speech. It made it sorta difficult to follow her. :(
(I understand that the podcast format is not exactly normal public speaking. I don't want to assume, but perhaps she hasn't been on many podcasts before? I can't imagine that she has problems with public speaking, as a professor.)
Huh. So it turns out they'll be reaching ~9% of the population. Yep. Real Competition®
Other problems: You say GLW holds 12GHz spectrum in those markets. That implies wireless connectivity. We've gone into the problems with calling Wireless 'Broadband' in the past... Still, baby steps forward, I guess.
[i]stronger preventions against the revolving door between government and industry.[/i]
While good in theory, these preventions could also prevent Subject Matter Experts from holding political office, one of the severe problems we have in the tech sectory. (People who know how Tech works don't hold public office.)
I do agree that people who used to literally campaign for certain proposals or laws should probably not be put in charge of approving/denying those proposals.
Option A: Provide sources to back this up; things they said or did that were racist.
Option B: They both are, by the strict definition of the word, because everyone is, by the strict definition of the word.
Corollary: Whether or not they are racist is not possible to be 'fake news', because whether someone is racist or not is a matter of opinion and inherently subjective. You can, however, state that they did at some point, and that thing is *objective* and verifiable and falls under this policy.
Basically, trying to cut through all the 'but he didn't say/do that!' objections at once. (Or the opposite, proving that he did say/do that thing.)
I'm in general agreement with you, that trying to block or prevent speech is generally worse than just putting out more speech.
I feel that nowhere is this more obvious than with 'Fake News' stories. Whenever there is something that's legitimately false, solving that problem is by stating that it's false, and why it's false.
I only use the 'Fake News' definition associated with 100% factually untrue information.
The information was already released.
The Twitter bot just pointed out where it was.
That it happened to be tangentially related is unfortunate and entirely benign.
Even better, the Twitter bot was supposed to have already sent this information out. So if anything, the 'violation of professional ethics (and possibly laws)' is on anyone who didn't initially release it.
An FBI official told Motherboard that the FBI Records Vault Twitter account had been dormant for more than a year because of a bug in the FBI.gov content management system (CMS) that links the website where the documents are posted and the social media account. On Sunday, according to the official, the FBI’s IT team pushed a patch to the CMS and fixed the bug, causing the flood of tweets, which had been scheduled over the last few months, to go out on October 30.
This is a perfectly reasonable explanation and serves to highlight the troubles of the modern IT wo--
Whatever the explanation is, the FBI is pretty much a walking catastrophe at this point -- at least as far as maintaining distance from the electoral process is concerned.
What. No. NO. This is a valid explanation. There was a bug in the CMS. IT fixed it. You can't possibly claim to start pointing fingers at IT people for doing their jobs.
On the post: Verizon Just Obliterated Ajit Pai's Justification For Killing Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Karl, I agree
While I agree with the sentiment, because of how our voting system works, we'll be stuck in a two party system forever. With a winner take all (also called 'First past the post') system, people will naturally gravitate towards a two-party system. I believe it's backed mathematically, but I don't have those proofs on hand.
(For more information, look for CGP Grey's Youtube videos on the topic of the 'Animal Kingdom' and how different voting systems work.)
On the post: We Brought Our Election Simulation Game To Chicago... And Learned The Chicago Way
Re: suggestions for new events.
On the post: NYC Prosecutors Accidentally Admit They Use Bail To Deprive Presumably-Innocent People Of Their Freedom
Re: Re: Re: Or in tl;dr format: 'When all you have is hammer...'
And now I'm sad we don't live in that world.
We couldn't use a GPS tracker bracelet because of privacy concerns, right...? So why is putting them in jail acceptable? I wonder if that should be offered as an option... Until trial, you may either: Sit in jail, pay bail, or wear a GPS tracker.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 178: Old Tweets & Your Permanent Record
Audio...
On the post: Charter CEO Apparently Unaware He Runs One Of The Most Despised Companies In America
Lying to Shareholders
Isn't there something about not being allowed to lie about what you're doing to shareholders...?
That sounds verifiably false, to me.
On the post: Elsevier Will Monitor Open Science In EU Using Measurement System That Favors Its Own Titles
A bit confusing
Elsevier is in charge of monitoring the effects of Open Science research. (They also invest heavily in the space, so this is the conflict of interest.)
To help them figure out which papers are having the most impact, they're using CiteScore to determine this. They helped develop CiteScore's methodology, but not independently. CiteScore's ratings show Elsevier's papers higher rated than a competitor's, which isn't surprising.
The methodology for CiteScore is freely available.
So the solution is just that Elsevier shouldn't be monitoring the system, it should be some other third party? And if this 3rd party uses CiteScore, then that's fine?
So why is it a problem that Elsevier uses it...?
On the post: Police Realizing That SESTA/FOSTA Made Their Jobs Harder; Sex Traffickers Realizing It's Made Their Job Easier
Re: Re: Re: Re: More 'Acceptable' Collateral Damage
In other words, if you took one random Congressperson, the odds are more likely than not that they would support the bill.
Further, knowing how they voted on the bill does not allow you to guess their party affiliation with better than 50% accuracy. (Yes, technically there are more than two parties so it'd be lower than 50%, but that's pretty minimal.)
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 161: How One Court Just Screwed Up Software Development
Feedback
(I understand that the podcast format is not exactly normal public speaking. I don't want to assume, but perhaps she hasn't been on many podcasts before? I can't imagine that she has problems with public speaking, as a professor.)
On the post: Blackburn Doubles Down On A Decade Of Lies As She Pushes Fake Net Neutrality Law
Re:
On the post: Trump's New Rural Broadband Executive Order Doesn't Actually Do Much Of Anything
Re: Re: Re:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=population+of+US
Huh. So it turns out they'll be reaching ~9% of the population. Yep. Real Competition®
Other problems: You say GLW holds 12GHz spectrum in those markets. That implies wireless connectivity. We've gone into the problems with calling Wireless 'Broadband' in the past... Still, baby steps forward, I guess.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Throw In The Towel On Term Extension; Admit That Maybe Copyright Is Too Long
Watch what you say...
Isn't that how we got a cheeto in charge of the USA?
On the post: Confused Judge Says Video Game Play Has No Copyright, Because The Work Is Not 'Fixed'
From the article
WHERE DID YOU GET A TIME MACHINE?!
On the post: FCC Boss Claims Net Neutrality Supporters Were Clearly Wrong Because Twitter Still Works The Day After Repeal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, that was easy. There's no way we're "ignoring" zero rating schemes.
On the post: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public, Votes To Begin Dismantling Net Neutrality
Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
On the post: Report: President Trump Picks Former Verizon Lawyer Ajit Pai To Head FCC
Re: Re: Re:
While good in theory, these preventions could also prevent Subject Matter Experts from holding political office, one of the severe problems we have in the tech sectory. (People who know how Tech works don't hold public office.)
I do agree that people who used to literally campaign for certain proposals or laws should probably not be put in charge of approving/denying those proposals.
On the post: Facebook Announces Its Pilot Plans To 'Deal' With Fake News -- Not With Censorship, But With More Info
Re: Re: Re: Cautiously Optimistic
So much for 'html is no longer supported'...
You can, however, state that they did <racist thing X> at some point, and that thing is objective and verifiable and falls under this policy.
On the post: Facebook Announces Its Pilot Plans To 'Deal' With Fake News -- Not With Censorship, But With More Info
Re: Re: Cautiously Optimistic
Option B: They both are, by the strict definition of the word, because everyone is, by the strict definition of the word.
Corollary: Whether or not they are racist is not possible to be 'fake news', because whether someone is racist or not is a matter of opinion and inherently subjective. You can, however, state that they did at some point, and that thing is *objective* and verifiable and falls under this policy.
Basically, trying to cut through all the 'but he didn't say/do that!' objections at once. (Or the opposite, proving that he did say/do that thing.)
On the post: Facebook Announces Its Pilot Plans To 'Deal' With Fake News -- Not With Censorship, But With More Info
Cautiously Optimistic
I feel that nowhere is this more obvious than with 'Fake News' stories. Whenever there is something that's legitimately false, solving that problem is by stating that it's false, and why it's false.
I only use the 'Fake News' definition associated with 100% factually untrue information.
On the post: FBI Opens Internal Investigation Into One Of Its Own Twitter Accounts Because Good Lord This Year Is So Stupid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mountains out of Mole-hills
The information was already released. The Twitter bot just pointed out where it was. That it happened to be tangentially related is unfortunate and entirely benign.
Even better, the Twitter bot was supposed to have already sent this information out. So if anything, the 'violation of professional ethics (and possibly laws)' is on anyone who didn't initially release it.
On the post: FBI Opens Internal Investigation Into One Of Its Own Twitter Accounts Because Good Lord This Year Is So Stupid
Mountains out of Mole-hills
This is a perfectly reasonable explanation and serves to highlight the troubles of the modern IT wo--
What. No. NO. This is a valid explanation. There was a bug in the CMS. IT fixed it. You can't possibly claim to start pointing fingers at IT people for doing their jobs.
Next >>