The problem is, a bus monitor really has no authority. Middle Schoolers know that adults can't retaliate when they are fucked with. What was she supposed to do? Anything positive she could have said would have been thrown back in her face. Anything negative she said would have been construed as verbal/emotional abuse, and while it might have worked and been the best thing for these little assholes, it would have gotten her fired...
"Oh I'm fat am I? Well guess what: you're dad's an alcoholic and going to die of liver cirrhosis. And it's your fault too, because you drive him to drinking you little shit." Or something like that.
A bus monitor is nothing to kids. Middle Schoolers are insolent and know that they can do or say anything they want with no immediate consequence, and they love to take advantage of that. It's lord of the flies.
While I personally know quite a few people of the older generations (50 to 60 and even a couple septuagenarians) who are very tech savvy, from my personal experience (I know, unscientific) most people aged >=50 either refuse to use the internet to any greater extent than email, or simply can't learn how to do it no matter how much they want to. Not saying there should be a rule, just personal observation no more accurate than doing astrometry of exoplanets with the naked eye.
On the other hand, I also know a lot of people of my generation (the millennials) who know nothing about anything technical. Their knowledge of the internet is at the same level as a trained monkey with a tin cup. They push a lever and get a food pellet, that type of thing. There is so much ignorance it's sickening.
In conclusion, my observations, while statistically insignificant, are all I have to go on, and I see that the quote "any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic" completely rings true for anyone unwilling to look below the surface.
You do realize that the DoC's response doesn't use **ANY** relevant data, while Mike's has charts directly illustrating data relevant to the conversation....
I'd say any true data is infinitely better than a nonsensical assertion backed up by **NO DATA AT ALL**
essentially:
DoC: patents make jobs, because Jobs had patents
Mike: There is no evidence in the report that patents make jobs. The number of patents being issued per year has been increasing over the past 25 years, but there has been no correlation to patent related job growth as evidenced by your own graph.
There's actually an ongoing ethical debate about terraforming.
Basically, since we really don't whether there is life of some kind on Mars, we may have an ethical obligation to prevent any kind of biological contamination to the planet, since it might destroy native microbes. And while there has been no evidence of extant life found on Mars, it's foolish to assume there isn't any, since we haven't looked at even 1% of the planet. And even if it does turn out there's no life on Mars at all now, there might have been in the past, and there might be inestimably valuable remains left on the planet that could be damaged irreparably by earth biology.
The long and the short of it is: We don't know what might happen if we contaminate Mars, so our best option is to not do anything biologically to the planet until we have a much more complete picture of the planet.
Besides, we've f**ked up the planet we live on pretty badly. Why would we do any better with Mars?
I also want to point out that a DMCA take-down notice is a form of legal threat: when filing such a notice, it is implied that a lawsuit will follow should the DMCA notice be ignored. And the Oatmeal did post an article in which it was considering this option. FunnyJunk over-reacted but was not way off when they said the Oatmeal wanted to sue them.
This is an intellectually dishonest statement. By your own admission, a DMCA req. means that the Oatmeal (TOA) wants to sue FunnyJunk (FJ). But TOA didn't send one, and asked his community if it would be a good idea. Therefore, claiming that TOA wanted to sue FJ is incorrect, and possibly libel or slander in itself, since all you can glean from that particular quote is that he considered suing, not the he wanted to sue.
In addition, you're misrepresenting TOA, since he claims he doesn't want to get into a legal battle in the first place.
I don't want to get tied up in courtroom nonsense.--Matt Inman
And a few days later in his rebuttal in response to FJ's alarmist overreaction to Matt's request to have the uncredited comics taken down:
To the users of FunnyJunk: I never had plans to sue FunnyJunk and get it shut down; I just wanted my stolen comics removed
You sir, are the one who might be guilty of slander.
But I do agree that it's messy not going through the proper legal channels. I don't think bullying has anything to do with it though.
Re: Re: Re: Involuntary participation in the justice system
And the F**king judge replies:
Officers are sworn to hold themselves at a higher level of conduct. What evidence besides your testimony is there that the officer would have deleted this evidence on purpose?
The problem here is proving what is an accident and what is not while the only evidence is "my word against yours"
The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument is a straw-man, and the weakest argument I've ever seen in favor of destroying privacy.
On the other hand, the argument that goes "I hired you to do a job, and you've haven't been doing it, so now I will monitor your performance" argument is much stronger, since it's enforced by a social contract with the whole country.
While I support private sector unions, which help to guarantee that the workers have their concerns addressed and their rights upheld, the unofficial "Blue Wall of Silence" is incredibly disturbing since EVERYONE pays to have police officers, and everyone is affected by what they do, in addition to the police being granted the use of high levels of violence and control of individuals by the state.
If we can't monitor the police and keep indisputable evidence, then the citizenry can't defend itself from despotic officers and policies.
Actually the phone is not evidence. The data on the phone is evidence.
The phone is not evidence in the same way that a witness is not evidence. The witness' testimony is evidence, but witnesses aren't locked up and held in isolation that often. Why should a phone be? An eye-witness is a source that can't be trusted at best, and totally deluded or completely manufactured at worst (see Crashing memories and reality monitoring: Distinguishing between perceptions, imaginations
and 'false memories.' PDF Warning).
Data on the other hand is the exact same for everyone involved, no matter how it's interpreted later, as long as it's unmodified and a chain of custody is kept.
It makes 100% sense to get a copy of the phone's data and leave the original device with the witness, it makes no sense to deprive a witness of their property just to hold onto the data in the device when it's so easily decoupled from the recorder that created the original manifestation of the data.
Unless, of course, you want to peruse data that is irrelevant and unrelated to the originally recorded crime in order to charge/inconvenience/badger/incarcerate the owner, so you can make them seem like an unreliable and incredible witness to the crimes the officer committed him/herself.....Which would be obstruction of justice and an ad hominem attack in any case.
I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term BROADCAST.
As in BROADLY CASTING the signal to the public for anyone to access.
If it's in the air, anyone can do anything they want with it. Doubly so if it's broadcast to the public and not some pseudo-private signal.
Restricting a broadcast to just a small area doesn't make ANY sense. If the point were to do that, then they should make up a bullshit legalese jargon term, perhaps "publicly oriented narrowshoot" or something else braindead like that.
What next? Are you going to claim that if the government wanted to it could ban the retransmission of special shade of aubergine outside of the small area it's being blasted into?
On the post: FBI Wants To Make It Easier For You To Tell Your Customers They Might Be Felonious Pirates
Re: Re: Due to the Berne Convention..
Issue date: Apr 12, 1859
Title: Stove Cover
Great choice of random number! Both unrelated and over 130 years expired.
On the post: Dear Lamar Smith & House Judiciary: Have You Learned Nothing From SOPA?
Re:
Better than the basest of trolls.
Keep working on it man.
On the post: ACTA Failure Inspires The Most Clueless Column Ever
Re: Re: Re: Cultural Disaster?
That's the worst thing I've ever seen happen to cultures in my whole life
On the post: USTR's Surprise Turnaround: Now Advocating Limitations & Exceptions To Copyright
Re:
The USTR can say anything he wants without consequence in order to make the public happy. It's that simple.
Why should we trust a single word coming from Ron Kirk when he refuses to tell even the congress what he's doing?
This "Turnaround" is totally meaningless until such a time as the USTR both enacts transparency and shows they know what it means.
On the post: Epic Win/Fail: Bullied Bus Monitor Sparks Overwhelming Support, But Also Death Threats To Kids
Re: Out of Control
"Oh I'm fat am I? Well guess what: you're dad's an alcoholic and going to die of liver cirrhosis. And it's your fault too, because you drive him to drinking you little shit." Or something like that.
A bus monitor is nothing to kids. Middle Schoolers are insolent and know that they can do or say anything they want with no immediate consequence, and they love to take advantage of that. It's lord of the flies.
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Re:
On the other hand, I also know a lot of people of my generation (the millennials) who know nothing about anything technical. Their knowledge of the internet is at the same level as a trained monkey with a tin cup. They push a lever and get a food pellet, that type of thing. There is so much ignorance it's sickening.
In conclusion, my observations, while statistically insignificant, are all I have to go on, and I see that the quote "any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic" completely rings true for anyone unwilling to look below the surface.
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Re: Your problem:
And other cows. Wouldn't want to waste the economically precious pink slime humans won't eat anymore now that we know what it is.
/offtopic
On the post: Commerce Department's Own Study Debunks Commerce Department's Defense Of Said Study
Re:
I'd say any true data is infinitely better than a nonsensical assertion backed up by **NO DATA AT ALL**
essentially:
DoC: patents make jobs, because Jobs had patents
Mike: There is no evidence in the report that patents make jobs. The number of patents being issued per year has been increasing over the past 25 years, but there has been no correlation to patent related job growth as evidenced by your own graph.
Which sounds like a better argument?
On the post: DailyDirt: Space Shuttle Stories
Re: cockroaches and worms will outlive us all
Basically, since we really don't whether there is life of some kind on Mars, we may have an ethical obligation to prevent any kind of biological contamination to the planet, since it might destroy native microbes. And while there has been no evidence of extant life found on Mars, it's foolish to assume there isn't any, since we haven't looked at even 1% of the planet. And even if it does turn out there's no life on Mars at all now, there might have been in the past, and there might be inestimably valuable remains left on the planet that could be damaged irreparably by earth biology.
The long and the short of it is: We don't know what might happen if we contaminate Mars, so our best option is to not do anything biologically to the planet until we have a much more complete picture of the planet.
Besides, we've f**ked up the planet we live on pretty badly. Why would we do any better with Mars?
On the post: The Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk: How The Court Of Public Opinion Beats The Court Of Baseless Legal Threats
Re:
This is an intellectually dishonest statement. By your own admission, a DMCA req. means that the Oatmeal (TOA) wants to sue FunnyJunk (FJ). But TOA didn't send one, and asked his community if it would be a good idea. Therefore, claiming that TOA wanted to sue FJ is incorrect, and possibly libel or slander in itself, since all you can glean from that particular quote is that he considered suing, not the he wanted to sue.
In addition, you're misrepresenting TOA, since he claims he doesn't want to get into a legal battle in the first place.
And a few days later in his rebuttal in response to FJ's alarmist overreaction to Matt's request to have the uncredited comics taken down:
You sir, are the one who might be guilty of slander.
But I do agree that it's messy not going through the proper legal channels. I don't think bullying has anything to do with it though.
On the post: Police Arrest Woman For Filming Them, Take Phone Out Of Her Bra, Claim That It Must Be Kept As 'Evidence'
Re: Re: Re: Involuntary participation in the justice system
Officers are sworn to hold themselves at a higher level of conduct. What evidence besides your testimony is there that the officer would have deleted this evidence on purpose?
The problem here is proving what is an accident and what is not while the only evidence is "my word against yours"
On the post: Police Arrest Woman For Filming Them, Take Phone Out Of Her Bra, Claim That It Must Be Kept As 'Evidence'
Re:
On the other hand, the argument that goes "I hired you to do a job, and you've haven't been doing it, so now I will monitor your performance" argument is much stronger, since it's enforced by a social contract with the whole country.
While I support private sector unions, which help to guarantee that the workers have their concerns addressed and their rights upheld, the unofficial "Blue Wall of Silence" is incredibly disturbing since EVERYONE pays to have police officers, and everyone is affected by what they do, in addition to the police being granted the use of high levels of violence and control of individuals by the state.
If we can't monitor the police and keep indisputable evidence, then the citizenry can't defend itself from despotic officers and policies.
On the post: Police Arrest Woman For Filming Them, Take Phone Out Of Her Bra, Claim That It Must Be Kept As 'Evidence'
Re: Re:
The phone is not evidence in the same way that a witness is not evidence. The witness' testimony is evidence, but witnesses aren't locked up and held in isolation that often. Why should a phone be? An eye-witness is a source that can't be trusted at best, and totally deluded or completely manufactured at worst (see Crashing memories and reality monitoring: Distinguishing between perceptions, imaginations
and 'false memories.' PDF Warning).
Data on the other hand is the exact same for everyone involved, no matter how it's interpreted later, as long as it's unmodified and a chain of custody is kept.
It makes 100% sense to get a copy of the phone's data and leave the original device with the witness, it makes no sense to deprive a witness of their property just to hold onto the data in the device when it's so easily decoupled from the recorder that created the original manifestation of the data.
Unless, of course, you want to peruse data that is irrelevant and unrelated to the originally recorded crime in order to charge/inconvenience/badger/incarcerate the owner, so you can make them seem like an unreliable and incredible witness to the crimes the officer committed him/herself.....Which would be obstruction of justice and an ad hominem attack in any case.
On the post: EA Believes That Making A Lot Of Money Is Less Important Than Keeping Games Expensive
Re: Typical Salesman-speak
"Get this extrusion-molded piece of plastic, made in china and get another one FREEEEEE! An Original value of $150 now for only $19.95"
god, I wouldn't want those utterly shitty products if they even came with a hot-tub full of hookers and coke.
On the post: EA Believes That Making A Lot Of Money Is Less Important Than Keeping Games Expensive
Re: Re: Well, you asked.
I will always love frogger
On the post: Germany Increases 'You Are All Pirates' Tax On Solid State Media By 2000%
Re: Public Choice Theory
On the post: Germany Increases 'You Are All Pirates' Tax On Solid State Media By 2000%
Public Choice Theory
Why compete for a chance at someone's business when you can make it illegal for every member of the public not to pay you.
On the post: Study Claims Old People Select Stronger Passwords Than Teens
Re: They just gave out the passwords?
/Unnecessary Spelling Nazi
On the post: TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As in BROADLY CASTING the signal to the public for anyone to access.
If it's in the air, anyone can do anything they want with it. Doubly so if it's broadcast to the public and not some pseudo-private signal.
Restricting a broadcast to just a small area doesn't make ANY sense. If the point were to do that, then they should make up a bullshit legalese jargon term, perhaps "publicly oriented narrowshoot" or something else braindead like that.
What next? Are you going to claim that if the government wanted to it could ban the retransmission of special shade of aubergine outside of the small area it's being blasted into?
On the post: UK High Court Judges Can't Agree On Twitter Joke Issue, Require Rehearing Of The Case
Next day in the Lancet:
Next >>