See, when I search the internet or read Twitter posts or the like, I get a lot of insightful and challenging commentary on a variety of subjects.
Why? That's what I look for. If someone's Twitter feed is nothing but "My cat ate its sick today", I stop following that person.
The internet has a huge variety of content. Anything and everything you might (or might not) want can be found there. What you get from it is what you seek out.
The fact that he thinks it's all sandwich reports and TV show blabbing says a lot more about him than it does about the internet.
It's long been the case that the most certain way to guarantee you get criminal charges is to be a victim of police brutality.
It's done to cover their asses. If the police beat someone, that person had better be doing something wrong. It also lets them attack the person's character in the media. Charge big, and pretend you've got a sure case. After the media furor dies down, you can drop the charges or reduce them to something reasonable.
The new twist is that merely witnessing police brutality can now be treated the same way by misapplying wiretap laws, or obstruction of justice laws, or whatever else they think they can make stick.
If your password is a random string of gibberish, it'd be pretty easy to forget it if you weren't regularly typing it in. It'd be even easier to forget it if you had to memorize new random strings of gibberish (like the encryption password on your new computer).
I have heard that you have decided to test your new subscription model here in Canada. I thought that you might be interested in my response as a Canadian.
I used to be a reader of the New York Times. That ends today, and for as long as your subscription model continues. I also frequently linked to NYT content, as it was both available to visitors and highly reputable. However, now when I am sharing news stories I shall not use the New York Times as I cannot know that those I would be sending to your page will be able to view the content. As my intention is to share the information, I shall instead find news articles elsewhere to link to. I will naturally encourage my friends (both actual and Facebook) to do likewise.
I am sure that your experiment with this model will, like all previous such experiments, be a glorious failure that is eventually withdrawn. On that day I will return as a reader, unless I find a site I like better in the meantime. I wasn't looking before, but I am now.
I see this all the time in a particular sub-culture: The MUD/MUSH community (online text games).
You get a guy who says, "I have a fantastic idea for a game. All I need is someone to program it for me, someone to write up all the flavour text, and some people to run it."
Once you get all those people with specialized skill sets together, why the hell do they need you? They've already got your idea.
Twice I've been on the phone while driving... to call 911 to report drunk drivers. On both instances the police asked me to follow the car in question if I could do so safely, in order to provide them with details as to where it was going so that they could catch the car in question.
I'm sure blocking that signal would have made all drivers on the road much safer.
The new laws being proposed don't have anything to do with Craigslist. They are:
1) prohibiting the use of telecommunications to plan a sex offence
2) providing sexually-explicit material to a child to “groom” them for sexual purposes
Of course, they don't actually have anything to do with child porn, either.
The issue wasn't that she'd commented on Facebook, so much as the fact that she'd pre-decided the case, which destroys that "presumption of innocence" thing that our judicial system relies on. All Facebook did here was make it easier to find out/prove that she'd pre-decided.
Where I am (Canada) you can apply for a trademark based on a plan to use it in commerce. If you don't use it in commerce by a certain period thereafter, your trademark is nullified.
It sounds like the concern is that a soldier might go and download classified (yet publicly available) information onto a computer, and then that computer will contain that information in the cache. This means that classified information is now on an additional unsecured computer.
Basically, just because something is freely available doesn't mean it's not classified, so they have to treat it as such. The military is a huge bureaucracy. They're not going to relax on enforcing a rule just because it's pointless in the particular situation. Moreover, the military mindset tends to focus on obeying all rules/laws/orders, even where they are pointless. It's not exactly a "think critically for yourself" sort of setup.
You know who are real villains? Master criminals? Serial thieves of the highest order?
Blind people.
I know you're thinking "Wait, blind people? They seem so harmless! And those dapper canes..." I know, I thought that too, but consider this. Blind people persistently ignore a huge amount of advertising. When they wait for a bus, they sit in the bus shelter or on the bench that is partially paid for by the advertising, and they don't see it. The same thing happens when they get on the bus. Like parasites, they take the benefits without paying the 'price' of investigating the ads. Would it kill them to ask a stranger to read out the advertisement in the bus shelter? Certainly not. These people are a menace and must be stopped.
And don't get me started on the illiterate... they're almost as bad as dead people.
The issue is not whether a moron in a hurry would confuse bourbon with tequila, the issue is whether they might see a similar marking on the tequila and think that they were made by the same company or otherwise related. I don't think it's a frivolous claim--particularly as trademarks (unless they are 'famous marks', which this wouldn't qualify as) are limited to the domain they are registered in (ie, liquors). Given that the dripping wax design was actually the most distinctive thing about the bottles, it seems sensible that it'd be covered. Also, keep in mind that the degree of similarity permitted does depend on the context in which buying decisions are made for these sorts of products--the fact that the moron might be drunk actually is relevant here. That said, I think the second suit goes too far
Sadly, it's his cash on the line, and with figures like in the millions on the line, even a 99% chance of winning is a poor gamble. This is especially true because after legal bills, even if he wins he loses.
If he quits, add it to the list of things you put in the letters you write your politicians. You guys do write letters, right?
It sounds like there were a lot of criminal actions going on, and that she had sought help about them long before the suicide. The suicide just got people to actually take her seriously. I agree that this is stupid, but not that they shouldn't take action--they should have been taking action long before this, and possibly preventing suicide.
But this is pretty common, generally. You can get someone who has rifles and is crazily threatening the people at his old workplace, and often they don't get around to doing anything about it until the bodies start hitting the floor.
Also note that in the first instance there's no freedom of speech issue at all. She's not being barred from calling him a flaming bag of monkey shit, but the fact she did so can be called in and used as evidence. In this case it looks like they're using it to try to impeach her credibility--ie, to show that she may have had motivation to lie or distort on the stand, because she hates his guts.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences for speech. If you go into the bar and tell everyone how much you want your ex-wife dead, you had better believe that evidence is going to be called if she later turns up dead. Complaining that it's a violation of your free speech will just give everyone else in the court a big laugh.
Basically, they found that the rapid rise in fakes sold over the internet was actually greatly limiting the plunder of real antiquities.
While that likely won't help with a lot of the animal trades, I can expect that some of the other examples cited (wine with tiger bones) are likely to be subject to a high degree of fakery.
That said, I agree that blaming the technology is a bit stupid. When people communicate, they may do bad things. They may also do good things. Still, this is the same thing as a catalogue and telephone system, just making it easier.
You already see this with police investigations into things like child porn. It used to be that if an investigation found any attempt to hide files (which were usually clumsy and easily-breached), it meant there was serious malfeasance going on. Often they could get confessions even where they couldn't get access to the actual data, simply on the basis that it was suspicious that there was hidden data. Now, when programs like TrueCrypt are common and used for a variety of innocent uses, an encrypted drive could contain anything or nothing, and you can't really draw any inference of criminal behaviour from it.
If they give large numbers of ordinary people reasons to hide that are relatively trivial or entirely innocent, you will get strong tools to do so with, and you won't be able to tell the terrorist from the child pornographer from the organized crime figure from the lawyer sending confidential data from the thirteen year old sharing mp3s from the college student... you get the idea.
When you make up numbers to support your point, it should not surprise you that the resulting numbers support your point. It's circular, but you haven't actually offered any new evidence or argument.
The note about rhyming is just bizarre. Downloader rhymes with freeloader, but also with muzzle-loader, front-loader, and various other random things. Rhymes don't imply connection.
My purchasing habits vary pretty much directly with my downloading. In fact, the peak of my purchasing was with services where I could freely explore new music. My personal tastes don't tend to be reflected by the local radio stations at all. When Napster was around, it was frequently my habit to type random terms into it to expose myself to new and unexpected things. This resulted in a lot of purchases, purely to support the musicians in question. I don't download much any more, as torrents give you an entire CD, which isn't really suited for exposing yourself to lots of varied content. I also don't buy any music, because I never hear new things I might want. In fact, the current state of things, which has resulted from direct pressures by the industry, is a lot less conducive to sampling things to get an idea of what you like, and a lot more conducive to avoiding buying a CD by just downloading it.
Prevent me from downloading and you don't turn me into a fan who is going to spend money instead. You mostly make me unaware of your product, and vaguely annoyed. Neither of these things translate into dollars for you. Even with bands I have liked in the past--yes, I may have liked your last album (or, say, three songs from it). That doesn't mean I'm going to like your next one. If I don't hear something that interests me before I buy it, I'm not buying it. Maybe I hear things at a concert... assuming I already liked your band enough to go to the concert, and assuming you play shows in my area, and assuming they're priced so that I can afford to go and scheduled so that I can go. Inefficient at best.
Lock down your music so only paying customers can hear it, and you'll find it hard to find new customers. You may also find it hard to sell to past customers, unless they were so enthralled they're willing to buy on reputation alone.
On the post: Some Old Guy Can't Come Up With Any New Ideas; So He Says There Are No New Ideas & It's Twitter's Fault
Why? That's what I look for. If someone's Twitter feed is nothing but "My cat ate its sick today", I stop following that person.
The internet has a huge variety of content. Anything and everything you might (or might not) want can be found there. What you get from it is what you seek out.
The fact that he thinks it's all sandwich reports and TV show blabbing says a lot more about him than it does about the internet.
On the post: Police Try To Bring Wiretapping Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Them Beating A Man
Old saw, new twist.
It's done to cover their asses. If the police beat someone, that person had better be doing something wrong. It also lets them attack the person's character in the media. Charge big, and pretend you've got a sure case. After the media furor dies down, you can drop the charges or reduce them to something reasonable.
The new twist is that merely witnessing police brutality can now be treated the same way by misapplying wiretap laws, or obstruction of justice laws, or whatever else they think they can make stick.
On the post: Justice Department Says It Should Be Able To Require People To Decrypt Their Computers
On the post: Copyright Fight Ensues Over Rebecca Black's 'Friday'
Correction: Much like copyright law itself, this is what happens when multiple dogs work together to create a single turd.
On the post: An Open Letter From A Canadian To The New York Times, Eh?
My letter to the NYT
I used to be a reader of the New York Times. That ends today, and for as long as your subscription model continues. I also frequently linked to NYT content, as it was both available to visitors and highly reputable. However, now when I am sharing news stories I shall not use the New York Times as I cannot know that those I would be sending to your page will be able to view the content. As my intention is to share the information, I shall instead find news articles elsewhere to link to. I will naturally encourage my friends (both actual and Facebook) to do likewise.
I am sure that your experiment with this model will, like all previous such experiments, be a glorious failure that is eventually withdrawn. On that day I will return as a reader, unless I find a site I like better in the meantime. I wasn't looking before, but I am now.
On the post: Do We Want To Monetize Every Business Idea?
Here's the problem...
You get a guy who says, "I have a fantastic idea for a game. All I need is someone to program it for me, someone to write up all the flavour text, and some people to run it."
Once you get all those people with specialized skill sets together, why the hell do they need you? They've already got your idea.
On the post: Transportation Secretary Expects To Use Technology To Block All Mobile Phone Usage In Cars [Updated]
911
I'm sure blocking that signal would have made all drivers on the road much safer.
On the post: Canada Continues To Grandstand Over Craigslist Adult Services
New laws
1) prohibiting the use of telecommunications to plan a sex offence
2) providing sexually-explicit material to a child to “groom” them for sexual purposes
Of course, they don't actually have anything to do with child porn, either.
On the post: Another Day, Another Apology From Netflix; Calls Americans Self-Absorbed
Self-absorbed
On the post: Juror Has To Write Essay As Punishment For Commenting On Case Via Facebook
A bit misleading...
On the post: Another Embarassment For French 'Three Strikes' Agency... As Someone Beats Them To Filing For Trademark
Trademarks
I suspect it's the same way in the U.S.
On the post: Pentagon Takes Head In Sand Approach To Wikileaks: Blocks All Access To Troops... Though Everyone Else Can Get In
Basically, just because something is freely available doesn't mean it's not classified, so they have to treat it as such. The military is a huge bureaucracy. They're not going to relax on enforcing a rule just because it's pointless in the particular situation. Moreover, the military mindset tends to focus on obeying all rules/laws/orders, even where they are pointless. It's not exactly a "think critically for yourself" sort of setup.
On the post: Escapist Website Mass Bans (Then Unbans And Guilts) Users Who Mention Adblock
Blind people.
I know you're thinking "Wait, blind people? They seem so harmless! And those dapper canes..." I know, I thought that too, but consider this. Blind people persistently ignore a huge amount of advertising. When they wait for a bus, they sit in the bus shelter or on the bench that is partially paid for by the advertising, and they don't see it. The same thing happens when they get on the bus. Like parasites, they take the benefits without paying the 'price' of investigating the ads. Would it kill them to ask a stranger to read out the advertisement in the bus shelter? Certainly not. These people are a menace and must be stopped.
And don't get me started on the illiterate... they're almost as bad as dead people.
On the post: Judge Rules: Drunk Moron In A Hurry Wouldn't Know Tequila From Maker's Mark
Trademark Issues
On the post: Copyright Worries Threaten The Best Thing To Come Out Of The New Star Wars Movies
If he quits, add it to the list of things you put in the letters you write your politicians. You guys do write letters, right?
On the post: Teens Face Felony Charges Over Girl Who Committed Suicide
But this is pretty common, generally. You can get someone who has rifles and is crazily threatening the people at his old workplace, and often they don't get around to doing anything about it until the bodies start hitting the floor.
On the post: Social Networking Rants Against Exes Turning Up In Court
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences for speech. If you go into the bar and tell everyone how much you want your ex-wife dead, you had better believe that evidence is going to be called if she later turns up dead. Complaining that it's a violation of your free speech will just give everyone else in the court a big laugh.
On the post: Conservationists Blaming The Internet For Clubbing Baby Seals
Basically, they found that the rapid rise in fakes sold over the internet was actually greatly limiting the plunder of real antiquities.
While that likely won't help with a lot of the animal trades, I can expect that some of the other examples cited (wine with tiger bones) are likely to be subject to a high degree of fakery.
That said, I agree that blaming the technology is a bit stupid. When people communicate, they may do bad things. They may also do good things. Still, this is the same thing as a catalogue and telephone system, just making it easier.
On the post: BPI Says That UK Spies Are Against Digital Economy Bill
If they give large numbers of ordinary people reasons to hide that are relatively trivial or entirely innocent, you will get strong tools to do so with, and you won't be able to tell the terrorist from the child pornographer from the organized crime figure from the lawyer sending confidential data from the thirteen year old sharing mp3s from the college student... you get the idea.
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: Canadians Aren't Interested In ISP Levies
Re: Weird Harold
The note about rhyming is just bizarre. Downloader rhymes with freeloader, but also with muzzle-loader, front-loader, and various other random things. Rhymes don't imply connection.
My purchasing habits vary pretty much directly with my downloading. In fact, the peak of my purchasing was with services where I could freely explore new music. My personal tastes don't tend to be reflected by the local radio stations at all. When Napster was around, it was frequently my habit to type random terms into it to expose myself to new and unexpected things. This resulted in a lot of purchases, purely to support the musicians in question. I don't download much any more, as torrents give you an entire CD, which isn't really suited for exposing yourself to lots of varied content. I also don't buy any music, because I never hear new things I might want. In fact, the current state of things, which has resulted from direct pressures by the industry, is a lot less conducive to sampling things to get an idea of what you like, and a lot more conducive to avoiding buying a CD by just downloading it.
Prevent me from downloading and you don't turn me into a fan who is going to spend money instead. You mostly make me unaware of your product, and vaguely annoyed. Neither of these things translate into dollars for you. Even with bands I have liked in the past--yes, I may have liked your last album (or, say, three songs from it). That doesn't mean I'm going to like your next one. If I don't hear something that interests me before I buy it, I'm not buying it. Maybe I hear things at a concert... assuming I already liked your band enough to go to the concert, and assuming you play shows in my area, and assuming they're priced so that I can afford to go and scheduled so that I can go. Inefficient at best.
Lock down your music so only paying customers can hear it, and you'll find it hard to find new customers. You may also find it hard to sell to past customers, unless they were so enthralled they're willing to buy on reputation alone.
Next >>