The fact that I like factual information and will challenge someone if they're, say, making unfounded claims that seem to reveal they don't understand things like mailing addresses and virtual office space?
Well, yes, but calling that trolling just means you like less than factual information...
"1) meshpage was built by professional programmers"
Unless you missed some significant detail out of the stories you've been spinning here for many years, it was built by exactly one incompetent Finnish programmer, who did it as a side projects after he got bored with embedded telecoms systems, threw a hissy fit and blocked anyone else from collaborating when he got some common sense being directed into his project, and has not received any compensation for it to offset all the money he threw at buses.
That's stretching the "professional" aspect, especially if you enter the real world and understand that "open source" does not necessarily mean "unpaid" and that you've have to be some kind of extreme moron to be saying that Pixar don't have professional staff working on their software.
Try what one? You've found a page that's not on facebook that does something you claim is dodgy, so it proves your argument about Facebook... how?
Although, your lack of critical thinking is on display here. You don't specify what problem you hallucinated, so I presume we're still talking about the office address? If so, here's the listing for it:
You should have read the fucking thing before whining to property owners of course, because it says this:
"A virtual office service is also available, for those who would benefit from a prestigious business address without a physical presence."
So, I will assume that you've just sent a complaint to property owners because you found someone using the property according to the terms of their contract. Brilliant!
What exactly is your point here other than to again loudly announce "i have no idea what I'm saying!!!"? State your actual objection to what's clearly described as happening, and then tell us what the fuck this has to do with your whining about Facebook
Yes, but is the building on Backer Street or Baker Street? Excuse me for not taking you at your word without an example to check against your inability to type, so I don't know if it's you or the original source you didn't share that's making the claim.
"Did you not look to see I gave 1-2 samples? "
No, because that's meaningless. I could pick examples that show the opposite of what you claim, and it wouldn't prove either of us right or wrong.
"I think I can find more."
Cool, the n share them with the rest of us, in context and without your stupid edits. Them. we can see the same thing instead of trusting that the guy who can't use copy/paste and is shocked by mailing addresses is doing better work than Facebook.
"Do you know Any of the lottery regs in the USA."
No, but I'm pretty sure that it's not fucking Facebook certifying them!
Irrelevant. Shkreli wasn't convicted of taking life saving medicine out of the reach of ordinary people and potentially killing people as a result. He was convicted of investor fraud. Same with Elizabeth Holmes - she was not found guilty of the crimes against ordinary people, only the ones involving stealing from other rich people.
Unless Bezos has some investor fraud sideline going on, he has nothing to worry about.
"Had 1 for 221B backers street, 8th floor, London.(anyone know that address?)"
I know 211B BAKER street, which is Sherlock Holmes' famous address. Is this what you meant, or is the quality of research you're doing already failing because you're looking for different things in a search to what you're reading?
But, if you're trying to prove people correct or otherwise by confirming the accuracy of information, you should probably wipe the drool off your screen and adhere to some actual logical ideas first.
For example, there's nothing suspicious in there being multiple businesses listed at a single address. There are in fact companies that offer the ability to do this as a service. Then, listed phone numbers do not need to be tied to the physical address mail is sent to. You need to provide more details before anyone can confirm if this is something suspicious or if this is a simple case of "ECA discovers how business works".
"There is a tell, in the address. USA. no one in the USA types the USA at the end"
Did they type it, or was it added automatically? An international site adding the country to the address after they mark it on Google Maps is not suspicious.
"Also found a compnay that has a Certificate from FB to be a Lottery"
Again, you need to stop drooling long enough to write coherent English, because Facebook don't certify anyone as being a lottery. What are you trying to say?
If you need us to carry on the research and translate your finding into legible English, please give us the names of the companies you're searching for, because as usual all you're saying here is "I'M MAKING NO SENSE, PLEASE IGNORE ME!"
At a certain point they were trespassing, at the very least. If some believed they were there with permission because cops let them through that's understandable, but once people started wandering around with stolen property through broken windows they should have got the hint.
"Those that walked in the front door with permission from the police, then walked out the front door when told to do so: should not"
I agree. Those are not the people being criticised and prosecuted, though.
"Democrats and their media support are intentionally only showing the small violent group after ignoring the small violent groups at the BLM protests."
Many hundreds of those people have been prosecuted, and people still saw the footage. Some of which showed that the protestors weren't actually violent but that it was actually outside groups trying to discredit them doing the violence.
Either way, even if what you say is true, I hope it's understandable why people invading the seat of government with the express intention of disrupting the democratic process while doing things offensive to centuries of history gets more press than people looting and burning some local property that's already being prosecuted.
"The results of the election were questioned."
Yes, and the questioning was largely based on lies with no basis in reality. I understand why Trump voters couldn't believe that he lost, but there's never been any realistic reason to believe that wasn't the case.
"When there’s doubt, recount."
That has already happened. Much of it before Jan 6. Much goalpost moving was done, many claims of fraud happening before TV cameras (though never presented in a court), but no fraud. In fact, recounts have tended to show that Trump got less votes than originally counted, and the only examples of verified fraud seem to be his voters.
There has been no credible claim of fraud or miscounting, except from the people who don't understand things like linear time and the fact that many districts were forced to count in-person votes before they counted others.
"If a full nation wide recount was done there would be no Jan 6, no continuous stolen election claim."
I don't believe that. Since most of those claims were not based on evidence, further presentation of evidence would not sway them. You only have to look at Lindell's hilariously failed attempts and his reactions to see that.
"There would be a re-verified winner."
Yes, it would be Biden, and we would still be hearing the same claims of fraud, with the same level of evidence.
"You'd need to have standard ones in the law that were reasonable"
So, you're saying that services need to adopt the methods of doing business that are prescribed by the government, which will presumably be written to enforce legacy business models and not allow for businesses that disrupt those or wish to provide more rights and flexibility for their users?
Most of that is because of the way regulators have forced a disconnect between the physical infrastructure owner and the ISP service, enforced things like local loop unbundling and thus ensured that we don't have the same kind of local monopolies present in the US. Where I live, the physical lines may well still be provided by the old government monopoly (though in some places there's choice even with that), they just can't stop someone else using the lines, which leads to different types of competition.
True, if you expect the seller to lie to you then it's a problem. But, if you want actual working knowledge of the property then the only thing you can really rely on is the person currently living there. The point is, the rules introduced above seem to only relate to the current occupant telling you what they currently have, so that should be a good indicator of what's possible. Whether or not you have the same availability from a different ISP to the one they currently use is a problem related to the lack of LLU, etc., that's common in other countries, but also the seller can't possibly tell you what experience you would have with a service they don't use.
"That law is needed because new computers do not come with modems"
Yes, many new computers do not come with obsolete tech installed by default. Your 56K modem will not allow you to participate in Zoom conferences for your work or schooling, so it's a weird thing to bring up in the current conversation.
"Some computers do not even have ethernet connections, and Wifi is the only way to access the net."
All modern computers come with the capability to have an ethernet connection, they may just require an adapter instead of having the port directly built in. But, this is irrelevant in the broadband era since you would need a router to access either type of connection, and it would be easier to access wifi from outside of your direct home if required than ethernet.
So did most of those who attended the Pulse nightclub on a certain day. That doesn't mean that the people who didn't should not face consequences.
"From then police opening the doors and letting them in"
So, if you want to get away with illegal activity, just find a friendly officer willing to break the rules on your behalf? I don't think this is what you meant to say, but it is part of what other protests were about.
"Multiple calls from the protestors for calm and peaceful assembly were declared INSIDE the capital."
The capitol building that had been violently breached by people claiming to be there to overturn democracy and commit violence against those who they disagreed with politically because someone lied to them about the result of the election?
Nobody's saying the people who did not commit any violent action should face prosecution for violence (though they were by definition still trespassing), but they sure as hell shouldn't get to pretend to be tourists who didn't understand the gravity of what they were involved in either. I dare say that if this had been a BLM protest who did the same thing, you'd have a different take on the subject (though, as other events have shown, they wouldn't have got that far).
Yeah, nobody's going to negotiate individual bespoke contracts for millions of different users. What do you expect will happen here?
"no alternative, and no real choice"
Virtually every company that is probably being addressed here has competitors (I assume she's not talking about ISP contracts?), and you have the choice to go to them at any point if you disagree with the terms of service being presented to you. You almost always have a choice, you just don't have the choice of "I don't agree with the terms but want to use the service anyway".
"users don’t have the bandwidth to read lengthy legal documents when they’re simply trying to message a loved one or make a quick purchase"
True, but then the question is raised as to why you're signing up to new services to do such things rather than use the places you have existing contracts with.
Also, I fear you're being very naive if you think that providing a summary to people would get them to read it. Some people still get very confused when you present them with a door that says "push" and then blame someone else when it turns out they can't pull it open. You still get people shocked when they're charged after a free trial ends even though the form they filled in has "this is a 14 day free trial you will be charged $9.99/month unless you cancel" written in big bold letters across the screen.
T&Cs are overlong and could do with being greatly simplified in many cases, but I fear that if you're relying on people reading even a paragraph of text properly and understanding it before they either just click anyway or skip over something they later believe is important, I have bad news for you. Then, of course, who monitors these and ensures that the summaries being presented are accurate and representative of the longer version? I predict a lot of court cases discussing whether or not the implied rules in the summaries match the full text.
"Almost every elected political hack wants to do this"
Indeed, which is why I personally wish a lot fewer people would elect hacks.
"And twitter already allows idiots to “spew” nonsense."
Within their terms of service, and then some of these people choose to spew nonsense elsewhere about how they were somehow censored when they break those terms and face the prescribed consequences.
"As a reminder, those who use “spew” about the exercise of speech indicate that their argument is partisan rather than principled."
No, it doesn't, it simply means that there's an observation that some people choose to exercise that right use it to talk absolute nonsense and/or spread disinformation that participate in the actual exchange of ideas honestly. Which is their right, of course, you're just missing a large part of the point if you believe that it comes without the possibility of retort or consequence from other private citizens.
Just a reminder - part of my free speech rights involve choosing adjectives like "spewing" to describe yours if I view it as being something other than positive or factual. You're then free to retort if you wish.
I'm referring specifically to what's covered in the new rule - does the property currently have internet access? Obviously the installation of new service where none exists before is a different question than whether the current occupants of the property have broadband installed. If they do, then why are you not getting details of the ISP, speed, etc. from them while you're researching the other utilities?
Again, it's a standard question before you sign up to rent a property for 12 months, why would it not be one asked before you agree to spend hundreds of thousands on a long-term commitment?
If I understand this correctly though, the new rule would not help you here, though. The rule is that the seller has to disclose access, but realistically they can only advise on the connection they already have access to. If you want a different ISP, they would have no more information than you do.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Doing others job
The fact that I like factual information and will challenge someone if they're, say, making unfounded claims that seem to reveal they don't understand things like mailing addresses and virtual office space?
Well, yes, but calling that trolling just means you like less than factual information...
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"1) meshpage was built by professional programmers"
Unless you missed some significant detail out of the stories you've been spinning here for many years, it was built by exactly one incompetent Finnish programmer, who did it as a side projects after he got bored with embedded telecoms systems, threw a hissy fit and blocked anyone else from collaborating when he got some common sense being directed into his project, and has not received any compensation for it to offset all the money he threw at buses.
That's stretching the "professional" aspect, especially if you enter the real world and understand that "open source" does not necessarily mean "unpaid" and that you've have to be some kind of extreme moron to be saying that Pixar don't have professional staff working on their software.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Doing others job
Try what one? You've found a page that's not on facebook that does something you claim is dodgy, so it proves your argument about Facebook... how?
Although, your lack of critical thinking is on display here. You don't specify what problem you hallucinated, so I presume we're still talking about the office address? If so, here's the listing for it:
https://www.regus.com/en-gb/united-kingdom/london/camden/kings-cross-2326
You should have read the fucking thing before whining to property owners of course, because it says this:
So, I will assume that you've just sent a complaint to property owners because you found someone using the property according to the terms of their contract. Brilliant!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Doing others job
What the fuck? Your concrete example of Facebook not doing something properly is a page that's got nothing to do with Facebook?
Or, are you just displaying that you know nothing about how shared office spaces are used and you're trying to act as if this is not common?
regus.com/en-gb/united-kingdom/london/camden/kings-cross-2326
What exactly is your point here other than to again loudly announce "i have no idea what I'm saying!!!"? State your actual objection to what's clearly described as happening, and then tell us what the fuck this has to do with your whining about Facebook
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Doing others job
"Did you read that they were on the 8th floor?
"
Yes, but is the building on Backer Street or Baker Street? Excuse me for not taking you at your word without an example to check against your inability to type, so I don't know if it's you or the original source you didn't share that's making the claim.
"Did you not look to see I gave 1-2 samples? "
No, because that's meaningless. I could pick examples that show the opposite of what you claim, and it wouldn't prove either of us right or wrong.
"I think I can find more."
Cool, the n share them with the rest of us, in context and without your stupid edits. Them. we can see the same thing instead of trusting that the guy who can't use copy/paste and is shocked by mailing addresses is doing better work than Facebook.
"Do you know Any of the lottery regs in the USA."
No, but I'm pretty sure that it's not fucking Facebook certifying them!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
Irrelevant. Shkreli wasn't convicted of taking life saving medicine out of the reach of ordinary people and potentially killing people as a result. He was convicted of investor fraud. Same with Elizabeth Holmes - she was not found guilty of the crimes against ordinary people, only the ones involving stealing from other rich people.
Unless Bezos has some investor fraud sideline going on, he has nothing to worry about.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Doing others job
"Had 1 for 221B backers street, 8th floor, London.(anyone know that address?)"
I know 211B BAKER street, which is Sherlock Holmes' famous address. Is this what you meant, or is the quality of research you're doing already failing because you're looking for different things in a search to what you're reading?
But, if you're trying to prove people correct or otherwise by confirming the accuracy of information, you should probably wipe the drool off your screen and adhere to some actual logical ideas first.
For example, there's nothing suspicious in there being multiple businesses listed at a single address. There are in fact companies that offer the ability to do this as a service. Then, listed phone numbers do not need to be tied to the physical address mail is sent to. You need to provide more details before anyone can confirm if this is something suspicious or if this is a simple case of "ECA discovers how business works".
"There is a tell, in the address. USA. no one in the USA types the USA at the end"
Did they type it, or was it added automatically? An international site adding the country to the address after they mark it on Google Maps is not suspicious.
"Also found a compnay that has a Certificate from FB to be a Lottery"
Again, you need to stop drooling long enough to write coherent English, because Facebook don't certify anyone as being a lottery. What are you trying to say?
If you need us to carry on the research and translate your finding into legible English, please give us the names of the companies you're searching for, because as usual all you're saying here is "I'M MAKING NO SENSE, PLEASE IGNORE ME!"
On the post: Tenth Circuit Appeals Court Says Fourth And Sixth Amendment Rights Are Meaningless When National Security Is On The Line
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There’s no law that was broken there"
At a certain point they were trespassing, at the very least. If some believed they were there with permission because cops let them through that's understandable, but once people started wandering around with stolen property through broken windows they should have got the hint.
"Those that walked in the front door with permission from the police, then walked out the front door when told to do so: should not"
I agree. Those are not the people being criticised and prosecuted, though.
"Democrats and their media support are intentionally only showing the small violent group after ignoring the small violent groups at the BLM protests."
Many hundreds of those people have been prosecuted, and people still saw the footage. Some of which showed that the protestors weren't actually violent but that it was actually outside groups trying to discredit them doing the violence.
Either way, even if what you say is true, I hope it's understandable why people invading the seat of government with the express intention of disrupting the democratic process while doing things offensive to centuries of history gets more press than people looting and burning some local property that's already being prosecuted.
"The results of the election were questioned."
Yes, and the questioning was largely based on lies with no basis in reality. I understand why Trump voters couldn't believe that he lost, but there's never been any realistic reason to believe that wasn't the case.
"When there’s doubt, recount."
That has already happened. Much of it before Jan 6. Much goalpost moving was done, many claims of fraud happening before TV cameras (though never presented in a court), but no fraud. In fact, recounts have tended to show that Trump got less votes than originally counted, and the only examples of verified fraud seem to be his voters.
There has been no credible claim of fraud or miscounting, except from the people who don't understand things like linear time and the fact that many districts were forced to count in-person votes before they counted others.
"If a full nation wide recount was done there would be no Jan 6, no continuous stolen election claim."
I don't believe that. Since most of those claims were not based on evidence, further presentation of evidence would not sway them. You only have to look at Lindell's hilariously failed attempts and his reactions to see that.
"There would be a re-verified winner."
Yes, it would be Biden, and we would still be hearing the same claims of fraud, with the same level of evidence.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Re:
"I am thinking that a repeal of 230 could affect "pirate" streaming site, that carries to of Cuba's networks."
I am thinking that not only do you need to read section 230, but you really need to update your talking points.
"American laws do not apply in China"
They don't apply in most places outside of America.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"At least it guarantees that the reason for failed marketing push is with my own actions,"
Your own actions guarantee that, there's no reason to change the rules for people who are competent at what they do.
"not because the customer already purchased the same product from another copycat vendor"
Some of the projects you whine about being "copycats" existed long before your did.
On the post: New 'TLDR' Bill Requires Companies Provide Synopsis Of Overlong, Predatory Terms Of Service
Re: Re: Re:
"You'd need to have standard ones in the law that were reasonable"
So, you're saying that services need to adopt the methods of doing business that are prescribed by the government, which will presumably be written to enforce legacy business models and not allow for businesses that disrupt those or wish to provide more rights and flexibility for their users?
I hope you see the problem here.
On the post: New Washington Law Requires Home Sellers Disclose Lack Of Broadband Access
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most of that is because of the way regulators have forced a disconnect between the physical infrastructure owner and the ISP service, enforced things like local loop unbundling and thus ensured that we don't have the same kind of local monopolies present in the US. Where I live, the physical lines may well still be provided by the old government monopoly (though in some places there's choice even with that), they just can't stop someone else using the lines, which leads to different types of competition.
On the post: New Washington Law Requires Home Sellers Disclose Lack Of Broadband Access
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, if you expect the seller to lie to you then it's a problem. But, if you want actual working knowledge of the property then the only thing you can really rely on is the person currently living there. The point is, the rules introduced above seem to only relate to the current occupant telling you what they currently have, so that should be a good indicator of what's possible. Whether or not you have the same availability from a different ISP to the one they currently use is a problem related to the lack of LLU, etc., that's common in other countries, but also the seller can't possibly tell you what experience you would have with a service they don't use.
On the post: New Washington Law Requires Home Sellers Disclose Lack Of Broadband Access
Re:
"That law is needed because new computers do not come with modems"
Yes, many new computers do not come with obsolete tech installed by default. Your 56K modem will not allow you to participate in Zoom conferences for your work or schooling, so it's a weird thing to bring up in the current conversation.
"Some computers do not even have ethernet connections, and Wifi is the only way to access the net."
All modern computers come with the capability to have an ethernet connection, they may just require an adapter instead of having the port directly built in. But, this is irrelevant in the broadband era since you would need a router to access either type of connection, and it would be easier to access wifi from outside of your direct home if required than ethernet.
On the post: Tenth Circuit Appeals Court Says Fourth And Sixth Amendment Rights Are Meaningless When National Security Is On The Line
Re: Re:
"Most, if not all, who attended did so unarmed."
So did most of those who attended the Pulse nightclub on a certain day. That doesn't mean that the people who didn't should not face consequences.
"From then police opening the doors and letting them in"
So, if you want to get away with illegal activity, just find a friendly officer willing to break the rules on your behalf? I don't think this is what you meant to say, but it is part of what other protests were about.
"Multiple calls from the protestors for calm and peaceful assembly were declared INSIDE the capital."
The capitol building that had been violently breached by people claiming to be there to overturn democracy and commit violence against those who they disagreed with politically because someone lied to them about the result of the election?
Nobody's saying the people who did not commit any violent action should face prosecution for violence (though they were by definition still trespassing), but they sure as hell shouldn't get to pretend to be tourists who didn't understand the gravity of what they were involved in either. I dare say that if this had been a BLM protest who did the same thing, you'd have a different take on the subject (though, as other events have shown, they wouldn't have got that far).
On the post: New 'TLDR' Bill Requires Companies Provide Synopsis Of Overlong, Predatory Terms Of Service
"No negotiation"
Yeah, nobody's going to negotiate individual bespoke contracts for millions of different users. What do you expect will happen here?
"no alternative, and no real choice"
Virtually every company that is probably being addressed here has competitors (I assume she's not talking about ISP contracts?), and you have the choice to go to them at any point if you disagree with the terms of service being presented to you. You almost always have a choice, you just don't have the choice of "I don't agree with the terms but want to use the service anyway".
"users don’t have the bandwidth to read lengthy legal documents when they’re simply trying to message a loved one or make a quick purchase"
True, but then the question is raised as to why you're signing up to new services to do such things rather than use the places you have existing contracts with.
Also, I fear you're being very naive if you think that providing a summary to people would get them to read it. Some people still get very confused when you present them with a door that says "push" and then blame someone else when it turns out they can't pull it open. You still get people shocked when they're charged after a free trial ends even though the form they filled in has "this is a 14 day free trial you will be charged $9.99/month unless you cancel" written in big bold letters across the screen.
T&Cs are overlong and could do with being greatly simplified in many cases, but I fear that if you're relying on people reading even a paragraph of text properly and understanding it before they either just click anyway or skip over something they later believe is important, I have bad news for you. Then, of course, who monitors these and ensures that the summaries being presented are accurate and representative of the longer version? I predict a lot of court cases discussing whether or not the implied rules in the summaries match the full text.
On the post: Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist
Re:
"Almost every elected political hack wants to do this"
Indeed, which is why I personally wish a lot fewer people would elect hacks.
"And twitter already allows idiots to “spew” nonsense."
Within their terms of service, and then some of these people choose to spew nonsense elsewhere about how they were somehow censored when they break those terms and face the prescribed consequences.
"As a reminder, those who use “spew” about the exercise of speech indicate that their argument is partisan rather than principled."
No, it doesn't, it simply means that there's an observation that some people choose to exercise that right use it to talk absolute nonsense and/or spread disinformation that participate in the actual exchange of ideas honestly. Which is their right, of course, you're just missing a large part of the point if you believe that it comes without the possibility of retort or consequence from other private citizens.
Just a reminder - part of my free speech rights involve choosing adjectives like "spewing" to describe yours if I view it as being something other than positive or factual. You're then free to retort if you wish.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: "The Original"
I'm sorry if your dialect's oversimplification of certain things has left you confused looking at the OG ;)
On the post: New Washington Law Requires Home Sellers Disclose Lack Of Broadband Access
Re: Re:
I'm referring specifically to what's covered in the new rule - does the property currently have internet access? Obviously the installation of new service where none exists before is a different question than whether the current occupants of the property have broadband installed. If they do, then why are you not getting details of the ISP, speed, etc. from them while you're researching the other utilities?
Again, it's a standard question before you sign up to rent a property for 12 months, why would it not be one asked before you agree to spend hundreds of thousands on a long-term commitment?
On the post: New Washington Law Requires Home Sellers Disclose Lack Of Broadband Access
Re: Re:
If I understand this correctly though, the new rule would not help you here, though. The rule is that the seller has to disclose access, but realistically they can only advise on the connection they already have access to. If you want a different ISP, they would have no more information than you do.
Next >>