While I am unsure how Goddard is, Most people think Hilary was refering to Tulsi Gabbard. This is a contextual thing where Hilary didn't say who she was talking about, but context suggests an answer. Gabbard has the history that suggests she might make a third-party bid in a way Warren or Klobuchar would not. Gabbard has a few similar policy positions to Jill Stien that relate to Russia, and Russian influence efforts put a lot behind Stein in 2016 which seemed to affect swing states toward trump. 5 days before, the NYT did a whole bit on how Gabbard had a strange upswing in support for Gabbard in right-wing and russian media. And Clinton's spokesperson gave a 'If the shoe fits' answer when the question came up.
I would wonder if the dismissal could be used as grounds to dismiss FOSTA charges. As in, in those circumstances the court ruled as not impacted by FOSTA, could someone finding themselves attacked by FOSTA argue that courts have already ruled that these circumstances don't rise to a violation of FOSTA? For instance, if Human Rights Watch gets hit over general advocacy in the DC Circuit, despite the claims of Judge Katas that it could not reasonably be read to cover that action, would a dismissal of a criminal case on the basis of the appellate courts denial of standing receive any consideration? My read of the core of the lack of standing ruling is that the law shouldn't affect Human Rights Watch, so it seems strange that if the law was employed contrary to that ruling that Human Rights Watch could be held accountable for the vagueness of the law, as the court ruled it wasn't vague enough to cover Human Rights Watch.
Not to mention, even if apple can push a software update, there is no guarantee that the phone has automatic updating enabled. The iPhone requires a code be input to update. Automatic updates aren't on by default and my phone occasionally trips up on permission to update even when I've told it manually to update. There is no guarantee they could force the phone in question to update without the passcode and still retain the non-backed-up data Law enforcement is looking for.
They are. They have always fought the push for a standard cell phone charging design. They did it when the EU shook the stick the last time and everyone adopted Micro-USB, at least until the shortfalls of that standard made it unsuitable for high-end smartphones. It is unsurprising they resist the EU now. It has nothing to do with the point I was making. The only reason Apple was brought up was to highlight a way to achieve the goals UA wanted to achieve while not leaving relatively generic hardware without any value when the cloud service shuts down. iPhone obsolecence isn't driven by shutting down the operation of a charging port. And old iPhones aren't rendered worthless even as apple no longer supports the OS.
You can certainly not like Apple's decision to not adopt USB-C in iPhone and iPad even as they double down on USB-C in laptop design. I fucking think it is ridiculous. But it has no bearing on the question of why a bluetooth scale stopped working when a cloud service for a particular app went down.
WHAT is it going to take for these companies to get broken up?
We broke up ma bell. The Baby bells were...regional monopolies. Thats the diry secret of monopoly breaking anti-trust in the US. It doesn't actually resolve the core monopoly issue, it just makes it a regional one. Its why regulation has been the anti-trust weapon of choice when dealing with infrastructure monopolies in the last few decades. Regulation attempts to mitigate market harms rather than break the monopolies down into smaller monopolies. Local Loop Unbundling took time to get right, but it saw success. I was a kid in the late 80s early 90s when 4 companies were very vocally fighting for business, causing the infamous MCI 10 cent/minute long distance rate commercial with a dime bouncing on a flat surface to become strange as the rate move to 9 cents, 8, 7, 6, cents. I watched competition kill long distance fees via commercials. but DSL and Fiber Broadband required new, expensive infrastructure buildouts, and regulatory capture struck, the FCC neutered itself by classifying broadband as outside the reach of Local Loop Unbundling laws.
You can't break up comcast in any meaningful way, you just create more local monopolies. You have to eliminate the source of the monopoly, which is the high cost of market entry. Regulation can do that, breaking up comcast doesn't.
I hate suggesting standards, but there is no reason these have to fail, except that UA wanted to lock you into the Record app and the accompanying subscription. There was no reason these couldn't have dumped data using existing standards which allow my generic bluetooth smart scale and Polar heart rate monitor to keep dumping data even after I stopped using the apps which I originally was using (and one was shuttered).
Maybe even use some sort of dual standard, like Apple uses with the AirPods, where using an iPhone gets you the special Apple-only features, but you could still pair as a standard bluetooth handset. Why these couldn't have at least some standard features is beyond me.
I get why the app has to die - that subscription push meant an online-connected app with mandatory account creation and rewriting the app is a MASSIVE burden on UA. (/s) But there is no reason the $400 hardware bundle is now just a bunch of expensive paperweights.
The article hear talks about pushing apple harming existing relationships.
Those existing relationships include Apple choosing to not fully encrypt iCloud backups in part due to law enforcement's request. I have seen no evidence that the customer-service reasons also described in coverage of the decision weren't also a factor.
I would assert that moving to a fully-encrypted backup solution was scrapped because of a combination of customer service issues (all those people who forget their passwords and can't access their backups apple can no longer help) and law enforcement's requests (or complaints, depending). This functions as part of the positive relationship law enforcement cultivates with Apple.
That is much different from getting a court order demanding Apple change their product, particularly in a way that opens apple back up to claims of security negligence they always get in the wake of data thefts. That court order isn't building a working relationship, and likely would hurt future attempts to get Apple to assist in investigations without a court order.
Pin code security to stop porting scams have been bypassed by the same social engineering techniques explored in the article.
A Journalist went through the 3 times he was hit by port out scams, and he did the whole "require a pin code to do anything" bit, and the scammers just engineered their way around it.
If you read about the linked theorum, you'd find that what Masnick talks about is the satisfaction of 1) Users who post the content, 2) Viewers who consume the content, and 3) Those who are for personal, moral, or ethical reasons concerned with policing the substance of the content.
Iran and North Korea satisfy (3) by removing any concerning content, at the expense of (1) and (2). In doing so, they face critizim from groups (1) and (2), and international members of group (3). So no, under the framework of Masnick's Impossibility Theorem they have indeed failed to moderate content in a way that satisfies all 3 groups.
Sounds like you are talking about a Sole Proprietorship, with a $50 filing fee for a fictitious business name. That is however, not a corporation. You can do that without ever forming a separate legal entity. But i'll let that slide.
All LLCs registered with the State of California must pay $800 a year to the state, regardless of income. So you've already ignored some of the ongoing costs of forming a corporation.
A court siding with Malibu would NOT set the precedent that "Contracts must be honored". It would set the precedent that you should only form a contract with a trustworthy source...The opposite of what you claim.
!) In CA, The law which legalized marijuana set similar standards as for alcohol - no smoking, no open containers, don't be intoxicated. However, the actual limit or how it be tested is not clearly defined.
2) As indicated in the above article, We know that imparement from MJ is on a more individual curve than alcohol. And have no data if imparement can reliably correlate with consumption. Lots of data on alcohol means we know that while things vary from individual to individual, we can, estimate the BAC of a person based on the number of 1.5 oz servings of 80 proof alcohol (a 'drink') they have had, time elapsed, and body weight. We also know the BAC directly relates to level of impairment. We have none of that data for MJ.
Ok, Mea Culpa time. Reading the full quote from the article, I realized that the issue is that the quote is from Yelderman, not the government's filing. Specifically, he was providing a summary of the arguments, and the government's actual argument makes a bit more lingual sense when you establish context, that there were multiple plaintiffs in this case. The argument being summarized was that none of the plaintiffs in the case should fear liability. So in context, saying "...a plaintiff “cannot credibly fear criminal or civil liability..." Yelderman was noting that the argument was made for all plaintiffs in the case.
Combined with the way we refer to the potential defendants in such a case as plaintiffs, I am more sensitive to the lingual confusion.
In discussing a lawsuit in official filings, you refer to the suing party as the plaintiff in all filings, almost universally. This leads to weird issues in a counter suit or appeal, where the plaintiff in the countersuit or appeal was the defendant in the original case, and reading all these filings for an audience, on say YouTube, gets very confusing. (Leonard French of Lawful Masses has to explain this issue on a regular basis).
As Dan suggests, the lawsuit was filed by Woodhull, so when the government responds to Woodhull's concerns, they refer to Woodhull as plaintiff, as is proper when referring to Woodhull in a court filing where Woodhull is the plaintiff.
Also From The article and Twitter's statement quoted in the article:
Twitter discovered a bug that allowed users to bypass its autoplay settings, and allow several animated images in a single tweet using the APNG file format.
The entire reason twitter banned APNG is because they can't fully block them from autoplaying due to a bug.
Twitter is banning animated PNG image files (APNGs) from its platform, after an attack on the Epilepsy Foundation’s Twitter account sent out similar animated images that could potentially cause seizures in photosensitive people.
Twitter discovered a bug that allowed users to bypass its autoplay settings, and allow several animated images in a single tweet using the APNG file format.
Twitter blocks APNG now, because they aren't able to block autoplay. It may return when they can stop the animation (its not clear from their statement) but for now they blocked them entirely. Its quoted in the article.
There is a somewhat good reason he was acquitted. It took years after team members reported his conduct for the investigators to actually collect evidence. There wasn't appropriate retention of evidence that existed at the time of the reports. The only clear evidence was the photo found deep in a social media profile. The photo was, from the perspective of military justice, contrary to the mission and goals of the armed forces in the area. Which is why conduct unbecoming is a crime under the UCMJ.
The harm is from a military perspective. It breeds dissent and animosity between the locals and the visiting (or occupying) military. This type of behavior seeds terrorist sympathies and has been shown to lead to radicalization, which leads to more danger in the local area as well as abroad. It also highlights questions about decision-making critical for a leader of an elite special forces team. Much as in business, a leader with bad decision making skills should be demoted or removed, taking a wider view both of the harm done and the likelyhood of harm being committed in the future, someone in the chain of command displaying poor decision making is often not long for that position, the decision to demote or remove having to do with the potential for much greater harm if left in that position.
On the post: As Tulsi Gabbard's Silly Attention Seeking Lawsuit Against Google Falters, She Files Equally Silly Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton
Re: Why Goddard?
While I am unsure how Goddard is, Most people think Hilary was refering to Tulsi Gabbard. This is a contextual thing where Hilary didn't say who she was talking about, but context suggests an answer. Gabbard has the history that suggests she might make a third-party bid in a way Warren or Klobuchar would not. Gabbard has a few similar policy positions to Jill Stien that relate to Russia, and Russian influence efforts put a lot behind Stein in 2016 which seemed to affect swing states toward trump. 5 days before, the NYT did a whole bit on how Gabbard had a strange upswing in support for Gabbard in right-wing and russian media. And Clinton's spokesperson gave a 'If the shoe fits' answer when the question came up.
On the post: Welcome News: DC Circuit Revives The Constitutional Challenge Of FOSTA
I would wonder if the dismissal could be used as grounds to dismiss FOSTA charges. As in, in those circumstances the court ruled as not impacted by FOSTA, could someone finding themselves attacked by FOSTA argue that courts have already ruled that these circumstances don't rise to a violation of FOSTA? For instance, if Human Rights Watch gets hit over general advocacy in the DC Circuit, despite the claims of Judge Katas that it could not reasonably be read to cover that action, would a dismissal of a criminal case on the basis of the appellate courts denial of standing receive any consideration? My read of the core of the lack of standing ruling is that the law shouldn't affect Human Rights Watch, so it seems strange that if the law was employed contrary to that ruling that Human Rights Watch could be held accountable for the vagueness of the law, as the court ruled it wasn't vague enough to cover Human Rights Watch.
On the post: Cy Vance Is So Sure Encryption Is Pure Evil He Thinks Over-The-Air Software Updates Are Just Encryption Backdoors Apple Won't Tell Him About
Re: Vance is right... but in the wrongest of ways
Not to mention, even if apple can push a software update, there is no guarantee that the phone has automatic updating enabled. The iPhone requires a code be input to update. Automatic updates aren't on by default and my phone occasionally trips up on permission to update even when I've told it manually to update. There is no guarantee they could force the phone in question to update without the passcode and still retain the non-backed-up data Law enforcement is looking for.
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Under Armour Smart Hardware Gets Lobotomized
Re: Re:
Oh, I forgot to add:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Under Armour Smart Hardware Gets Lobotomized
Re: Re:
They are. They have always fought the push for a standard cell phone charging design. They did it when the EU shook the stick the last time and everyone adopted Micro-USB, at least until the shortfalls of that standard made it unsuitable for high-end smartphones. It is unsurprising they resist the EU now. It has nothing to do with the point I was making. The only reason Apple was brought up was to highlight a way to achieve the goals UA wanted to achieve while not leaving relatively generic hardware without any value when the cloud service shuts down. iPhone obsolecence isn't driven by shutting down the operation of a charging port. And old iPhones aren't rendered worthless even as apple no longer supports the OS.
You can certainly not like Apple's decision to not adopt USB-C in iPhone and iPad even as they double down on USB-C in laptop design. I fucking think it is ridiculous. But it has no bearing on the question of why a bluetooth scale stopped working when a cloud service for a particular app went down.
On the post: Comcast Says It Will Respond To Cord Cutting In 2020 With...More Price Hikes
The Baby Bells were just comcast 20 years earlier
We broke up ma bell. The Baby bells were...regional monopolies. Thats the diry secret of monopoly breaking anti-trust in the US. It doesn't actually resolve the core monopoly issue, it just makes it a regional one. Its why regulation has been the anti-trust weapon of choice when dealing with infrastructure monopolies in the last few decades. Regulation attempts to mitigate market harms rather than break the monopolies down into smaller monopolies. Local Loop Unbundling took time to get right, but it saw success. I was a kid in the late 80s early 90s when 4 companies were very vocally fighting for business, causing the infamous MCI 10 cent/minute long distance rate commercial with a dime bouncing on a flat surface to become strange as the rate move to 9 cents, 8, 7, 6, cents. I watched competition kill long distance fees via commercials. but DSL and Fiber Broadband required new, expensive infrastructure buildouts, and regulatory capture struck, the FCC neutered itself by classifying broadband as outside the reach of Local Loop Unbundling laws.
You can't break up comcast in any meaningful way, you just create more local monopolies. You have to eliminate the source of the monopoly, which is the high cost of market entry. Regulation can do that, breaking up comcast doesn't.
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Under Armour Smart Hardware Gets Lobotomized
I hate suggesting standards, but there is no reason these have to fail, except that UA wanted to lock you into the Record app and the accompanying subscription. There was no reason these couldn't have dumped data using existing standards which allow my generic bluetooth smart scale and Polar heart rate monitor to keep dumping data even after I stopped using the apps which I originally was using (and one was shuttered).
Maybe even use some sort of dual standard, like Apple uses with the AirPods, where using an iPhone gets you the special Apple-only features, but you could still pair as a standard bluetooth handset. Why these couldn't have at least some standard features is beyond me.
I get why the app has to die - that subscription push meant an online-connected app with mandatory account creation and rewriting the app is a MASSIVE burden on UA. (/s) But there is no reason the $400 hardware bundle is now just a bunch of expensive paperweights.
On the post: Attorney General Barr's Anti-Encryption Efforts Aren't Supported By Many FBI Officials
Re:
The article hear talks about pushing apple harming existing relationships.
Those existing relationships include Apple choosing to not fully encrypt iCloud backups in part due to law enforcement's request. I have seen no evidence that the customer-service reasons also described in coverage of the decision weren't also a factor.
I would assert that moving to a fully-encrypted backup solution was scrapped because of a combination of customer service issues (all those people who forget their passwords and can't access their backups apple can no longer help) and law enforcement's requests (or complaints, depending). This functions as part of the positive relationship law enforcement cultivates with Apple.
That is much different from getting a court order demanding Apple change their product, particularly in a way that opens apple back up to claims of security negligence they always get in the wake of data thefts. That court order isn't building a working relationship, and likely would hurt future attempts to get Apple to assist in investigations without a court order.
On the post: Study Shows The Internet Is Hugely Vulnerable To SIM Hijacking Attacks
Re:
Pin code security to stop porting scams have been bypassed by the same social engineering techniques explored in the article.
A Journalist went through the 3 times he was hit by port out scams, and he did the whole "require a pin code to do anything" bit, and the scammers just engineered their way around it.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: YouTube Says That Frank Capra's US Government WWII Propaganda Violates Community Guidelines
Re: My bad
Under Poe's Law, without the /s it was impossible to determine if you were serious or not.
Without the /s, the massive disclaimer just implies you are a douche with bad case of butthurt because people didn't realize you were joking.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: YouTube Says That Frank Capra's US Government WWII Propaganda Violates Community Guidelines
Re: Mike's impossibility theorem
If you read about the linked theorum, you'd find that what Masnick talks about is the satisfaction of 1) Users who post the content, 2) Viewers who consume the content, and 3) Those who are for personal, moral, or ethical reasons concerned with policing the substance of the content.
Iran and North Korea satisfy (3) by removing any concerning content, at the expense of (1) and (2). In doing so, they face critizim from groups (1) and (2), and international members of group (3). So no, under the framework of Masnick's Impossibility Theorem they have indeed failed to moderate content in a way that satisfies all 3 groups.
On the post: California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Says She Simply Doesn't Believe All Of Those Who Have Been Harmed By Her AB5 Bill
Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like you are talking about a Sole Proprietorship, with a $50 filing fee for a fictitious business name. That is however, not a corporation. You can do that without ever forming a separate legal entity. But i'll let that slide.
All LLCs registered with the State of California must pay $800 a year to the state, regardless of income. So you've already ignored some of the ongoing costs of forming a corporation.
On the post: Malibu Media's Former Law Firm Says The Copyright Troll Has Been Screwing It Out Of Settlement Payments
Re: Re: Re:
A court siding with Malibu would NOT set the precedent that "Contracts must be honored". It would set the precedent that you should only form a contract with a trustworthy source...The opposite of what you claim.
On the post: Company Says It's Built A Marijuana Breathalyzer, Wants To Roll It Out By The Middle Of This Year
Re: Two questions
!) In CA, The law which legalized marijuana set similar standards as for alcohol - no smoking, no open containers, don't be intoxicated. However, the actual limit or how it be tested is not clearly defined.
2) As indicated in the above article, We know that imparement from MJ is on a more individual curve than alcohol. And have no data if imparement can reliably correlate with consumption. Lots of data on alcohol means we know that while things vary from individual to individual, we can, estimate the BAC of a person based on the number of 1.5 oz servings of 80 proof alcohol (a 'drink') they have had, time elapsed, and body weight. We also know the BAC directly relates to level of impairment. We have none of that data for MJ.
On the post: Civil FOSTA Suits Start Showing Up In Court; Prove That FOSTA Supporters Were 100% Wrong About Who Would Be Targeted
Re: Re:
Ok, Mea Culpa time. Reading the full quote from the article, I realized that the issue is that the quote is from Yelderman, not the government's filing. Specifically, he was providing a summary of the arguments, and the government's actual argument makes a bit more lingual sense when you establish context, that there were multiple plaintiffs in this case. The argument being summarized was that none of the plaintiffs in the case should fear liability. So in context, saying "...a plaintiff “cannot credibly fear criminal or civil liability..." Yelderman was noting that the argument was made for all plaintiffs in the case.
Combined with the way we refer to the potential defendants in such a case as plaintiffs, I am more sensitive to the lingual confusion.
On the post: Civil FOSTA Suits Start Showing Up In Court; Prove That FOSTA Supporters Were 100% Wrong About Who Would Be Targeted
Re:
In discussing a lawsuit in official filings, you refer to the suing party as the plaintiff in all filings, almost universally. This leads to weird issues in a counter suit or appeal, where the plaintiff in the countersuit or appeal was the defendant in the original case, and reading all these filings for an audience, on say YouTube, gets very confusing. (Leonard French of Lawful Masses has to explain this issue on a regular basis).
As Dan suggests, the lawsuit was filed by Woodhull, so when the government responds to Woodhull's concerns, they refer to Woodhull as plaintiff, as is proper when referring to Woodhull in a court filing where Woodhull is the plaintiff.
On the post: Twitter Blocks Animated PNGs After A Bunch Of Shitbirds Spend National Epilepsy Month Harassing Epileptics
Re:
Also From The article and Twitter's statement quoted in the article:
The entire reason twitter banned APNG is because they can't fully block them from autoplaying due to a bug.
On the post: Twitter Blocks Animated PNGs After A Bunch Of Shitbirds Spend National Epilepsy Month Harassing Epileptics
Re:
Twitter blocks APNG now, because they aren't able to block autoplay. It may return when they can stop the animation (its not clear from their statement) but for now they blocked them entirely. Its quoted in the article.
On the post: Navy SEAL Leader Accused Of War Crimes Threatens Defamation Suit Against NY Times Reporter For Revealing Videos & Text Of Men Who Reported Him
Re:
There is a somewhat good reason he was acquitted. It took years after team members reported his conduct for the investigators to actually collect evidence. There wasn't appropriate retention of evidence that existed at the time of the reports. The only clear evidence was the photo found deep in a social media profile. The photo was, from the perspective of military justice, contrary to the mission and goals of the armed forces in the area. Which is why conduct unbecoming is a crime under the UCMJ.
The harm is from a military perspective. It breeds dissent and animosity between the locals and the visiting (or occupying) military. This type of behavior seeds terrorist sympathies and has been shown to lead to radicalization, which leads to more danger in the local area as well as abroad. It also highlights questions about decision-making critical for a leader of an elite special forces team. Much as in business, a leader with bad decision making skills should be demoted or removed, taking a wider view both of the harm done and the likelyhood of harm being committed in the future, someone in the chain of command displaying poor decision making is often not long for that position, the decision to demote or remove having to do with the potential for much greater harm if left in that position.
On the post: DOJ Antitrust Boss Delrahim Ignored Hard Data As He Rubber Stamped T-Mobile Merger
Re: Is it time..
You have no idea how any of this works.
Next >>