I'm gonna leave that one alone, I've got a different fish to fry. I'm sure someone else will be along in good time to deal with this nonsense.
To C. Gellis's list of patent reforms, I'd add that an applicant should be limited to re-applying only once in every 6 years. If it wasn't good enough the first or second time around, then you should not be allowed to waste the USPTO's time. If it's no longer worthwhile after 6 years, then you should've done a better job of innovating the first time out the door.
It seems to me that the FBI didn't rob just the individual box holders, they also robbed the company providing the service. Unless the contract for services was written with some very fine print, then they quite likely are on the hook to reimburse those folks. Very sadly for USPV, if they had insurance (and they were probably required to by law), they're not going to be happy - it's a de facto standard of the insurance industry that no "authorized legal activity" is insurable, full stop.
Oh my, I think the courts are going to see all kinds of action in the near future. Could be time to re-stock my pile of Amish popcorn.
What happened to the vault company's record books showing the ownership of each box?
They were meant to be kept hidden, presumably "for security purposes", until after June 24th.
I'd like to think that any judge would see this for the sham it is, and order the return of all assets, period. But my dream world is a reality unto itself, so....
^^^ And that would be because the money for those repiars and such went where it should never have gone in the first place, as pointed out by AC in the very first response.
Paul, I'm a bit tempted to give you the same treatment as you just gave to td, but I promised the wife I'd be a nice guy today, so....
td is correct, but he lacked using the one word that would've clued you in - beancounter. Yes, the times they are a'changing, and even Japanese companies have come to the realization that a company in fierce competition for entertainment dollars has to watch what it's doing, and has to make every effort to control costs and maximize profit. Beancounters have only one metric for this, and that's to... count visitors (read: eyeballs).
Since these guys can't quantify anything outside of their immediate control, they get all upset when things like 'free publicity' come into play. After all, and it does make a kind of sense, you can't depend on free publicity, so how much should you allocate for your advertising budget. That's case study right there, in almost any business school.
But the fact that said 'counters appear to 'running the show', that's a bit more concerning, at least to me. It tends to show that things in Japan are getting tense, and planning for the long-term is giving way to Harvard MBA-style thinking. And that's bad for everyone, not just the Japanese economy, trust me on that one.
Having read the Bill itself (as linked) to research a response above, I found this particular tidbit interesting;
[from Section 2, subsection (f), paragraph (3)]
(3) REPEAT OFFENDERS.--If the fact finder determines that a covered platform has engaged in a pattern or practice of violating this Act, the court shall consider requiring that the Chief Executive Officer forfeit to the United States Treasury any compensation received by that person during the 12 months preceding or following the filing of a complaint for an alleged violation of this Act.
Seems to me that someones wants to codify a way to more easily pierce the corporate veil, no?, But horrifically, it states "any compensation", not just some random percentage keyed to how much money the CEO made per the actual offense. That's stupifying right there. Like as in, every CEO would immediately shutter all possible places where one or more persons could post.... as in, post anything - blog responses, advertisements, lists, anything at all. Thus quoted each and every CEO: "Not in my wallet you don't!"
Thus rendering the Internet null and void after barely reaching nascent adulthood. Sad. JUST. FUCKING. SAD.
The 'garden variety' will eventually wander off into the sunset, mumbling about people who fail to "get it". The 'extreme' class will continue to double down until you become innurred to the bullshit and walk way, mumbling about batshit-crazy ass-hats.
Are you going somewhere with that statement, or did did you slip out of your wrangler's grasp in the wrong thread? You're this close to earning a Abuse/Spam/Troll click, but I'd thought I'd be nice and ask first.....
Sorry, but where electricity runs the respirator, the internet does NOT run the computer. I deduce that you missed the whole point of 'air gap'. Try looking up "computer security", you might get a clue.
If it's too sensitive/critical to allow even a momentary outage, why in the name of Gawd is it connected to the internet, public facing or otherwise??? Has everyone supposedly in charge forgotten the meaning of 'air gap'?
I should think that The Forbin Project would be required lecture material in a good CS program, the thrust being the danger of interconnectivity just because it's possible, and not for any good reason.
I should've used the car analogy. But in my defense, I was indeed a Party C, many year ago. I mean, I even saw it coming, and still couldn't get out of the way fast enough. Bad times.
Yes, state laws do vary, but in the main, the chain of evidence usually proves to be most easy to follow if one doesn't attempt to jump/skip over pieces of evidence. In that manner, a court can find the proper ration of justice for each party.
While this is a civil case (wrongful death), it is my experience that such cases often come about when a criminal case cannot be sustained. (In this case, the proximate perpetrator died.) Now, if he had lived, the State would have charged him with criminal manslaughter, at the least. Supposing he presented a defense of "But Snapchat made me do it", that would've been dismissed for one simple reason: Each and every State in the Union has a simple declaratory rule upon issuing a driver's license (usually formally called an Operator's License (or permit)): "You as a driver in control of a motor vehicle must assume and accept total responsibility for your actions while in charge of said vehicle. There are no exceptions to this rule."
Court cases have abounded over the years, pondering this law and how it should/must be applied to contested situations. But the fact of the matter is, regardless of any distractions whatsoever, you are responsible for your actions, plain and simple. You can claim all you want that "The devil made me do it!", and no matter what guise the devil may take, you're still responsible, end of story. Snapchat's defense should rest on only one ideal - "This kid was breaking the law, and we made no inducements to persuade him to do to. He abdicated his personal responsibility to the State of his own volition, and we should not be used as a substitute for restitution to a harmed party..... particularly when we had no prior agreement between ourselves any of the remaining parties to this action."
It is a given in law that no party can be made to assume responsibility for another without a prior agreement (usually in writing). If Party A strikes Party B, and in falling down Party B strikes Party C, Party C cannot directly capture Party A for damages, instead he must go through Party B, the most direct proximate case of the tort. (The sole exception is parent/child relations.)
Now to the heart of the matter. The car maker analogy is a good one. If we start making third parties suffer the consequences of our (STUPID) actions, then we might as well go back to the cave man days, because a man's word is no longer his bond. By no rational person's personal gauge are we a civilized society if one can point his finger at another person and shift the blame/guilt in that manner. That is heresy of the highest order, and morally reprehensible.
But legal?? It is starting to look that way, isn't it. Sigh.
Side comment: On the face of it, this case deserves adjudication. But if we get crass and look at the underside, we see that it's nothing more than "muh feelz". Which then says that the case is a direct result of:
a) Too fucking many lawyers, most of them acting like ambulance chasers;
and
b) Judges refusing to meaningfully punish lawyers who continually prove that George Santyana was correct.
tl;dr:
Final scorecard for Snapchat: A for effort, but F for lack of validity.
Attempting to side-track the actual issue does not often win the day. The issue was never about speech, it is, and will always be, about personal responsibility.
You might be unpleasantly surprised to learn that the driving force behind the whole charade of updating the EU Copyright Directive was Axel Springer Publishing House. To gain an understanding of just how much influence they wielded, look them up and study their history for a few moments. Then, just for giggles, look up the current CEO of Axel Springer, Mathias Döpfner.
Makes most Hollywood MafiAA basturds look like kindergarten chumps.
.... [just because] assholes can't shit-post as they see fit.
You're assuming that assholes can see fit in the first place. I'm afraid that not much else in life can be further from the truth. First, that implies that assholes can see anything, and the very fact that we have to identify them as assholes from the get-go says a lot about how much they can see.
Second, their definition of "fit" means nothing more than an emphatic exhibition of constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth. Thus, they "see fit" just about all of the time that they aren't sleeping. It's too bad that all the shit-posting has no consequences to speak of.
Shit-posters. You can't argue with 'em, you can't lock 'em away, and you can't kill 'em - what's a law-abiding netizen to do???
I ignore them, because bad speech is NOT countered by more speech, that's like tugging on Superman's cape, or flashing swords with Zorro - the outcome ain't gonna be to your liking. Besides, they just drag you down to their level, and then beat you with vast experience.
On the post: Think Tech Companies Are Too Monopolistic? Then Stop Giving Them Patent Monopolies
I'm gonna leave that one alone, I've got a different fish to fry. I'm sure someone else will be along in good time to deal with this nonsense.
To C. Gellis's list of patent reforms, I'd add that an applicant should be limited to re-applying only once in every 6 years. If it wasn't good enough the first or second time around, then you should not be allowed to waste the USPTO's time. If it's no longer worthwhile after 6 years, then you should've done a better job of innovating the first time out the door.
On the post: FBI Ignored Its Own Warrant And Search Policies To Seize Millions From People's Safety Deposit Boxes
Thinking on this some more....
It seems to me that the FBI didn't rob just the individual box holders, they also robbed the company providing the service. Unless the contract for services was written with some very fine print, then they quite likely are on the hook to reimburse those folks. Very sadly for USPV, if they had insurance (and they were probably required to by law), they're not going to be happy - it's a de facto standard of the insurance industry that no "authorized legal activity" is insurable, full stop.
Oh my, I think the courts are going to see all kinds of action in the near future. Could be time to re-stock my pile of Amish popcorn.
On the post: FBI Ignored Its Own Warrant And Search Policies To Seize Millions From People's Safety Deposit Boxes
Re:
They were meant to be kept hidden, presumably "for security purposes", until after June 24th.
I'd like to think that any judge would see this for the sham it is, and order the return of all assets, period. But my dream world is a reality unto itself, so....
On the post: AT&T Whines About Biden Focus On Community Broadband
^^^ And that would be because the money for those repiars and such went where it should never have gone in the first place, as pointed out by AC in the very first response.
On the post: FBI Director Ignores More Than 500 Ongoing Capitol Raid Prosecutions To Complain That Encryption Is Keeping Criminals From Being Caught
Re: at
Apologies not needed. If he were alive today, he would've beat you to it.
On the post: FBI Director Ignores More Than 500 Ongoing Capitol Raid Prosecutions To Complain That Encryption Is Keeping Criminals From Being Caught
Re: Our real challenge
Assigns the status of 'factual truth' to feelings. Not acceptable as evidence.
[Gavel:] BANG!
Bailiff, call the next case please.
On the post: Nintendo Hates You And The Company Most Certainly Does Not Want You To Co-Stream 'Nintendo Direct'
Re: Re: Re:
Paul, I'm a bit tempted to give you the same treatment as you just gave to td, but I promised the wife I'd be a nice guy today, so....
td is correct, but he lacked using the one word that would've clued you in - beancounter. Yes, the times they are a'changing, and even Japanese companies have come to the realization that a company in fierce competition for entertainment dollars has to watch what it's doing, and has to make every effort to control costs and maximize profit. Beancounters have only one metric for this, and that's to... count visitors (read: eyeballs).
Since these guys can't quantify anything outside of their immediate control, they get all upset when things like 'free publicity' come into play. After all, and it does make a kind of sense, you can't depend on free publicity, so how much should you allocate for your advertising budget. That's case study right there, in almost any business school.
But the fact that said 'counters appear to 'running the show', that's a bit more concerning, at least to me. It tends to show that things in Japan are getting tense, and planning for the long-term is giving way to Harvard MBA-style thinking. And that's bad for everyone, not just the Japanese economy, trust me on that one.
On the post: Police Union, Lax Oversight Allow Florida Cop To Survive Three Arrests And Seven Firings
If he'd been a civilian with this kind of record, he'd've been locked up for life as a serial offender, a long time ago.
On the post: If David Cicilline Gets His Way; It Would Destroy Content Moderation
Having read the Bill itself (as linked) to research a response above, I found this particular tidbit interesting;
[from Section 2, subsection (f), paragraph (3)]
Seems to me that someones wants to codify a way to more easily pierce the corporate veil, no?, But horrifically, it states "any compensation", not just some random percentage keyed to how much money the CEO made per the actual offense. That's stupifying right there. Like as in, every CEO would immediately shutter all possible places where one or more persons could post.... as in, post anything - blog responses, advertisements, lists, anything at all. Thus quoted each and every CEO: "Not in my wallet you don't!"
Thus rendering the Internet null and void after barely reaching nascent adulthood. Sad. JUST. FUCKING. SAD.
On the post: If David Cicilline Gets His Way; It Would Destroy Content Moderation
True, but then again, I don't see anywhere in TFA that either section, or their contents, are referenced.
On the post: Hypocrisy: Rupert Murdoch Has Always Hated Antitrust; But Now He Wants It Used Against Internet Companies Who Out Innovated Him
Re:
The 'garden variety' will eventually wander off into the sunset, mumbling about people who fail to "get it". The 'extreme' class will continue to double down until you become innurred to the bullshit and walk way, mumbling about batshit-crazy ass-hats.
On the post: Hypocrisy: Rupert Murdoch Has Always Hated Antitrust; But Now He Wants It Used Against Internet Companies Who Out Innovated Him
Re:
Are you going somewhere with that statement, or did did you slip out of your wrangler's grasp in the wrong thread? You're this close to earning a Abuse/Spam/Troll click, but I'd thought I'd be nice and ask first.....
On the post: DOJ Says It's Time To Add Ransomware Attacks To The Ever Expanding 'War On Terror'
Sorry, but where electricity runs the respirator, the internet does NOT run the computer. I deduce that you missed the whole point of 'air gap'. Try looking up "computer security", you might get a clue.
On the post: DOJ Says It's Time To Add Ransomware Attacks To The Ever Expanding 'War On Terror'
If it's too sensitive/critical to allow even a momentary outage, why in the name of Gawd is it connected to the internet, public facing or otherwise??? Has everyone supposedly in charge forgotten the meaning of 'air gap'?
I should think that The Forbin Project would be required lecture material in a good CS program, the thrust being the danger of interconnectivity just because it's possible, and not for any good reason.
Ramifications, people, ramifications! Geez, Louise.
On the post: Why The Ninth Circuit's Decision In Lemmon V. Snap Is Wrong On Section 230 And Bad For Online Speech
Re: Re:
I should've used the car analogy. But in my defense, I was indeed a Party C, many year ago. I mean, I even saw it coming, and still couldn't get out of the way fast enough. Bad times.
Yes, state laws do vary, but in the main, the chain of evidence usually proves to be most easy to follow if one doesn't attempt to jump/skip over pieces of evidence. In that manner, a court can find the proper ration of justice for each party.
On the post: Ohio Files Bizarre And Nonsensical Lawsuit Against Google, Claiming It's A Common Carrier; But What Does That Even Mean?
Re:
You sound as if don't know that most State legislators and Congress are indeed 'stupidly retarded'. Need I provide proof?
On the post: Ohio Files Bizarre And Nonsensical Lawsuit Against Google, Claiming It's A Common Carrier; But What Does That Even Mean?
Will someone please spray the place again? All I can smell just now is more Jim Hood, and that shit stinks something awful!
On the post: Why The Ninth Circuit's Decision In Lemmon V. Snap Is Wrong On Section 230 And Bad For Online Speech
While this is a civil case (wrongful death), it is my experience that such cases often come about when a criminal case cannot be sustained. (In this case, the proximate perpetrator died.) Now, if he had lived, the State would have charged him with criminal manslaughter, at the least. Supposing he presented a defense of "But Snapchat made me do it", that would've been dismissed for one simple reason: Each and every State in the Union has a simple declaratory rule upon issuing a driver's license (usually formally called an Operator's License (or permit)): "You as a driver in control of a motor vehicle must assume and accept total responsibility for your actions while in charge of said vehicle. There are no exceptions to this rule."
Court cases have abounded over the years, pondering this law and how it should/must be applied to contested situations. But the fact of the matter is, regardless of any distractions whatsoever, you are responsible for your actions, plain and simple. You can claim all you want that "The devil made me do it!", and no matter what guise the devil may take, you're still responsible, end of story. Snapchat's defense should rest on only one ideal - "This kid was breaking the law, and we made no inducements to persuade him to do to. He abdicated his personal responsibility to the State of his own volition, and we should not be used as a substitute for restitution to a harmed party..... particularly when we had no prior agreement between ourselves any of the remaining parties to this action."
It is a given in law that no party can be made to assume responsibility for another without a prior agreement (usually in writing). If Party A strikes Party B, and in falling down Party B strikes Party C, Party C cannot directly capture Party A for damages, instead he must go through Party B, the most direct proximate case of the tort. (The sole exception is parent/child relations.)
Now to the heart of the matter. The car maker analogy is a good one. If we start making third parties suffer the consequences of our (STUPID) actions, then we might as well go back to the cave man days, because a man's word is no longer his bond. By no rational person's personal gauge are we a civilized society if one can point his finger at another person and shift the blame/guilt in that manner. That is heresy of the highest order, and morally reprehensible.
But legal?? It is starting to look that way, isn't it. Sigh.
Side comment: On the face of it, this case deserves adjudication. But if we get crass and look at the underside, we see that it's nothing more than "muh feelz". Which then says that the case is a direct result of:
a) Too fucking many lawyers, most of them acting like ambulance chasers;
and
b) Judges refusing to meaningfully punish lawyers who continually prove that George Santyana was correct.
tl;dr:
Final scorecard for Snapchat: A for effort, but F for lack of validity.
Attempting to side-track the actual issue does not often win the day. The issue was never about speech, it is, and will always be, about personal responsibility.
On the post: European Commission Betrays Internet Users By Cravenly Introducing Huge Loophole For Copyright Companies In Upload Filter Guidance
Re:
You might be unpleasantly surprised to learn that the driving force behind the whole charade of updating the EU Copyright Directive was Axel Springer Publishing House. To gain an understanding of just how much influence they wielded, look them up and study their history for a few moments. Then, just for giggles, look up the current CEO of Axel Springer, Mathias Döpfner.
Makes most Hollywood MafiAA basturds look like kindergarten chumps.
On the post: As Western Democracies Ramp Up Efforts To Censor Social Media, Russia Appears To Feel Emboldened To Do More Itself
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Way Around
You're assuming that assholes can see fit in the first place. I'm afraid that not much else in life can be further from the truth. First, that implies that assholes can see anything, and the very fact that we have to identify them as assholes from the get-go says a lot about how much they can see.
Second, their definition of "fit" means nothing more than an emphatic exhibition of constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth. Thus, they "see fit" just about all of the time that they aren't sleeping. It's too bad that all the shit-posting has no consequences to speak of.
I ignore them, because bad speech is NOT countered by more speech, that's like tugging on Superman's cape, or flashing swords with Zorro - the outcome ain't gonna be to your liking. Besides, they just drag you down to their level, and then beat you with vast experience.
Next >>