Just because something is measurable doesn't necessarily mean that this IS being measured. There could be a correlation between these actual measurements and the supposedly irreversible climate change we're experiencing.
Yeah, that's full of shit. "Maybe all those so-called scientists haven't ever tried to measure the sun!" Yup, you obviously have solved it - we aren't pouting out atmosphere with record levels of methane and CO2 - the sun is getting larger and only you have noticed it!
Since Copyrights only protect corporations, they are in direct conflict with civil rights.
This legislation means that ISP's have to monitor everything that comes thru the pipes. You give up your civil rights against excessive search in favor of a corporation's right to protect their Imaginary Property.
It's just like how musicians can't put their own music on YouTube or authorize other artists to use it.
Because copyrights belong to corporations, not people.
Someone wants to make banana costumes, obviously we need the full power of the federal courts to gibe them an exclusive right to make them.
Without Intellectual Monopolies, who would create new clothing? We'd all be nekid!
Once again Stone you are suffering from TDS, a sure sign of mental illness and a red flag. Your account should be suspended for such hateful speech. /s
For decades every time Nielsen actually tried to improve it's methodology the broadcasters flipped out and pushed back.
When they tried to replace viewer logbooks (where the household would take notes and manually record their viewing) the broadcasters raised such a stink they dropped their plan to roll out a new system that automatically and accurately recorded all the details.
That was back in the day, but the broadcasters knew the logbooks over reported the viewing of key shows and didn't want more accurate info.
NY Times decided to jump on the misleading (and simply incorrect) bandwagon claiming that 230 is somehow to "blame" for bad stuff online
Technically 230 is responsible since without it we'd have no user content online good or bad. The problem here is that some people can't accept that it allows any "bad" stuff and have this vivid fantasy that eliminating all speech will someone make things "better." (Certainly the media companies would love to wipe out all user generated content since it competes with their IP monopolies.)
I remember when my AT&T cell service was sold to Cingular, and re-branded. Then AT&T bought it back and re-bradneded it again with the deathstar logo.
Logos and branding is more important that service, quality and fair pricing. One of the marketing goals of having so many choices is to confuse consumers so much that they just give up and pick the highest priced package in the hope they will get the shows they want.
Tim thinks this is unamerican, but it’s just as unamerican to suggest that anyone should have to aid the spread of speech with which they disagree.
I can't speak for Tim (Despite what Blue Balls may say) but I don't see anywhere in the article that he says YouTube shouldn't do anything. He's saying that it's impossible to make this problem go away with a snap of the fingers. And somehow rating posters based on content they make while not on YouTube wold be incredibly complicated. (And would never work as intended.)
And cries for more moderation would mean that AC posting would need to be banned completely in order to properly track "bad actors."
How so? Is there some way to globally police speech that is going to keep extremists from radicalizing? They already prefer Gab, StormFront and the site formerly known as 8chan over Youtube.
On the post: Texas AG Joins Lawsuit Against T-Mobile, Showing Bipartisan Opposition To Mindless M&As
Mindless M&As
Dammit, I thought they were suing all the mindless MBA's for a second.
On the post: Reaping What They Sowed: Recording Industry Now Quite Upset About Copyright Run Amok
Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Just because something is measurable doesn't necessarily mean that this IS being measured. There could be a correlation between these actual measurements and the supposedly irreversible climate change we're experiencing.
Yeah, that's full of shit. "Maybe all those so-called scientists haven't ever tried to measure the sun!" Yup, you obviously have solved it - we aren't pouting out atmosphere with record levels of methane and CO2 - the sun is getting larger and only you have noticed it!
On the post: Reaping What They Sowed: Recording Industry Now Quite Upset About Copyright Run Amok
Re:
Anti-Copyright tool:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine
On the post: Reaping What They Sowed: Recording Industry Now Quite Upset About Copyright Run Amok
Re: Friday fake thoughts
Aside from the fact that your post is off topic, you do understand that you are just making fake sci-ency sounded noises right?
Has the sun changed size? Everything you you list is actually measurable.
On the post: White House Once Again Circulating A Draft Executive Order On Social Media Bias
Re: you have started dviding (sic) people into two categories
Damn Straight - People who support free speech, and people who support copyright!
On the post: Consumer Reports Finds Numerous Home Routers Lack Even Basic Security Protections
Re: UDP is the new bad guy?
None of those things you need hitting the outside world from a home network.
On the post: Oops: Japan Anti-Piracy Proposals Probably Violate Its Constitution
Civil Rights vs Copy Rights?
Since Copyrights only protect corporations, they are in direct conflict with civil rights.
This legislation means that ISP's have to monitor everything that comes thru the pipes. You give up your civil rights against excessive search in favor of a corporation's right to protect their Imaginary Property.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Banana Costume Is Infringing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, there is a checkbox right there. I can make any of these posts First/Last word. Because I'm not an AC.
Your point? And would your point have anything to do with the Imaginary Property under discussion?
On the post: Elsevier Says It's Infringing To Link To Sci-Hub; Hypocrite Elsevier Links To Sci-Hub All The Time
Re:
It's just like how musicians can't put their own music on YouTube or authorize other artists to use it.
Because copyrights belong to corporations, not people.
On the post: North Carolina Court Says Retaliatory Arrests Over Protected Speech Are Cool And Legal
Oink Oink
And some indignant folks think it is wrong to call bad police officers pigs?
Repect meh atority!
On the post: Appeals Court Says Banana Costume Is Infringing
Because of course
Someone wants to make banana costumes, obviously we need the full power of the federal courts to gibe them an exclusive right to make them.
Without Intellectual Monopolies, who would create new clothing? We'd all be nekid!
On the post: NY Times Joins Lots Of Other Media Sites In Totally And Completely Misrepresenting Section 230
Re:
Once again Stone you are suffering from TDS, a sure sign of mental illness and a red flag. Your account should be suspended for such hateful speech. /s
On the post: After Missing Cord Cutting Trend, Nielsen Falls Apart
What they Want
For decades every time Nielsen actually tried to improve it's methodology the broadcasters flipped out and pushed back.
When they tried to replace viewer logbooks (where the household would take notes and manually record their viewing) the broadcasters raised such a stink they dropped their plan to roll out a new system that automatically and accurately recorded all the details.
That was back in the day, but the broadcasters knew the logbooks over reported the viewing of key shows and didn't want more accurate info.
On the post: NY Times Joins Lots Of Other Media Sites In Totally And Completely Misrepresenting Section 230
The Good with the Bad
NY Times decided to jump on the misleading (and simply incorrect) bandwagon claiming that 230 is somehow to "blame" for bad stuff online
Technically 230 is responsible since without it we'd have no user content online good or bad. The problem here is that some people can't accept that it allows any "bad" stuff and have this vivid fantasy that eliminating all speech will someone make things "better." (Certainly the media companies would love to wipe out all user generated content since it competes with their IP monopolies.)
On the post: Philippines Lawmaker Introduces 'Fake News' Bill That Would Allow The National Police To Literally Police Speech
Re: Re: Re: Can you blame any of them?
Is it the same buffoon that re-legalized asbestos?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_face/
On the post: AT&T Hopes A Confusing Rebranding Will Help Its Muddled Video Plans Make Sense
Branded
I remember when my AT&T cell service was sold to Cingular, and re-branded. Then AT&T bought it back and re-bradneded it again with the deathstar logo.
Logos and branding is more important that service, quality and fair pricing. One of the marketing goals of having so many choices is to confuse consumers so much that they just give up and pick the highest priced package in the hope they will get the shows they want.
On the post: Gizmodo: Why Can't YouTube Do 'Good' Content Moderation? Answer: Because It's Fucking Impossible
Re: Pretending to make sense
Oh Zof, I never know if I should give you the LOL for such nonsense or the red flag for being a racist tinfoil twat.
On the post: Gizmodo: Why Can't YouTube Do 'Good' Content Moderation? Answer: Because It's Fucking Impossible
Re:
Tim thinks this is unamerican, but it’s just as unamerican to suggest that anyone should have to aid the spread of speech with which they disagree.
I can't speak for Tim (Despite what Blue Balls may say) but I don't see anywhere in the article that he says YouTube shouldn't do anything. He's saying that it's impossible to make this problem go away with a snap of the fingers. And somehow rating posters based on content they make while not on YouTube wold be incredibly complicated. (And would never work as intended.)
And cries for more moderation would mean that AC posting would need to be banned completely in order to properly track "bad actors."
On the post: Gizmodo: Why Can't YouTube Do 'Good' Content Moderation? Answer: Because It's Fucking Impossible
Re: But it's "Fucking Impossible"
IF uploading is subject to prior review
You are also demanding an end to AC posting, AC...
On the post: Gizmodo: Why Can't YouTube Do 'Good' Content Moderation? Answer: Because It's Fucking Impossible
Re: This is a bad complaint
How so? Is there some way to globally police speech that is going to keep extremists from radicalizing? They already prefer Gab, StormFront and the site formerly known as 8chan over Youtube.
Next >>