Strange how people can look at the same facts and see very different things.
No, not strange in the least - that's the very definition of our adversarial system of justice.
But here's the rub.... I read the complaint, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one laughing, almost to tears, at what the complaint alleges is covered by a patent. "That is only a 33% utilization of storage capacity". (A direct quote.) As if this guy had ever even spelled "data manager", let alone had been employed as one.
I mean, can you honestly look your boss in the face after a data corruption disaster and tell him/her that "No, I didn't save any further back than one iteration, that'd be a waste of disk space." Even PHB's know about Grandfather-Father-Son backup schemes. And that's because they know their collective asses are on the line, should an "event" occur that would affect the bottom line in a not-so-desirable way.
"Your Honor, sir, my wi-fi connection to the internet is locked down the way a bunch of websites tell me I should do it, so it should be secure against intrusion. At least, that's what they tell me on the "techie" sites. But recently Amazon opted me into a mesh network, and I don't know how anyone could've accessed my router, and thus my internet connection, except via that new mesh thingie. That means it could've been any one of my 4 dozen neighbors, and I certainly don't have the knowledge to figure out who it might've been, but I can guarantee that it wasn't me who downloaded that porn!"
Damn, this particular thread is starting to sound more and more like Rollerball, the 1975 version. (Although I can't deny that Rebecca Romijn sure added some "spice" to the remake.)
... because it serves mobile users who expect the service to be available wherever they happen to go....
Which is why fixed service has effectively dried up and blown away. It's that very concept of convenience (no matter where a person is in geographical relation to the planet) that fixed can't provide, thus.... QED.
... and that has prevented local monopolies in the provision of mobile service..
Perhaps you aren't aware of who owns who in the Mobile Telecomm field, eh? Hint: only three (big) companies are in play, and they own absolutely all of the little guys - sometimes openly, sometimes not. Rest assured, they're all in cahoots when it comes to acting like competitors, but in reality they exhibit every characteristic of an oligarchy. (Meaning in this case, a few very rich companies are putting on a good show for the public, and laughing up their collective sleeve all the way to the bank.)
... any ISP (or phone company) that can get a fibre link in to the hub.
And therein lays the rub. It's the "getting permission" to lay the fibre (or whatever) that flies in the face of both logic and common good sense. Any such efforts as yours would have to include a rule that says no matter who originally put up a pole or who dug a trench, any and all other utilities can use that facility without having to jump through bullshit hoops. (Said utility being private, public, a co-op or what have you.) Details such as safety requirements, liability insurance, etc. are just that - details, and I have no fear that they can be worked out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
I can't be sure that you're the same AC as my response was directed towards, but for the record, I'll quote again:
Just ask cable companies about the equal opportunity act that has been in effect since the 1930s.
In that sentence, I see the phrases "cable companies" and "equal opportunity" with only two words between them, and no commas. Just above me, Bluegrass Geek has correctly named the policy you were reaching for, but I took the "opportunity" to jab my spear at cable companies screwing their customers, almost since Day 1 of their collective existence.
And for the record... I do wish that the Fairness doctrine could be enshrined in law, but for the life of me, the Supremes (of 1987) were correct - it was an overreach of the FCC to impose such a regimen on broadcasters, even in the name of public service. In short, it flew in the face of 1A, a situation we're seeing all over again today, but with the substitution of "social media" for "broadcasters".
And finally, you have one more problem with your pleading - the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable companies. It was intended for broadcasters in the literal sense, i.e. those who sent out signals Over The Air for free, the source of those signals being remunerated by advertising. When cable companies started, they were on a subscription model - the viewer paid out of his/her pocket. (And advertising was supposed to be unnecessary. HAH! That didn't last long, did it.) The difference is (or so the thinking went at the time), broadcasters aren't so all encompassing in their reach, either geographically or politically speaking. But cable companies could definitely reach across the country, or even across the planet. So, since an OTA viewer can only be exposed to viewpoints of local broadcasters, they were "locked in", which is what gave rise to the Fairness Doctrine. For cable companies, a viewer could pick and choose what he or she liked, so they could easily find stations tailored to their desires - local lock-in was not an issue, insofar as the FCC was concerned.
Re: Re: Maybe tampering with the voting machines was the whole i
Wouldn't it be a real gas if Dominion and the rest of that crew simply refused to sell any machines to AZ, Georgia, et al?
"Why should we let ourselves in for yet another round of turd hurlers besmirching our good name, thanks to your bumbling and inept handling of election materials? Sorry, but we'd rather be associated with honest folks who can not only see reality, but accept it as well. Thank you for understanding our position on this matter."
Re: Would it be cheaper to buy a theme park than pay the legal f
It may not be cheaper, but it would sure be the best snark ever if T and Fb were to buy all of the theme parks, and then close them down. Now who has to toe the line?
Re: You know, kids, IF the tide reverses, YOU will be targets!
... not even YOU, Maz, just another kibitzer.
Oh! I truly did not know that Congress invited kibitzers to testify on matters such as these at bar!
That causes me to wonder though, just how many readers here have been requested/summoned to testify at a hearing before any Congressional committee or sub-committee.... Perhaps you, 100 percenter, have you had the opportunity to speak, in public, in front of several Congress persons at the same time, mmmmmmm?
Just ask cable companies about the equal opportunity act that has been in effect since the 1930s.
Equal opportunity to do what.... screw over the citizenry with their monopolistic power?
And for the record, cable companies didn't come into existence until 1950. Look it up. (Two of them, on opposite sides of the country. Timelines seem to be in disagreement as to the exact dates, but 1950 is the agreed-upon Year 1 for the cable industry.)
Screw Apple and Microsoft, just look at Amazon, one of the earliest in the game. Hell, they even got a patent in 1999 covering pretty much this same thing, and it has even stood up in court. This one's on the USPTO, they failed to look at prior art even though it was only a few years old, before issuing the ersatz patent to Landmark.
Bob Ferguson has a history of upholding WA state's Consumer Protection Act. I think he's going to have a walk in the park when he shows the court a history of using said court as an ATM, even if the court didn't know it was being used as a bludgeon the great majority of the time. Basically, he's going to stand in for the thousands of little guys that don't have the money to defend themselves individually, but do pay taxes for things like this - to have the government stand up for the little guy.
And forgive my memory going South, but didn't the USSC dictate fairly clearly in Alice that just adding the words "do it on a computer" to a standard business practice, such as a retail financial transaction, doesn't automatically confer the protection of a new patent? Or am I daft (as usual)?
..... so of course no politician cares, maybe we should remind them that no matter how much is donated to them we can still vote them out.
I don't think that's quite how it works. Do recall that people like McConnell, Jordan, Nunes, et al, keep getting re-elected, despite making themselves the butt of oh-so-many late-night talk show host jokes. These are the people who prove the old adage There ain't no such thing as bad publicity.
I see a lot of wee-wee'ing going on here, but I'd prefer one or more proposed solutions. My suggestions:
In the vein I usually mine, I look for the loopholes and such. First option: Don't send any traffic to the island. They aren't any kind of sizable player in the planet's overall traffic schema, so set every switch (non-nerds should think "big boy routers" here) to avoid sending any and all traffic to Mauritius. The answer to their outrage: "Oops, sorry Mr. Gubbermint Man, but it's damnably difficult to separate out your government communications from those of the ordinary citizens of your country. We just figured that if you want them to be cut off, you meant for us to cut of the whole country!"
Next option: Flood the country's incoming servers. Literally, DDOS them with absolutely everything that comes on to the wire (I mean, the entire internet), no matter what the protocol or where it originated. I'll lay long odds that they won't last an hour before they wave the white flag.
And finally, my personal favorite: open up every communication inward bound to M., and insert the goatse image... you know what I mean. That should show them what the rest of the world thinks of them, no?
Indeed. I'm thinking that we spent more than half a century getting out from under J. Edgar's proclivity to use the FBI (the forerunner of today's DOJ) as his personal weapon against all enemies, perceived or real. It took #45 only 15 minutes or so to basically push the Reset button, setting us all back 50 or 60 years. Hoover himself must be cackling up a storm.
On the post: Now That Amazon Has Bought MGM, Will It Turn Against The Internet?
Re: Re: Re:ot
No, not strange in the least - that's the very definition of our adversarial system of justice.
But here's the rub.... I read the complaint, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one laughing, almost to tears, at what the complaint alleges is covered by a patent. "That is only a 33% utilization of storage capacity". (A direct quote.) As if this guy had ever even spelled "data manager", let alone had been employed as one.
I mean, can you honestly look your boss in the face after a data corruption disaster and tell him/her that "No, I didn't save any further back than one iteration, that'd be a waste of disk space." Even PHB's know about Grandfather-Father-Son backup schemes. And that's because they know their collective asses are on the line, should an "event" occur that would affect the bottom line in a not-so-desirable way.
On the post: Trump Bans Himself From His Own Blog; Upset That Everyone Mocked Its Terrible Traffic
< ... just to make him look foolish.
You can't be serious, implying that he needs help in that regard....
That was the entire point of TFA - he did just admit that very thing, by shutting down the site.
As Frank Zappa would've said: "Well, that's a few million electrons that don't have to be embarrassed by the message they're carrying."
On the post: Amazon's Idea For A Mesh Network Is Cool; Its Method Of Rolling It Out Is Not
Re:
I think it gets even better than that....
"Your Honor, sir, my wi-fi connection to the internet is locked down the way a bunch of websites tell me I should do it, so it should be secure against intrusion. At least, that's what they tell me on the "techie" sites. But recently Amazon opted me into a mesh network, and I don't know how anyone could've accessed my router, and thus my internet connection, except via that new mesh thingie. That means it could've been any one of my 4 dozen neighbors, and I certainly don't have the knowledge to figure out who it might've been, but I can guarantee that it wasn't me who downloaded that porn!"
On the post: Experts Fear Biden Broadband Plan Won't Fix The Real Problem: Monopolization
Re: Re:
Damn, this particular thread is starting to sound more and more like Rollerball, the 1975 version. (Although I can't deny that Rebecca Romijn sure added some "spice" to the remake.)
On the post: Experts Fear Biden Broadband Plan Won't Fix The Real Problem: Monopolization
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Voted most funny of the week!
Which is why fixed service has effectively dried up and blown away. It's that very concept of convenience (no matter where a person is in geographical relation to the planet) that fixed can't provide, thus.... QED.
Perhaps you aren't aware of who owns who in the Mobile Telecomm field, eh? Hint: only three (big) companies are in play, and they own absolutely all of the little guys - sometimes openly, sometimes not. Rest assured, they're all in cahoots when it comes to acting like competitors, but in reality they exhibit every characteristic of an oligarchy. (Meaning in this case, a few very rich companies are putting on a good show for the public, and laughing up their collective sleeve all the way to the bank.)
On the post: Experts Fear Biden Broadband Plan Won't Fix The Real Problem: Monopolization
Re:
And therein lays the rub. It's the "getting permission" to lay the fibre (or whatever) that flies in the face of both logic and common good sense. Any such efforts as yours would have to include a rule that says no matter who originally put up a pole or who dug a trench, any and all other utilities can use that facility without having to jump through bullshit hoops. (Said utility being private, public, a co-op or what have you.) Details such as safety requirements, liability insurance, etc. are just that - details, and I have no fear that they can be worked out.
On the post: Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
I can't be sure that you're the same AC as my response was directed towards, but for the record, I'll quote again:
In that sentence, I see the phrases "cable companies" and "equal opportunity" with only two words between them, and no commas. Just above me, Bluegrass Geek has correctly named the policy you were reaching for, but I took the "opportunity" to jab my spear at cable companies screwing their customers, almost since Day 1 of their collective existence.
And for the record... I do wish that the Fairness doctrine could be enshrined in law, but for the life of me, the Supremes (of 1987) were correct - it was an overreach of the FCC to impose such a regimen on broadcasters, even in the name of public service. In short, it flew in the face of 1A, a situation we're seeing all over again today, but with the substitution of "social media" for "broadcasters".
And finally, you have one more problem with your pleading - the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable companies. It was intended for broadcasters in the literal sense, i.e. those who sent out signals Over The Air for free, the source of those signals being remunerated by advertising. When cable companies started, they were on a subscription model - the viewer paid out of his/her pocket. (And advertising was supposed to be unnecessary. HAH! That didn't last long, did it.) The difference is (or so the thinking went at the time), broadcasters aren't so all encompassing in their reach, either geographically or politically speaking. But cable companies could definitely reach across the country, or even across the planet. So, since an OTA viewer can only be exposed to viewpoints of local broadcasters, they were "locked in", which is what gave rise to the Fairness Doctrine. For cable companies, a viewer could pick and choose what he or she liked, so they could easily find stations tailored to their desires - local lock-in was not an issue, insofar as the FCC was concerned.
On the post: Arizona County's Voting Machines Rendered Unusable By OAN-Financed Vote Auditors
Re: Re: Maybe tampering with the voting machines was the whole i
Wouldn't it be a real gas if Dominion and the rest of that crew simply refused to sell any machines to AZ, Georgia, et al?
On the post: Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock
Re: Communist
Because he's looking through #45's rose-colored glass belly button, and it's distorting his vision. Something fierce, I might add.
On the post: Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock
Re: Would it be cheaper to buy a theme park than pay the legal f
It may not be cheaper, but it would sure be the best snark ever if T and Fb were to buy all of the theme parks, and then close them down. Now who has to toe the line?
On the post: Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock
Re: You know, kids, IF the tide reverses, YOU will be targets!
Oh! I truly did not know that Congress invited kibitzers to testify on matters such as these at bar!
That causes me to wonder though, just how many readers here have been requested/summoned to testify at a hearing before any Congressional committee or sub-committee.... Perhaps you, 100 percenter, have you had the opportunity to speak, in public, in front of several Congress persons at the same time, mmmmmmm?
On the post: Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock
Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Equal opportunity to do what.... screw over the citizenry with their monopolistic power?
And for the record, cable companies didn't come into existence until 1950. Look it up. (Two of them, on opposite sides of the country. Timelines seem to be in disagreement as to the exact dates, but 1950 is the agreed-upon Year 1 for the cable industry.)
On the post: Washington State Has Sued A Patent Troll For Violating Consumer Protection Laws
Re:
Screw Apple and Microsoft, just look at Amazon, one of the earliest in the game. Hell, they even got a patent in 1999 covering pretty much this same thing, and it has even stood up in court. This one's on the USPTO, they failed to look at prior art even though it was only a few years old, before issuing the ersatz patent to Landmark.
On the post: Washington State Has Sued A Patent Troll For Violating Consumer Protection Laws
Re:
Bob Ferguson has a history of upholding WA state's Consumer Protection Act. I think he's going to have a walk in the park when he shows the court a history of using said court as an ATM, even if the court didn't know it was being used as a bludgeon the great majority of the time. Basically, he's going to stand in for the thousands of little guys that don't have the money to defend themselves individually, but do pay taxes for things like this - to have the government stand up for the little guy.
And forgive my memory going South, but didn't the USSC dictate fairly clearly in Alice that just adding the words "do it on a computer" to a standard business practice, such as a retail financial transaction, doesn't automatically confer the protection of a new patent? Or am I daft (as usual)?
On the post: Washington State Has Sued A Patent Troll For Violating Consumer Protection Laws
Re:
I don't think that's quite how it works. Do recall that people like McConnell, Jordan, Nunes, et al, keep getting re-elected, despite making themselves the butt of oh-so-many late-night talk show host jokes. These are the people who prove the old adage There ain't no such thing as bad publicity.
On the post: US Telecoms Keep Getting Wrist Slaps For Repeatedly Ripping Off The US Government
Re:
Nice bit of sarcasm you wrote there..... be a shame if something happened to it.
On the post: Mozilla, Google Ask Mauritius Gov't To Abandon Its Plan To Intercept, Decrypt All Social Media Traffic Originating In The Country
I see a lot of wee-wee'ing going on here, but I'd prefer one or more proposed solutions. My suggestions:
In the vein I usually mine, I look for the loopholes and such. First option: Don't send any traffic to the island. They aren't any kind of sizable player in the planet's overall traffic schema, so set every switch (non-nerds should think "big boy routers" here) to avoid sending any and all traffic to Mauritius. The answer to their outrage: "Oops, sorry Mr. Gubbermint Man, but it's damnably difficult to separate out your government communications from those of the ordinary citizens of your country. We just figured that if you want them to be cut off, you meant for us to cut of the whole country!"
Next option: Flood the country's incoming servers. Literally, DDOS them with absolutely everything that comes on to the wire (I mean, the entire internet), no matter what the protocol or where it originated. I'll lay long odds that they won't last an hour before they wave the white flag.
And finally, my personal favorite: open up every communication inward bound to M., and insert the goatse image... you know what I mean. That should show them what the rest of the world thinks of them, no?
On the post: Smart TV Makers Will Soon Make More Money Off Your Viewing Habits Than The TV Itself
Re: Re: Re: Modern problems require modern solutions
Jack Shitt. I'm told he's an extremely well-known personality these days.
On the post: DOJ Sent A Grand Jury Subpoena To Twitter Demanding The Unmasking Of A Twitter User Being Sued By Devin Nunes
Re:
Indeed. I'm thinking that we spent more than half a century getting out from under J. Edgar's proclivity to use the FBI (the forerunner of today's DOJ) as his personal weapon against all enemies, perceived or real. It took #45 only 15 minutes or so to basically push the Reset button, setting us all back 50 or 60 years. Hoover himself must be cackling up a storm.
On the post: DOJ Sent A Grand Jury Subpoena To Twitter Demanding The Unmasking Of A Twitter User Being Sued By Devin Nunes
Re: Re: Re: Umm.
The cows are smarter - they moved to Iowa, just to get away from his, errr.... bullshit. (Sorry!)
Next >>