You would think that the NFL would realize that this is a losing battle. Let's say they trademark "The Big Game"...well then people would be calling it "The Huge Game" or "The Ultimate Tamale." The NFL is going to have to trademark the entire human language--not just English, but all the others too. And that still won't be enough.
I think the only solution would be a universal tax on language. Say something, write something, and you must pay a fee to the NFL. Do you think they would be happy with that?
I'm confused. You say that Rupert Murdoch was asking for Facebook to give him money, but then I see that he's talking about Facebook giving money to trusted publishers. Wouldn't that be money to anybody but Rupert Murdoch?
Suppose that, instead, the number was 25%. I would think that that would be an indication of a problem. Perhaps that the judges were being unreasonable, or more likely that the police were bringing warrant applications that were deficient.
I expect the police to apply for warrant applications based upon probable cause. They should know what that is, and shouldn't be asking for warrants if they don't have it.
But if the police do have probable cause, it's going to be pretty inevitable that they're going to get a warrant. After all, the judge is not supposed to just deny warrants willy-nilly, either. So should police applications be rejected 5% of the time? 2%? I'm not sure.
Yes, it would bother me if it were 1-in-1000. But 2%? To me that sounds like a well-designed system being used by serious, responsible people.
Look, it's very simple: Having reached an agreement with us, failure on your part to pay us forever is a violation of our intellectual property rights in your money.
The public school system is one of the dreaded socialist programs that Republicans hate so much; eventually it must be destroyed. But in the meantime, as much money as possible should be extracted from the system and directed to private companies or religious schools. Because there is nothing like (often unearned) government money to make investors sing; and nothing like religious private school to give the kiddies a proper indoctrination.
The orange mascot loves the "properly" educated: The people should get an education devoid of any progressive, liberal or "elitist" influences, because any of those might lead them to question the "proper" conservative ideology. Some might view this as "poorly educated," but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
You might want to go and read the story above, since you clearly didn't. What Congress is proposing to pass does not respect your constitutional rights at all, and based on past history the courts will be mute. You declaim that my concept is silly and unconstitutional. But my concept is not different from what the Senators proposed to put into law except that we are shot out of the benefits, if any.
record every US phone call - unconstitutional A. Like that stops them now? B. You know that the courts have held that they can do this for National Security reasons, so all we need to do and say it's for National Security and the courts will shrug.
make those calls available to anyone - this will certainly not be abused There would need to be protections, yes, but do we have those now? And I did say suitable protections, without elaborating, but what I meant was subpoenas and legal process. No more than they can now abuse your journal/diary in court.
Make it mandatory - more power to the power hungry Actually it would reduce their relative power. By mandatory I mean everyone. Donald Trump's calls would be recorded too.
NSA pays a penalty - taxpayers end up with the bill; everyone would know what the rules are - except those who enforce them No worse than now. I agree this is a problem, but you can't say it's a worse problem with the new rules that I proposed than with the rules that exist now.
But not all penalties upon government have to be in the form of money, read on.
say anything illegal - what? Need examples here, like "bomb" in an airport? I worded this badly, better would be: Don't say anything you don't want to hear played back in court. Honestly: would you say such a thing on the phone now? Knowing the NSA is listening? And would pass anything interesting on to the FBI?
very useful in many way - I imagine it would be (eye roll) Right now, it is useful for NSA, FBI, DOJ, etc., and offers us nothing but oppression. At least we would get some benefit if everything was recorded. More below.
restrict our freedom to speak freely - First amendment be damned Worse than now?
it will bring parity - no it wont Parity in the sense of, "Who benefits." Right now, only government and the powerful benefit. The idea is to open the benefits to everyone equally...and also the penalties.
Not just the NSA and FBI either. You've heard that warning, we all have, that, "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes." Companies use it all the time for order placement lines. Now suppose you order something pricy and renege...what are the chances that the company will have a recording of your call placing the order? Oh, right, 100%. And, what's the probability after the company shoved a bunch of services on you that you didn't ask for? Currently, zero; power all theirs, no parity. New world, 100%, parity; you lie, you die, they lie, they die.
No longer will the NSA and the FBI have all the advantages - this is not entirely clear what is intended Clearer now?
Nope, phone calls prove otherwise - certainly fool proof evidence huh Better than no evidence. More importantly, this is another example of parity. Suppose you're charged with a crime, currently, and the NSA happens to have recorded a phone call that proves your innocence. What are the chances that evidence would be available to you in court, currently? Zip, right? Because, currently, NSA, FBI and DOJ would neglect to mention that there's a recording of the call and too bad for you. (We don't have to guess on this, we have seen examples, right here on this site, of these agencies concealing evidence.)
In the new regime, the call would certainly be relevant, so you would get a subpoena for it. No matter how bad it is for their case, the agencies could not hide it. Oh I suppose the NSA could claim they didn't record it, but then penalty. And not all penalties have to be monetary, one that comes to mind for this situation is, "Case dismissed."
I'm going to revive a suggestion I made once before.
Let's demand the Congress order NSA and the intelligence community to record every US phone call in its entirety, and then make those calls available to anyone with suitable legal process. (Email and instant messages as well.)
Make it mandatory. No more excuses from the NSA that, well we just didn't happen to record that call. Didn't record the call? NSA pays a penalty. No question whether NSA is recording everything, it's their job.
Why? Several reasons. First of all, everyone would know what the rules are. Your phone is being recorded, if you say anything illegal, it will be known. You have a relationship with an old girlfriend, it will be known. You are a senator making deals under the table, it will be known.
It should be very useful in many ways even if it does somewhat restrict our freedom to speak freely. But anyone with a brain is already restricted, because only an idiot thinks the NSA isn't already recording everything they say...and won't hand anything interesting to the FBI under the table.
Most importantly, it will bring parity. No longer will the NSA and the FBI have all the advantages. You work across town in the bar at the time of the murder? No doubt about it, it's a matter of the record; location of your phone and the background of the call you made. Question of you doing drug, or terrorism, deals by phone? Nope, phone calls prove otherwise. FBI setting you up? If you can make a prima facie case, then you can pull the agent's phone calls and prove it. Company lied about what services you ordered? No doubt about it now.
NSA is so bound and determined to record everything that they feel like recording? Let's make them turn it into a service for everyone. No more gleeful snooping, turn it into the drudge job they deserve.
Some people think United States management is a magic prophylactic against Chinese spyware. This includes US intelligence agencies, which aren't...intelligent.
Just understand that this is really about protectionism, in the form of trade barriers. It's the incumbent big US corporations using big daddy government to keep out a new competitor.
Re: Re: "Huawei has helped Google build its own smartphones"; not unfounded suspicions, then.
Are you accusing Techdirt of hypocrisy? Yelling, "There's no PROOF Trump did anything wrong, so STFU!" Well, let me tell you, we might not have found the fire yet, but there's a LOT of smoke.
But, like most of the Trump Defenders® crowd, I'm betting it wasn't that long ago that you were screaming, "Who gives a f### about PROOF? Eviscerate Hillary!
Maybe you're not a member. But you sound like a member, the membership is hypocritical, and members who live in glass Houses should not throw stones.
I think it is time to give this Six Degrees of Separation thing a trial. All the admins make everyone they know an admin and let's see if we can get the whole planet signed up.
Can admins demote other admins? If they can, then bonus points if we can lock all of the proper admins out.
I'm sure that whether or not the changes are subtle depends on who's doing the looking. For example, no matter how obvious, they will be far to subtle for Pai to notice.
On the post: Leaked Trump Plan To 'Nationalize' Nation's 5G Networks A Bizarre, Unrealistic Pipe Dream
Who will actually build it?
Pretty sure it won't be US contractors.
On the post: The NFL Pretending Trademark Law Says Something It Doesn't Leads To Hilariously Amateurish Ads For 'The Big Game'
Re: Re: Universal tax on language
On the post: The NFL Pretending Trademark Law Says Something It Doesn't Leads To Hilariously Amateurish Ads For 'The Big Game'
Universal tax on language
I think the only solution would be a universal tax on language. Say something, write something, and you must pay a fee to the NFL. Do you think they would be happy with that?
On the post: Rupert Murdoch Admits, Once Again, He Can't Make Money Online -- Begs Facebook To Just Give Him Money
On the post: Disrupting The Fourth Amendment: Half Of Law Enforcement E-Warrants Approved In 10 Minutes Or Less
Define "bad"
Suppose that, instead, the number was 25%. I would think that that would be an indication of a problem. Perhaps that the judges were being unreasonable, or more likely that the police were bringing warrant applications that were deficient.
I expect the police to apply for warrant applications based upon probable cause. They should know what that is, and shouldn't be asking for warrants if they don't have it.
But if the police do have probable cause, it's going to be pretty inevitable that they're going to get a warrant. After all, the judge is not supposed to just deny warrants willy-nilly, either. So should police applications be rejected 5% of the time? 2%? I'm not sure.
Yes, it would bother me if it were 1-in-1000. But 2%? To me that sounds like a well-designed system being used by serious, responsible people.
On the post: Report Shows US Law Enforcement Routinely Engages In Parallel Construction
Re: In other reports...
Everyone wants the Constitution destroyed in some way when it serves their politics.
Well, great, glad to know that. You destroy the Constitution your way and I'll destroy it my way and we're both good with that, right?
On the post: NSA Admits It Has AGAIN Been Deleting Evidence Needed In Long-Running Surveillance Lawsuit
To infinity and beyond
Judge: "You guys are pressing the limits of my judicial patience. But I will overlook it this time."
NSA: "Oops!'
Judge: "You guys are pressing the limits of my judicial patience. But I will overlook it this time."
NSA: "Oops!'
Judge: "You guys are pressing the limits of my judicial patience. But I will overlook it this time."
NSA: "Oops!'
Judge: "You guys are pressing the limits of my judicial patience. But I will overlook it this time."
NSA: "Oops!'
Judge: "You guys are pressing the limits of my judicial patience. But I will overlook it this time."
To infinity and beyond...
On the post: It Kind Of Looks Like Crytek Sued Star Citizen Developer By Pretending Its Engine License Says Something It Doesn't
Re:
On the post: Iowa State's Attempt To Violate Its Students First Amendment Rights To Cost State Nearly $400k In Damages
Re: Re: Re:
The orange mascot loves the "properly" educated: The people should get an education devoid of any progressive, liberal or "elitist" influences, because any of those might lead them to question the "proper" conservative ideology. Some might view this as "poorly educated," but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
On the post: Senate To Vote Tuesday On Surveillance Bill; Four Senators Try To Rally Others To Oppose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A service for everyone
On the post: Senate To Vote Tuesday On Surveillance Bill; Four Senators Try To Rally Others To Oppose
Re: Re: Re: Re: A service for everyone
record every US phone call - unconstitutional A. Like that stops them now? B. You know that the courts have held that they can do this for National Security reasons, so all we need to do and say it's for National Security and the courts will shrug.
make those calls available to anyone - this will certainly not be abused There would need to be protections, yes, but do we have those now? And I did say suitable protections, without elaborating, but what I meant was subpoenas and legal process. No more than they can now abuse your journal/diary in court.
Make it mandatory - more power to the power hungry Actually it would reduce their relative power. By mandatory I mean everyone. Donald Trump's calls would be recorded too.
NSA pays a penalty - taxpayers end up with the bill; everyone would know what the rules are - except those who enforce them No worse than now. I agree this is a problem, but you can't say it's a worse problem with the new rules that I proposed than with the rules that exist now.
But not all penalties upon government have to be in the form of money, read on.
say anything illegal - what? Need examples here, like "bomb" in an airport? I worded this badly, better would be: Don't say anything you don't want to hear played back in court. Honestly: would you say such a thing on the phone now? Knowing the NSA is listening? And would pass anything interesting on to the FBI?
very useful in many way - I imagine it would be (eye roll) Right now, it is useful for NSA, FBI, DOJ, etc., and offers us nothing but oppression. At least we would get some benefit if everything was recorded. More below.
restrict our freedom to speak freely - First amendment be damned Worse than now?
it will bring parity - no it wont Parity in the sense of, "Who benefits." Right now, only government and the powerful benefit. The idea is to open the benefits to everyone equally...and also the penalties.
Not just the NSA and FBI either. You've heard that warning, we all have, that, "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes." Companies use it all the time for order placement lines. Now suppose you order something pricy and renege...what are the chances that the company will have a recording of your call placing the order? Oh, right, 100%. And, what's the probability after the company shoved a bunch of services on you that you didn't ask for? Currently, zero; power all theirs, no parity. New world, 100%, parity; you lie, you die, they lie, they die.
No longer will the NSA and the FBI have all the advantages - this is not entirely clear what is intended Clearer now?
Nope, phone calls prove otherwise - certainly fool proof evidence huh Better than no evidence. More importantly, this is another example of parity. Suppose you're charged with a crime, currently, and the NSA happens to have recorded a phone call that proves your innocence. What are the chances that evidence would be available to you in court, currently? Zip, right? Because, currently, NSA, FBI and DOJ would neglect to mention that there's a recording of the call and too bad for you. (We don't have to guess on this, we have seen examples, right here on this site, of these agencies concealing evidence.)
In the new regime, the call would certainly be relevant, so you would get a subpoena for it. No matter how bad it is for their case, the agencies could not hide it. Oh I suppose the NSA could claim they didn't record it, but then penalty. And not all penalties have to be monetary, one that comes to mind for this situation is, "Case dismissed."
On the post: Senate To Vote Tuesday On Surveillance Bill; Four Senators Try To Rally Others To Oppose
A service for everyone
Let's demand the Congress order NSA and the intelligence community to record every US phone call in its entirety, and then make those calls available to anyone with suitable legal process. (Email and instant messages as well.)
Make it mandatory. No more excuses from the NSA that, well we just didn't happen to record that call. Didn't record the call? NSA pays a penalty. No question whether NSA is recording everything, it's their job.
Why? Several reasons. First of all, everyone would know what the rules are. Your phone is being recorded, if you say anything illegal, it will be known. You have a relationship with an old girlfriend, it will be known. You are a senator making deals under the table, it will be known.
It should be very useful in many ways even if it does somewhat restrict our freedom to speak freely. But anyone with a brain is already restricted, because only an idiot thinks the NSA isn't already recording everything they say...and won't hand anything interesting to the FBI under the table.
Most importantly, it will bring parity. No longer will the NSA and the FBI have all the advantages. You work across town in the bar at the time of the murder? No doubt about it, it's a matter of the record; location of your phone and the background of the call you made. Question of you doing drug, or terrorism, deals by phone? Nope, phone calls prove otherwise. FBI setting you up? If you can make a prima facie case, then you can pull the agent's phone calls and prove it. Company lied about what services you ordered? No doubt about it now.
NSA is so bound and determined to record everything that they feel like recording? Let's make them turn it into a service for everyone. No more gleeful snooping, turn it into the drudge job they deserve.
On the post: AT&T, Huawei Phone Partnership Killed At Last Second By More Unproven Accusations Of Huawei Spying
Re: im not the sharpest
Just understand that this is really about protectionism, in the form of trade barriers. It's the incumbent big US corporations using big daddy government to keep out a new competitor.
That promotes a lot of dumb.
On the post: AT&T, Huawei Phone Partnership Killed At Last Second By More Unproven Accusations Of Huawei Spying
Re: Re: "Huawei has helped Google build its own smartphones"; not unfounded suspicions, then.
Are you accusing Techdirt of hypocrisy? Yelling, "There's no PROOF Trump did anything wrong, so STFU!" Well, let me tell you, we might not have found the fire yet, but there's a LOT of smoke.
But, like most of the Trump Defenders® crowd, I'm betting it wasn't that long ago that you were screaming, "Who gives a f### about PROOF? Eviscerate Hillary!
Maybe you're not a member. But you sound like a member, the membership is hypocritical, and members who live in glass Houses should not throw stones.
On the post: AT&T, Huawei Phone Partnership Killed At Last Second By More Unproven Accusations Of Huawei Spying
Re: Re: Re: "Huawei has helped Google build its own smartphones"; not unfounded suspicions, then.
On the post: The Other Side: Phoenix Comicon Proactively Changes Names To Avoid San Diego Comic-Con Bully
Reborn from the...sky is falling?
On the post: Want Anybody's Personal Details From Aadhaar, India's Billion-Person Identity Database? Yours For $8
Six Degrees of Separation
I think it is time to give this Six Degrees of Separation thing a trial. All the admins make everyone they know an admin and let's see if we can get the whole planet signed up.
Can admins demote other admins? If they can, then bonus points if we can lock all of the proper admins out.
On the post: Really Bad Ideas: French President Macron Wants To Ban 'Fake News' During The Election
Re:
The effective definition would be, "News that the establishment doesn't agree with." If that sounds kind of like scary censorship, well there you go.
On the post: White Noise On YouTube Gets FIVE Separate Copyright Claims From Other White Noise Providers
Silent infringement
It's a good thing he didn't upload 10 hours of silence. They would have got him for infringing 4'33", like, 132 times.
On the post: No, The Death Of Net Neutrality Will Not Be Subtle
Who's looking?
Next >>