I went to state university and later to a world renowned university ('WRU'), so I was able to directly observe the differences.
The state university was easy to get into. They had standards, but it was basically only to keep out people that had zero chance of succeeding. An average high school student could get in and graduate. There were plenty of students that went by default, it was an easier path than looking for a job. Some even stayed in solely for the student discount on football tickets and parties.
The WRU, on the other hand, was extremely selective. You needed near-perfect grades, at least good athletics, and multiple outside activities. And not just five things like "debate club", they needed to be things that took effort and you needed to excel in at least one. Even with that high bar, they had many qualified applicants that went through in-person interviews.
Take these two groups and put them through exactly the same curriculum, facilities and faculty. One will produce mostly world-class scientists, engineers, economists, and professors. And the next generation of high school students will compete to get in, thinking it's so much better.
When it comes to universities, there will eventually be a difference. Endowments, bright students that stay around to be life-long professors, etc. But for a grade school? Sometimes they look good merely because they got lucky years ago with good test scores, and the perception let them be increasingly selective about admitting only better students.
The first that the notice is blustering is in the opening line. When someone say "IP" rather than specifying if a specific copyright, trademark or patent is being infringed, they are probably talking about 'artist rights'. Those are rights not identified in law or precedent, but rather by really, really wishing "there ought to be a law".
They are invoking the copyright and DMCA for an improper purpose -- tracking down leaks and/or enforcing a NDA, rather than enforcing their right to make commercial copies of the entire work. They come right out and admit that they primarily want to identify the person, and taking down the content is strictly incidental.
They presumably are doing that to avoid the issue of fair use. This image may well be fair use -- the point is at least arguable. Normally an anonymous commentator may retain their anonymity through a judicial decision on that point (although they may lose it while determining damages, years later).
The are arguing about the logo, not the 'IPA' acronym.
Which is silly. I can see the rough similarity, but there is no detailed similarity or resulting confusing.
The fonts are large, bold and black. But not at all the same. Lagunitas is styled after a rough stenciling, with support line for internal white space, gaps on the edge and incomplete fill.
This could have been the start of a informal industry practice that helped consumers pick their preferred style with just a glance, much like whole milk having a red cap or metric tools having blue printing. But instead of cooperating to make that happen, they kick each other in the shins.
I see this as circumscribing the Aereo ruling, which is widely viewed as flawed.
After all, "walks like a duck" is a really bad law. Aereo followed the law to the letter, going to absurd lengths to do so. They built thousands of receivers, sitting beside each other duplicating work, to avoid running afoul of an illogical law. Then the USSC rules that their elaborate setup to conform to the law is an indication that they were trying to circumvents the law.
I can see why those records, at least in aggregate, should be available on a device that was issued as a job benefit.
I don't see why the record detail should be public information. If a 'comp'ed EZPass is a issued to commissioners, and there isn't a restriction on its use (e.g. "for official use only" or "only for Port Authority business"), then there isn't a reason to make anything but the total use public information.
From the level of detail revealed, it's clear that whoever was searching the records was looking for dirt to use politically -- which puts this firmly into abuse of privacy.
Redaction failure, or a deliberate act of incompetence?
If you keep lots of secrets, but sometimes see information that shouldn't be quite so secret, you might be less motivated double-check your redaction work for that document.
Back to the relevant question here: how accurate are the numbers?
How many households are considered "served", yet cannot actually get broadband service for just a basic connection fee?
How many are considered "competitively served" yet actually have only a single (or no) provider?
If you can get broadband, but don't want to pay a modest amount extra for a higher speed, you are served. If you have to pay $25K to establish service (the number a friend was quoted), your household is not served.
This is a positive development, but it still doesn't address the problem with accurate counting.
I previously lived in a city where I was 'well served', nominally counted as having three broadband options.
Wireless, but I was on the wrong side of the apartment building to get high speed. And it would have been prohibitively expensive (how fast can you use your 4G data allotment at the maximum rate of "approaching 50Mbps"?).
FiOS, except the whole apartment complex (dozens of buildings, many hundreds of apartments) was wired with old copper pairs with no hope of upgrade. You could get a good pair and get 1.5Mbps, but some were limited to 768Kbps.
And Comcast cable, which could hit high speeds but slowed to a crawl during the evening since the bandwidth was shared with so many users.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Soda Stream.
You can buy these carbonators in many stores, just like any other product. Pay your money anonymously, no sign-up, just like a gallon of milk. They include a cylinder containing liquid carbon dioxide.
But if you read the instructions, they claim that you haven't bought the product. You have licensed the gas cylinder, which remains their property. You aren't permitted to refill it, only exchange it for a full one.
It's not like there is any innovation here. Carbonators have been around for well over a century. Carbon dioxide is a standard product. Gas cylinder refilling has long been widespread.
I view the "you haven't bought this cylinder, only licensed it" as a fraudulent claim. There is no element of leasing the cylinder beyond the naked assertion on the paper. I bought the product outright. I was charged sales tax on the entire purchase price. There was no indication on the receipt or elsewhere that any part was a deposit. I didn't sign an agreement. I didn't provide my name, address, identifying information or anything else customary with a lease. In short, they are pretending that there is law support and enforcing the restrictions that help their business model.
This is low-level, low-volume extortion. I doubt that there will be many popcorn-worthy moments.
Porn trolling had much more going for it: volume, high density in identification, low density in exploitation, the embarrassment factor, every situation was essentially identical, and only bits to gather (no physical evidence).
ADA trolling has none of these features. It requires a physical visit and documentation. Worse, there is wrong type of density. While almost every business likely has at least a trivial violation, there is no efficient way to identify the violations in bulk. And if you do file lawsuits, the physical locality means that they will be assigned to the same judge.
Plus there is no embarrassment factor. A business owner is more likely to get a story written in a local newspaper than pay out over a 1.5" door threshold.
I noticed that 'unlicensed broadcast of studio content' was listed as a low priority.
They consider commercial redistribution as a low priority? That's the single thing on the chart that is clearly a copyright violation.
Presumably it's a low priority exactly because everyone knows that the copying is illegal. Stopping that copying doesn't extend their reach. They can deal with it later, after they have grabbed new powers. In the meantime they can use those losses as proof that they are being harmed.
It seems that most Kickstarter campaigns are sketchy.
Some are outright scams. Some are really just marketing operations, either for a product already made by someone else or for long-established companies that already have easy access to capital.
The rest seem to be "give me money for my sideline hobby/business and I'll send you a T-shirt". Catering and cake baking are typical examples.
Chaney's response might have been carefully considered.
He knew what had happened, and most of the report's contents.
But by refuting that the report was accurate, while claiming not to have read it, he can avoid arguing over specific details or incidents that can be proven. He will be careful to be interviewed only by friendly parties to avoid being pinned down on any specific aspect of the report.
The real take-away is that he is defending rather than distancing himself from the program, and he is trying to President Bush to the decision. From that I conclude that his name is all over the reporting chain, and there is no plausible deniability that can be sustained over the long term. But he does think that President Bush might be able to deny knowledge and doesn't want to risk becoming the scapegoat.
Bringing the second amendment into this is a red herring.
Imagining that, without privately owned guns, the police wouldn't have guns is incorrect. The UK was almost unique in not issuing firearms for routine police work. And that has changed. It's not uncommon to see sidearms routinely carried in some areas.
Did the police have their firearms drawn because they expected to enter a gun battle? Or even expected to use them? Almost certainly not. Exchanging gunfire is rare, and they wouldn't have entered the stairwell without backup if they expected it.
That suggests that they had their guns drawn as a means of intimidation. Not because they expected armed opposition, but because they wanted to "control the situation".
'Control the situation' is a now-common part of police training. And it now extends to all situations, even when no crime is being committed. It goes hand-in-hand with 'respect my authority', and quickly moves to feeling above the laws you are enforcing on the little people.
Wouldn't be ironic if the accused sues for royalties? Copyright maximalists would assert that someone owns the copyright and someone should profit from any publication.
I believe that there is no valid copyright on the images.
The competitive impact isn't the minor overlapping service area. It's the extension of the monopoly and the reduction of valid pricing comparisons.
We know that most U.S. consumers pay far more for internet service than consumers in other well-served countries. This merger will further lock in that high pricing, with no potential competitor able to reach a scale that can challenge the monopoly.
Nielsen makes it's money by estimating viewership of broadcast media.
This was valuable and important because it's otherwise very difficult to know how many people are watching a broadcast.
But with Netflix and similar services, the count of viewing devices is known. Even the type of device is known.
Nielsen's business model is under far more threat from this transition than the broadcasters. Of course it's in their best interest to pretend it doesn't exist when reporting to those that pay them.
On the post: DailyDirt: Sending Your Kid To School
I went to state university and later to a world renowned university ('WRU'), so I was able to directly observe the differences.
The state university was easy to get into. They had standards, but it was basically only to keep out people that had zero chance of succeeding. An average high school student could get in and graduate. There were plenty of students that went by default, it was an easier path than looking for a job. Some even stayed in solely for the student discount on football tickets and parties.
The WRU, on the other hand, was extremely selective. You needed near-perfect grades, at least good athletics, and multiple outside activities. And not just five things like "debate club", they needed to be things that took effort and you needed to excel in at least one. Even with that high bar, they had many qualified applicants that went through in-person interviews.
Take these two groups and put them through exactly the same curriculum, facilities and faculty. One will produce mostly world-class scientists, engineers, economists, and professors. And the next generation of high school students will compete to get in, thinking it's so much better.
When it comes to universities, there will eventually be a difference. Endowments, bright students that stay around to be life-long professors, etc. But for a grade school? Sometimes they look good merely because they got lucky years ago with good test scores, and the perception let them be increasingly selective about admitting only better students.
On the post: There's Something Fishy With Katy Perry's Left Shark 3D Printing Takedown
On the post: Disney So Desperate To Stop Leaks It Subpoenas ImageShack Over Single Blurry Still Image Of New Star Wars
They are invoking the copyright and DMCA for an improper purpose -- tracking down leaks and/or enforcing a NDA, rather than enforcing their right to make commercial copies of the entire work. They come right out and admit that they primarily want to identify the person, and taking down the content is strictly incidental.
They presumably are doing that to avoid the issue of fair use. This image may well be fair use -- the point is at least arguable. Normally an anonymous commentator may retain their anonymity through a judicial decision on that point (although they may lose it while determining damages, years later).
On the post: Florida Legalizes Teen Sexting By Trying To Outlaw Teen Sexting
And it can't be penalized, avoiding most of the damage of the law.
On the post: Lagunitas Drops Trademark Suit Against Sierra Nevada After Public Backlash
Which is silly. I can see the rough similarity, but there is no detailed similarity or resulting confusing.
The fonts are large, bold and black. But not at all the same. Lagunitas is styled after a rough stenciling, with support line for internal white space, gaps on the edge and incomplete fill.
This could have been the start of a informal industry practice that helped consumers pick their preferred style with just a glance, much like whole milk having a red cap or metric tools having blue printing. But instead of cooperating to make that happen, they kick each other in the shins.
On the post: Court Says Dish's Hopper Technology Does Not Infringe On Copyrights
After all, "walks like a duck" is a really bad law. Aereo followed the law to the letter, going to absurd lengths to do so. They built thousands of receivers, sitting beside each other duplicating work, to avoid running afoul of an illogical law. Then the USSC rules that their elaborate setup to conform to the law is an indication that they were trying to circumvents the law.
On the post: Chris Christie, Port Authority Official Abused E-ZPass Data For Their Own Ends
I don't see why the record detail should be public information. If a 'comp'ed EZPass is a issued to commissioners, and there isn't a restriction on its use (e.g. "for official use only" or "only for Port Authority business"), then there isn't a reason to make anything but the total use public information.
From the level of detail revealed, it's clear that whoever was searching the records was looking for dirt to use politically -- which puts this firmly into abuse of privacy.
On the post: Turkey Tells Twitter To Block Turkish Newspaper's Feed; Twitter Plans To Push Back
If you keep lots of secrets, but sometimes see information that shouldn't be quite so secret, you might be less motivated double-check your redaction work for that document.
On the post: FCC To Raise Minimum Broadband Definition To 25 Mbps, Further Highlighting Nation's Pathetic Lack Of Broadband Competition
How many households are considered "served", yet cannot actually get broadband service for just a basic connection fee?
How many are considered "competitively served" yet actually have only a single (or no) provider?
If you can get broadband, but don't want to pay a modest amount extra for a higher speed, you are served. If you have to pay $25K to establish service (the number a friend was quoted), your household is not served.
On the post: FCC To Raise Minimum Broadband Definition To 25 Mbps, Further Highlighting Nation's Pathetic Lack Of Broadband Competition
I previously lived in a city where I was 'well served', nominally counted as having three broadband options.
Wireless, but I was on the wrong side of the apartment building to get high speed. And it would have been prohibitively expensive (how fast can you use your 4G data allotment at the maximum rate of "approaching 50Mbps"?).
FiOS, except the whole apartment complex (dozens of buildings, many hundreds of apartments) was wired with old copper pairs with no hope of upgrade. You could get a good pair and get 1.5Mbps, but some were limited to 768Kbps.
And Comcast cable, which could hit high speeds but slowed to a crawl during the evening since the bandwidth was shared with so many users.
On the post: DRM, Or How To Turn Your Cat's Litter Box Into An Inkjet Printer
You can buy these carbonators in many stores, just like any other product. Pay your money anonymously, no sign-up, just like a gallon of milk. They include a cylinder containing liquid carbon dioxide.
But if you read the instructions, they claim that you haven't bought the product. You have licensed the gas cylinder, which remains their property. You aren't permitted to refill it, only exchange it for a full one.
It's not like there is any innovation here. Carbonators have been around for well over a century. Carbon dioxide is a standard product. Gas cylinder refilling has long been widespread.
I view the "you haven't bought this cylinder, only licensed it" as a fraudulent claim. There is no element of leasing the cylinder beyond the naked assertion on the paper. I bought the product outright. I was charged sales tax on the entire purchase price. There was no indication on the receipt or elsewhere that any part was a deposit. I didn't sign an agreement. I didn't provide my name, address, identifying information or anything else customary with a lease. In short, they are pretending that there is law support and enforcing the restrictions that help their business model.
On the post: John Steele Looking To Join Former Prenda Lawyer Paul Hansmeier In ADA Lawsuit Shakedown Business
Porn trolling had much more going for it: volume, high density in identification, low density in exploitation, the embarrassment factor, every situation was essentially identical, and only bits to gather (no physical evidence).
ADA trolling has none of these features. It requires a physical visit and documentation. Worse, there is wrong type of density. While almost every business likely has at least a trivial violation, there is no efficient way to identify the violations in bulk. And if you do file lawsuits, the physical locality means that they will be assigned to the same judge.
Plus there is no embarrassment factor. A business owner is more likely to get a story written in a local newspaper than pay out over a 1.5" door threshold.
On the post: MPAA Knows It Doesn't Understand SOPA-Style Site Blocking, But Has Decided It's The Answer
They consider commercial redistribution as a low priority? That's the single thing on the chart that is clearly a copyright violation.
Presumably it's a low priority exactly because everyone knows that the copying is illegal. Stopping that copying doesn't extend their reach. They can deal with it later, after they have grabbed new powers. In the meantime they can use those losses as proof that they are being harmed.
On the post: DailyDirt: Avoid Crowdfunding Scams
Some are outright scams. Some are really just marketing operations, either for a product already made by someone else or for long-established companies that already have easy access to capital.
The rest seem to be "give me money for my sideline hobby/business and I'll send you a T-shirt". Catering and cake baking are typical examples.
On the post: Dick Cheney Says CIA Torture Report Is 'Full Of Crap' -- Then Admits He Hasn't Read It
He knew what had happened, and most of the report's contents.
But by refuting that the report was accurate, while claiming not to have read it, he can avoid arguing over specific details or incidents that can be proven. He will be careful to be interviewed only by friendly parties to avoid being pinned down on any specific aspect of the report.
The real take-away is that he is defending rather than distancing himself from the program, and he is trying to President Bush to the decision. From that I conclude that his name is all over the reporting chain, and there is no plausible deniability that can be sustained over the long term. But he does think that President Bush might be able to deny knowledge and doesn't want to risk becoming the scapegoat.
On the post: Cop Accidentally Shoots Man, Ignores Emergency Responder, Other Cops In Order To Text Union Rep
Imagining that, without privately owned guns, the police wouldn't have guns is incorrect. The UK was almost unique in not issuing firearms for routine police work. And that has changed. It's not uncommon to see sidearms routinely carried in some areas.
Did the police have their firearms drawn because they expected to enter a gun battle? Or even expected to use them? Almost certainly not. Exchanging gunfire is rare, and they wouldn't have entered the stairwell without backup if they expected it.
That suggests that they had their guns drawn as a means of intimidation. Not because they expected armed opposition, but because they wanted to "control the situation".
'Control the situation' is a now-common part of police training. And it now extends to all situations, even when no crime is being committed. It goes hand-in-hand with 'respect my authority', and quickly moves to feeling above the laws you are enforcing on the little people.
On the post: Idiot Phone Thief Uploads His Selfies, Plural, To His Victim's iCloud Account
Wouldn't be ironic if the accused sues for royalties?
Copyright maximalists would assert that someone owns the copyright and someone should profit from any publication.
I believe that there is no valid copyright on the images.
On the post: Comcast Accidentally Admits It's Unsure Of The Competitive Impact Of Its Own Merger
We know that most U.S. consumers pay far more for internet service than consumers in other well-served countries. This merger will further lock in that high pricing, with no potential competitor able to reach a scale that can challenge the monopoly.
On the post: Netflix CEO Puts An Expiration Date On Traditional Broadcast Television: 2030
Hmmm, this household's mobile devices 345E all have higher resolution than the best TV.
And the new ones can output mini-HDMI or MHL to the TV if needed. And DLNA, Miracast etc.
On the post: After Calling Cord Cutting 'Purely Fiction' For Years, Nielsen Decides Just Maybe It Should Start Tracking Amazon, Netflix Viewing
This was valuable and important because it's otherwise very difficult to know how many people are watching a broadcast.
But with Netflix and similar services, the count of viewing devices is known. Even the type of device is known.
Nielsen's business model is under far more threat from this transition than the broadcasters. Of course it's in their best interest to pretend it doesn't exist when reporting to those that pay them.
Next >>