I question your assumption of transformativeness. It is a Metroid game, using art that represents derivative works of the Metroid franchise, that functions with the same core game play and the same general plot. While AM2R made significant changes to the flow and reworked some map elements, as well as adding a few pieces of connective tissue providing added value, it doesn't largely add new expression or meaning, and given the large amount of infringement core to AM2R, that factor is unlikely to weigh in favor of fair use.
So, assuming I have read your detail lite commentary about some deep protocol questions correctly, you are suggesting the end of FTP, torrent, magnet, and other communications protocols to entirely functioning on HTTP, based on a move to DNS over HTTPS.
Could you expand on why you think this is the case, such as how this move helps HTTP finally supplant the less popular but still in use protocols like FTP, or how this move helps HTTP replicate torrent and magnet protocols?
Proof by Contradiction is more than just a contradiction. It is a series of statements to establish a proposition as true or valid by starting with an assumption that the proposition is incorrect to show that if the proposition is incorrect a contradiction occurs thereby proving that premise A is actually true.
But proof by contradiction requires that you establish the premise you assume is incorrect, and then formally prove the contradiction must occur. Just claiming a contradiction does not establish a proof by contradiction.
Re: So have I, Timmy! - "given Techdirt some shit for our stance
And how many different 'ONE host's have made wildly wrong decisions because the incentive structure built into the law encourages censorship and casting a wide net? Hint: the number is more than one.
And this of course ignores the role of Newsstands, which used the Cover headlines and images to drive sales of periodicals. I'd really hope the similarity is obvious.
The core of the ruling is that there is no one definition of Hate group, and therefore calling some group a hate group is generally a position of opinion that can not be defemation.
It is the same logic that prevents any one person from having the title 'Strongest man in the world' - Some People consider endurance, some people consider burst capability, ect.
It is also the same logic that lost Shiva Ayyadurai his suit against Techdirt - the only question in the suit was a question of the definition of email.
If you can't define "Hate Group", you can't prove something is or isn't a hate group, and therefore the designation is not one of fact. And so, as Stone said, calling the SPLC a hate group is no more defamation than calling coral ridge defamation.
Re: Re: It is impossible to define impossible when it is possibl
Reexamining the laws dictating the judge's course here for constitutionality is only an avenue available to the Supreme Court.
Not true. Any court could examine a fresh law and find it unconstitutional. They are bound by previous decisions made by courts of higher authority.
But none of that matters as the state secrets doctrine in the US is not a law, but a judicially recognized power of the executive. The issue is that only the SCOTUS can re-examine SCOTUS decisions which established the boundaries of state secrets. The lower courts have been unwilling to challenge state secrets claims at any level, and only a strong precedent from the SCOTUS is likely to give judges any willingness to challenge them in the future.
More on point, if these talking points are about getting out the truth, why is there any issue with democrats having them? Its not like they have any obvious contradictions or lies in them, right?
There are some fun contradictions in those talking points. My favorite is that a second hand account (I'd assume they have just informed the public that the whistle blower read a transcript) of a phone call can't possibly provide sufficient information, after releasing a "non-verbatim" transcript of that phone call as proof that nothing untoward happened.
Re: Re: The Trump "Whistleblower" Situation Is Very Da
You mean The "non-verbaitim" transcript from an administration known for hiding inappropriate information when performing transcription that exposes that Trump is unaware of the private ownership of the American company Crowdstrike and then, while peddling a conspiracy theory to a foreign head of state, exposes that trump is only tangentally aware of how the Mueller investigation started and isn't aware of even the limited public knowledge of how foreign intelligence works?
You appear unaware of white nationalist rhetoric, somewhat strange given the president brought this rhetoric back into the national discourse less than 90 days ago.
White nationalist rhetoric, when they are trying to hide their racism, is to suggest that their opponents should go elsewhere. "Don't like it, just leave" was literally a KKK slogan they put on billboards. Trump's campaign was built on changing things he didn't like to MAGA, referencing an ambiguous past time in which civil liberties for minorities are almost certainly curtailed, but has revived the KKK slogan against his minority critics and then applied it more generally. I won't go into the history of racism in this language, it very much is.
Your commentary also suggests a failure to understand the history of nationalist and ethno nationalist movements and how they define the in group. When these movements need to build power, they open up the in group, for instance allowing in the Irish and Italian immigrants they had previously shunned. They will accept collaborators from the out group - particularly if it allows them to deflect criticism. But as they gain power they restrict the in group to ensure the power isn't diluted. They define 'nationality' or 'ethnicity' in far more restrictive ways. (I.E. how the Irish weren't considered white when famine lead to mass immigration)
The statement that someone who wants the "liberals" to go away made in response to a perceived "liberal" pushing for change while not in power holds deep historical racist connotations (Racism here referencing both ethnic and religious prejudices). But stating that the end goal of that statement is a white ethnostate is not claiming that there are no non-minority conservatives, only in recognition that having excluded "liberals" from the country, those conservatives who sought to exclude will need a new outgroup if they are to keep the reigns of power, and that given the demographics and racist undertones of the language used, conservative minorities (like socially conservative arabs) are likely the next targets of such language.
What you fail to understand is that another fundamental human right comes into play, the right to be secure in your person. The creation of child pornography inflicts well-documented lasting harms on the child. This has lead to a balancing of the fundamental right of expression of the pornographer with the fundamental right right of security of the Person. Posession is a different barrel of fish, and doesn't impact a discussion of the first amendment.
Mike might call it a different name, but I would expect that if pressed Mike would agree that a "balancing" is occuring due to a conflict of fundamental rights, as opposed to balancing a fundamental right against a non fundamental one.
Re: SO Techdirt is now agreeing that Chinese hardware is corrupt
Techdirt appears to be agreeing that the hardware in question has been determined by a third-party security firm to be highly vulnerable to general hacking. This is shown by them citing a blog post from Refirm Labs wherein the author details the specific vulnerability within a common Duhua camera that was replicated in firmware in most products from Duhua Technologies, namely a firmware update mechanism that will authenticate any update sent to it. This is a particular and detailed threat.
As opposed to Huawei hardware which has no such threat detailed, only vague assertions that it might be compromised. Techdirt's calls against the Huawei blacklist is that there is no evidence of a threat being presented, only vague concerns presented by an economic competitor.
He also clearly has missed that the forced unlocking can only be done with a warrant, thats like his entire point is that they need a search warrant, which this ruling also needs.
WHile I can't speak for Karl, in general I would say that when anyone uses propaganda (meaning lies and misinformation to support of a person or policy) and kittens to make money it is bad and distasteful, but probably not something the government should hold hearings over. However, when a foreign entity uses pro-candidate or pro-incumbant propaganda and kittens, particularly in proximity to an election, to make money it starts to be the kind of thing we hold hearings over.
I don't worry about illegal immigrants voting because after 30 years of the illegal in-person voting scheme boogeyman being thrown around, no serious in depth analysis has succeeded in highlighting widespread fraud. Every time someone claims to have the smoking gun, investigations into the bad votes reveal that the supposed fraud is explained as mostly or entirely legal circumstances. (See my comments on North Carolina in 2016
Its telling that you specifically call out central american illegal immigration, despite the majority of illegal immigrants in the US being canadian. Are Canadians somehow inherently less likely to vote illegally?
On the post: It's Amazing All The Cool Stuff We Could Have If Nintendo Didn't Insist On Nintendo-Ing
Re: Re:
I question your assumption of transformativeness. It is a Metroid game, using art that represents derivative works of the Metroid franchise, that functions with the same core game play and the same general plot. While AM2R made significant changes to the flow and reworked some map elements, as well as adding a few pieces of connective tissue providing added value, it doesn't largely add new expression or meaning, and given the large amount of infringement core to AM2R, that factor is unlikely to weigh in favor of fair use.
On the post: Telcos And Rupert Murdoch Pushing Nonsense Story That Google Helping Keep Your Internet Activity More Private Is An Antitrust Violation
Re: An internet of only http?
So, assuming I have read your detail lite commentary about some deep protocol questions correctly, you are suggesting the end of FTP, torrent, magnet, and other communications protocols to entirely functioning on HTTP, based on a move to DNS over HTTPS.
Could you expand on why you think this is the case, such as how this move helps HTTP finally supplant the less popular but still in use protocols like FTP, or how this move helps HTTP replicate torrent and magnet protocols?
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
Re: Re: Re: There you go again
Proof by Contradiction is more than just a contradiction. It is a series of statements to establish a proposition as true or valid by starting with an assumption that the proposition is incorrect to show that if the proposition is incorrect a contradiction occurs thereby proving that premise A is actually true.
But proof by contradiction requires that you establish the premise you assume is incorrect, and then formally prove the contradiction must occur. Just claiming a contradiction does not establish a proof by contradiction.
On the post: Adland Shuts Down After Web Host Complies With Bullshit DMCA Notice
Re: So have I, Timmy! - "given Techdirt some shit for our stance
And how many different 'ONE host's have made wildly wrong decisions because the incentive structure built into the law encourages censorship and casting a wide net? Hint: the number is more than one.
On the post: Just As Everyone Predicted: EU Copyright Directive's Link Tax Won't Lead To Google Paying Publishers
Re: Re:
And this of course ignores the role of Newsstands, which used the Cover headlines and images to drive sales of periodicals. I'd really hope the similarity is obvious.
On the post: Being Designated A 'Hate Group' By The SPLC Isn't Defamation, Says Federal Court
Re:
The core of the ruling is that there is no one definition of Hate group, and therefore calling some group a hate group is generally a position of opinion that can not be defemation.
It is the same logic that prevents any one person from having the title 'Strongest man in the world' - Some People consider endurance, some people consider burst capability, ect.
It is also the same logic that lost Shiva Ayyadurai his suit against Techdirt - the only question in the suit was a question of the definition of email.
If you can't define "Hate Group", you can't prove something is or isn't a hate group, and therefore the designation is not one of fact. And so, as Stone said, calling the SPLC a hate group is no more defamation than calling coral ridge defamation.
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
Re: Re: It is impossible to define impossible when it is possibl
Not true. Any court could examine a fresh law and find it unconstitutional. They are bound by previous decisions made by courts of higher authority.
But none of that matters as the state secrets doctrine in the US is not a law, but a judicially recognized power of the executive. The issue is that only the SCOTUS can re-examine SCOTUS decisions which established the boundaries of state secrets. The lower courts have been unwilling to challenge state secrets claims at any level, and only a strong precedent from the SCOTUS is likely to give judges any willingness to challenge them in the future.
On the post: The Best People: White House Emailed Talking Points Meant For Surrogates To Dems, Tried To Recall Email Afterwards
Re: 'Hey, your boss said it was okay...'
More on point, if these talking points are about getting out the truth, why is there any issue with democrats having them? Its not like they have any obvious contradictions or lies in them, right?
On the post: The Best People: White House Emailed Talking Points Meant For Surrogates To Dems, Tried To Recall Email Afterwards
There are some fun contradictions in those talking points. My favorite is that a second hand account (I'd assume they have just informed the public that the whistle blower read a transcript) of a phone call can't possibly provide sufficient information, after releasing a "non-verbatim" transcript of that phone call as proof that nothing untoward happened.
On the post: Current Whistleblower Scandal Shows (Again) That The Official Channels Are Useless
Re: Re: The Trump "Whistleblower" Situation Is Very Da
You mean The "non-verbaitim" transcript from an administration known for hiding inappropriate information when performing transcription that exposes that Trump is unaware of the private ownership of the American company Crowdstrike and then, while peddling a conspiracy theory to a foreign head of state, exposes that trump is only tangentally aware of how the Mueller investigation started and isn't aware of even the limited public knowledge of how foreign intelligence works?
On the post: Current Whistleblower Scandal Shows (Again) That The Official Channels Are Useless
Re: Re:
Bold to assume people have lawns in this housing market.
On the post: Current Whistleblower Scandal Shows (Again) That The Official Channels Are Useless
Re: Re:
You appear unaware of white nationalist rhetoric, somewhat strange given the president brought this rhetoric back into the national discourse less than 90 days ago.
White nationalist rhetoric, when they are trying to hide their racism, is to suggest that their opponents should go elsewhere. "Don't like it, just leave" was literally a KKK slogan they put on billboards. Trump's campaign was built on changing things he didn't like to MAGA, referencing an ambiguous past time in which civil liberties for minorities are almost certainly curtailed, but has revived the KKK slogan against his minority critics and then applied it more generally. I won't go into the history of racism in this language, it very much is.
Your commentary also suggests a failure to understand the history of nationalist and ethno nationalist movements and how they define the in group. When these movements need to build power, they open up the in group, for instance allowing in the Irish and Italian immigrants they had previously shunned. They will accept collaborators from the out group - particularly if it allows them to deflect criticism. But as they gain power they restrict the in group to ensure the power isn't diluted. They define 'nationality' or 'ethnicity' in far more restrictive ways. (I.E. how the Irish weren't considered white when famine lead to mass immigration)
The statement that someone who wants the "liberals" to go away made in response to a perceived "liberal" pushing for change while not in power holds deep historical racist connotations (Racism here referencing both ethnic and religious prejudices). But stating that the end goal of that statement is a white ethnostate is not claiming that there are no non-minority conservatives, only in recognition that having excluded "liberals" from the country, those conservatives who sought to exclude will need a new outgroup if they are to keep the reigns of power, and that given the demographics and racist undertones of the language used, conservative minorities (like socially conservative arabs) are likely the next targets of such language.
On the post: Automatic License Plate Readers Are The Latest Neighborhood Perk
Re: Heh...
I'm not sure any state uses 10 characters for license plates. I think the most in use is 9. Unless Texas needed even more characters.
On the post: Another Day, Another Major Disinformation Effort Facebook Thinks Is Ok
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fully Agreed
On the post: Phew: EU Court Of Justice Says Right To Be Forgotten Is Not A Global Censorship Tool (Just An EU One)
Re: Re: Re:
What you fail to understand is that another fundamental human right comes into play, the right to be secure in your person. The creation of child pornography inflicts well-documented lasting harms on the child. This has lead to a balancing of the fundamental right of expression of the pornographer with the fundamental right right of security of the Person. Posession is a different barrel of fish, and doesn't impact a discussion of the first amendment.
Mike might call it a different name, but I would expect that if pressed Mike would agree that a "balancing" is occuring due to a conflict of fundamental rights, as opposed to balancing a fundamental right against a non fundamental one.
On the post: Pennsylvania Prosecutor Built A Surveillance Network Using Forfeiture Funds And Compromised Chinese Cameras
Re: SO Techdirt is now agreeing that Chinese hardware is corrupt
Techdirt appears to be agreeing that the hardware in question has been determined by a third-party security firm to be highly vulnerable to general hacking. This is shown by them citing a blog post from Refirm Labs wherein the author details the specific vulnerability within a common Duhua camera that was replicated in firmware in most products from Duhua Technologies, namely a firmware update mechanism that will authenticate any update sent to it. This is a particular and detailed threat.
As opposed to Huawei hardware which has no such threat detailed, only vague assertions that it might be compromised. Techdirt's calls against the Huawei blacklist is that there is no evidence of a threat being presented, only vague concerns presented by an economic competitor.
On the post: Court Says Compelled Production Violates Fifth Amendment... Unless The Gov't Takes Certain Steps First
Re: Re: Ugh... Seriously?
He also clearly has missed that the forced unlocking can only be done with a warrant, thats like his entire point is that they need a search warrant, which this ruling also needs.
On the post: Another Day, Another Major Disinformation Effort Facebook Thinks Is Ok
Re: Just for clarification
WHile I can't speak for Karl, in general I would say that when anyone uses propaganda (meaning lies and misinformation to support of a person or policy) and kittens to make money it is bad and distasteful, but probably not something the government should hold hearings over. However, when a foreign entity uses pro-candidate or pro-incumbant propaganda and kittens, particularly in proximity to an election, to make money it starts to be the kind of thing we hold hearings over.
On the post: Another Day, Another Major Disinformation Effort Facebook Thinks Is Ok
Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't mean I shouldn't be upset that Russia is doing it. I should instead wonder how much of that soft money also came from Russia.
On the post: Another Day, Another Major Disinformation Effort Facebook Thinks Is Ok
Re:
I don't worry about illegal immigrants voting because after 30 years of the illegal in-person voting scheme boogeyman being thrown around, no serious in depth analysis has succeeded in highlighting widespread fraud. Every time someone claims to have the smoking gun, investigations into the bad votes reveal that the supposed fraud is explained as mostly or entirely legal circumstances. (See my comments on North Carolina in 2016
Its telling that you specifically call out central american illegal immigration, despite the majority of illegal immigrants in the US being canadian. Are Canadians somehow inherently less likely to vote illegally?
Next >>