Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Feb 2020 @ 11:26am
Re:
The intrinsic value of (especially modern) art sometimes escapes me. Artists often ascribe underlying metaphoric meaning to their works and sometimes the public picks up on those assertions. But in this case, I also have a question that isn't copyright related at all. The question is: what does it mean?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Feb 2020 @ 8:29am
Conflating conflation for the purpose of obfuscation
""American free-market capitalism" the state's official "political-economic system""
Is he talking about money in politics? Afraid that something might negatively impact his political funding ATM?
..."Rep. Bob Thorpe thinks social media companies are biased against conservatives..."
Just how is he going to 1) differentiate between sort of conservative, almost conservative, far right conservative, and bat shit crazy beyond the horizon conservative? Then, 2) prove that some platform took some action because of that and not for other reasons?
The double standard he proposes (he claims that conservative voices are being blocked by platforms, yet he is the one blocking his own conservative voice on Twitter) is most certainly blatant. Try as I might, I cannot visualize the spaghetti noodle mass of conflicting thought processes that brings him to the conclusion that this is OK.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Feb 2020 @ 8:54am
Good except for the potential for 'rules'
"As The World Frets Over Social Media Tracking For Advertising, Young People Are Turning Fooling Sites Into Sport"
It will be good sport, so long as no 'athletic associations' get involved. The fact that the 'sport' is to fool advertisers and athletic associations are more concerned with advertising than sport. The conflation would be horrific.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Feb 2020 @ 2:26pm
Re: Re: Quick Reference
The problem I see with that is that it would be the DoJ we would expect to do the enforcement. That would be enforcement against law enforcement. I don't see the current DoJ doing anything of the kind, though they should. For that matter, this isn't a new issue and past DoJ's haven't done the job either.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Feb 2020 @ 1:14pm
Quick Reference
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The downside is that there is a lot of president (that should not exist) supporting civil asset forfeiture. This needs to go to the Supreme Court, though I am not so sure the current Supreme Court is the one we want considering this question.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Feb 2020 @ 7:52am
Does the 1st Amendment apply?
There is a difference between doing things right and doing the right thing. To the Trump regime, doing things right means following his every dictum to the letter of the dictum whether it is actually legal or right. Doing the right thing would include having the moral capacity to understand what is happening around you and empathizing with those impacted by the things one does, then caring enough to ameliorate ones grossest instincts.
The other possibility is that the Iranian leaders could have just leaked whatever they had to say to the press, and then some US media organization could have printed/spoken those words and been protected by the 1st Amendment. It just would have taken longer than the time it took two old men more bent on introspection, personal agendas, and less than reasonable impulse control could achieve on Twitter. And the same words would be out there. Who has instant gratification issues?
Political grandstanding aside, I don't think Twitter is the issue here, and for that reason should not be impacted, but politicians have a great need to point fingers at anything other themselves.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2020 @ 1:27pm
Re: '... what evidence?'
Exactly, I don't remember proprietary information or industrial secrets being mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, whereas being able to confront ones witnesses is.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Feb 2020 @ 9:58am
Re: Re: The need for speed
I'll just leave this link to a Scott Greenfield article that contains information about the Iowa caucuses that yesterday even I was not aware of. It might mitigate your, well all of our understanding of what goes on there.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Feb 2020 @ 7:43am
Re: Re: The need for speed
My comment was about the article pointing to our instant gratification need as the impetus for speedy results, while I see it as the media's need. I also agree that what the news organizations want should be of no concern to those running caucus, but it is. I was going to try to relate it as a symbiotic relationship, but it isn't. It's more of a parasitic relationship, the the political operators are the parasites. Of course, those news organizations aren't going in for a de-worming any time soon.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Feb 2020 @ 5:10pm
Re: Re: The need for speed
Yeah, well cross checking graves registrations against voter registrations seemed like a lot of effort for little return. However, I must point out that Trump was only about one and a half years old in 1948 on election day, and wasn't quite eligible for the Presidential election. Some would argue he still isn't.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Feb 2020 @ 5:05pm
Re:
The paper systems have bugs in them too, though they are auditable if the papers don't get lost.
I saw a system once where the paper ballot was marked and then fed into a scanner. The serial numbers of the ballots were recorded and tracked and the paper ballot was retained for the audit. Seemed sensible to me at the time.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Feb 2020 @ 4:36pm
The need for speed
"We can wait a while, and it would probably behoove us to all expect to wait a while, because it's our hunger for instant gratification that is creating pressure to rely on tabulation systems that are not optimized for what we can't live without..."
I am not as sure that it is 'our' need for instant gratification as much as it is the 'need' for news organizations the be the pundit of the hour to 'call' election results. Every since the ""Dewey Defeats Truman" was an incorrect banner headline on the front page of the Chicago Daily Tribune..." debacle in 1948 and the growth of TV news reporting, the tendency for talking heads to want to be the prognosticators of what just happened, even if they don't have all the facts yet seems to have not only grown, but 'breaking newsitis' makes them want to claim all the credit (and have in the past tried to prevent others from stepping in their marked territory).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Feb 2020 @ 1:45pm
Re:
Hey, what a great idea. We could sue the PAC's for forcing us to put up with unrepresentative representatives. And we could sue lobbyists for paying our representatives to represent special interests instead of us. And we could sue our representatives for spending more time hobnobbing with fund raisers than giving legislation due consideration in our name. Now where will we get the money to fund all these law suits?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Feb 2020 @ 11:56am
Roundabout
Now there's an interesting twist. Mere communication by end use consumers is terrifying to these big companies. They get a little taste of control of their particular market, and then realize that that control is a bit of a smoke screen, as they are still dependent upon those same end use consumers. In their muddled way of thinking, getting those end use consumers to shut up will solve all their problems. Disney, give us Facebook money for letting your people talk about our products. Marriott, that AirBnB is stealing from our overpriced hotel products. IBM and Oracle learned that there are more uses for things they make than just big business customers. All three, the solution is to shut up end use consumers, which would be the effect of forcing liability on platforms.
Of course they will deny that they don't want consumers to talk, they merely wish the destruction of those entities that they fear. That the by-product of consumers losing the seems inconsequential to them. I don't think it will be, inconsequential.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Feb 2020 @ 3:32pm
Re: Re:
I did not see the show, nor do I want to, so I have no comment about what did or did not take place, especially concerning the seediness of the content. For a bit of clarification though, there is a difference between sexy and sexual, and it is mostly in the eye of the beholder. Given the reputations of the two I have seen mentioned in the news with regards to that show, I could see them shooting for one and only achieving the other.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Feb 2020 @ 7:39am
Re: Regulatory Capture at work
Except that it didn't work in this instance. The real tragedy is the ongoing ability for wrongdoers to deny responsibility, and that goes for the merger participants and the regulator that encouraged the merger, until he didn't.
On the post: Copyright Troll Lawsuit Over Duct Taped Banana Picture
Re:
The intrinsic value of (especially modern) art sometimes escapes me. Artists often ascribe underlying metaphoric meaning to their works and sometimes the public picks up on those assertions. But in this case, I also have a question that isn't copyright related at all. The question is: what does it mean?
On the post: Arizona Legislator Wants To Strip Platforms Of Section 230 Immunity If They're 'Politically Biased'
Conflating conflation for the purpose of obfuscation
Is he talking about money in politics? Afraid that something might negatively impact his political funding ATM?
Just how is he going to 1) differentiate between sort of conservative, almost conservative, far right conservative, and bat shit crazy beyond the horizon conservative? Then, 2) prove that some platform took some action because of that and not for other reasons?
The double standard he proposes (he claims that conservative voices are being blocked by platforms, yet he is the one blocking his own conservative voice on Twitter) is most certainly blatant. Try as I might, I cannot visualize the spaghetti noodle mass of conflicting thought processes that brings him to the conclusion that this is OK.
On the post: As The World Frets Over Social Media Tracking For Advertising, Young People Are Turning Fooling Sites Into Sport
Good except for the potential for 'rules'
It will be good sport, so long as no 'athletic associations' get involved. The fact that the 'sport' is to fool advertisers and athletic associations are more concerned with advertising than sport. The conflation would be horrific.
On the post: Michigan County Sued For Stealing Cars From Innocent Car Owners Via Civil Forfeiture
Re: Re: Quick Reference
The problem I see with that is that it would be the DoJ we would expect to do the enforcement. That would be enforcement against law enforcement. I don't see the current DoJ doing anything of the kind, though they should. For that matter, this isn't a new issue and past DoJ's haven't done the job either.
On the post: Michigan County Sued For Stealing Cars From Innocent Car Owners Via Civil Forfeiture
Re: Re: Quick Reference
Yes, yes I was. The hurrier I go...
On the post: Michigan County Sued For Stealing Cars From Innocent Car Owners Via Civil Forfeiture
Quick Reference
The downside is that there is a lot of president (that should not exist) supporting civil asset forfeiture. This needs to go to the Supreme Court, though I am not so sure the current Supreme Court is the one we want considering this question.
On the post: Senators Threaten Twitter For Allowing Iranian Official Who Helped De-Escalate Tensions Via Twitter To Tweet
Does the 1st Amendment apply?
There is a difference between doing things right and doing the right thing. To the Trump regime, doing things right means following his every dictum to the letter of the dictum whether it is actually legal or right. Doing the right thing would include having the moral capacity to understand what is happening around you and empathizing with those impacted by the things one does, then caring enough to ameliorate ones grossest instincts.
The other possibility is that the Iranian leaders could have just leaked whatever they had to say to the press, and then some US media organization could have printed/spoken those words and been protected by the 1st Amendment. It just would have taken longer than the time it took two old men more bent on introspection, personal agendas, and less than reasonable impulse control could achieve on Twitter. And the same words would be out there. Who has instant gratification issues?
Political grandstanding aside, I don't think Twitter is the issue here, and for that reason should not be impacted, but politicians have a great need to point fingers at anything other themselves.
On the post: Breathalyzer Manufacturer Under Criminal Investigation For Falsifying Maintenance Records And Calibration Results
Re: '... what evidence?'
Exactly, I don't remember proprietary information or industrial secrets being mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, whereas being able to confront ones witnesses is.
On the post: Disney's Licensing Dogs Charge Underserved School District A Third Of Fundraiser Money For Playing 'Lion King' DVD
Imitation is the sincerest form of flatter. In fact Disney is exposing its alter ego.
On the post: Don't Panic, But Do Reflect: Lessons From The Iowa Democrat Debacle
Re: Re: The need for speed
I'll just leave this link to a Scott Greenfield article that contains information about the Iowa caucuses that yesterday even I was not aware of. It might mitigate your, well all of our understanding of what goes on there.
On the post: Don't Panic, But Do Reflect: Lessons From The Iowa Democrat Debacle
Re: Re: The need for speed
My comment was about the article pointing to our instant gratification need as the impetus for speedy results, while I see it as the media's need. I also agree that what the news organizations want should be of no concern to those running caucus, but it is. I was going to try to relate it as a symbiotic relationship, but it isn't. It's more of a parasitic relationship, the the political operators are the parasites. Of course, those news organizations aren't going in for a de-worming any time soon.
On the post: Don't Panic, But Do Reflect: Lessons From The Iowa Democrat Debacle
Re: Re: The need for speed
Yeah, well cross checking graves registrations against voter registrations seemed like a lot of effort for little return. However, I must point out that Trump was only about one and a half years old in 1948 on election day, and wasn't quite eligible for the Presidential election. Some would argue he still isn't.
On the post: Don't Panic, But Do Reflect: Lessons From The Iowa Democrat Debacle
Re:
The paper systems have bugs in them too, though they are auditable if the papers don't get lost.
I saw a system once where the paper ballot was marked and then fed into a scanner. The serial numbers of the ballots were recorded and tracked and the paper ballot was retained for the audit. Seemed sensible to me at the time.
On the post: Don't Panic, But Do Reflect: Lessons From The Iowa Democrat Debacle
The need for speed
I am not as sure that it is 'our' need for instant gratification as much as it is the 'need' for news organizations the be the pundit of the hour to 'call' election results. Every since the ""Dewey Defeats Truman" was an incorrect banner headline on the front page of the Chicago Daily Tribune..." debacle in 1948 and the growth of TV news reporting, the tendency for talking heads to want to be the prognosticators of what just happened, even if they don't have all the facts yet seems to have not only grown, but 'breaking newsitis' makes them want to claim all the credit (and have in the past tried to prevent others from stepping in their marked territory).
On the post: The Plot Against Section 230 Is Being Run By Big Legacy Companies Who Failed To Adapt To The Internet
Re:
Hey, what a great idea. We could sue the PAC's for forcing us to put up with unrepresentative representatives. And we could sue lobbyists for paying our representatives to represent special interests instead of us. And we could sue our representatives for spending more time hobnobbing with fund raisers than giving legislation due consideration in our name. Now where will we get the money to fund all these law suits?
On the post: The Plot Against Section 230 Is Being Run By Big Legacy Companies Who Failed To Adapt To The Internet
Roundabout
Now there's an interesting twist. Mere communication by end use consumers is terrifying to these big companies. They get a little taste of control of their particular market, and then realize that that control is a bit of a smoke screen, as they are still dependent upon those same end use consumers. In their muddled way of thinking, getting those end use consumers to shut up will solve all their problems. Disney, give us Facebook money for letting your people talk about our products. Marriott, that AirBnB is stealing from our overpriced hotel products. IBM and Oracle learned that there are more uses for things they make than just big business customers. All three, the solution is to shut up end use consumers, which would be the effect of forcing liability on platforms.
Of course they will deny that they don't want consumers to talk, they merely wish the destruction of those entities that they fear. That the by-product of consumers losing the seems inconsequential to them. I don't think it will be, inconsequential.
On the post: Like Clockwork, ICE Stops Sports Fans From Advertising Their Favorite Teams For Less Than Full Price
Re: Re:
I did not see the show, nor do I want to, so I have no comment about what did or did not take place, especially concerning the seediness of the content. For a bit of clarification though, there is a difference between sexy and sexual, and it is mostly in the eye of the beholder. Given the reputations of the two I have seen mentioned in the news with regards to that show, I could see them shooting for one and only achieving the other.
On the post: Sinclair Pays Tribune $60 Million To Settle Lawsuit Over Dodgy Merger
Re: Regulatory Capture at work
Except that it didn't work in this instance. The real tragedy is the ongoing ability for wrongdoers to deny responsibility, and that goes for the merger participants and the regulator that encouraged the merger, until he didn't.
On the post: It's That Time Of Year: No, The NFL Can't Stop Every Business From Using 'Super Bowl' In Every Instance
Re: Super - uh - Thing
Wouldn't that just bring JK Rowling and crew into the picture?
On the post: It's That Time Of Year: No, The NFL Can't Stop Every Business From Using 'Super Bowl' In Every Instance
Re: Re:
Superb bowels, now that's a phrase that major media could resemble.
Next >>