President Trump may not understand the implications of the words he's using or how they sound to people listening to him, but this statement at a recent press conference appears to indicate Trump prefers martial law and order to regular law and order.
I think Trump knows exactly what he's saying. A lot of middle America fears what Portland and Chicago and other Democrat-run cities have become over the years. And they don't want it happening where they live. The ongoing riots in Portland are not viewed as law and order. Any order, even thru martial law, may be preferable to a nightly riot.
The free market does not and can not work with medicine...
Somehow, I don't think you'll ever take a trip to Cuba to receive treatment. And those Soviet patients didn't exactly work out too well for you either. Meanwhile, people the world over have travelled to the U.S. to receive treatment. The verdict is clear: free market nations enjoy far higher standards of medical care.
For the second... other nations aren't bothering to "share" money to see research results because they're DOING RESEARCH AND SHARING IT
If I grow an apple, and I share it with my neighbors, I'm still not allowed to break into my other neighbor's house to steal an orange.
But I'm also skeptical that the research which is being shared is worth very much. The U.S. has eclipsed other nations in recent years in terms of research expenditure.
who is going to be able pay the excessive price that US companies will demand?
Although I'm not saying that this is the case, because when medical patents are involved, then you are creating a monopoly, but --
Under a capitalist system, if the price is truly excessive then the seller actually loses money, and is incentivized to lower the price. Zero sales multiplied by any price is still zero dollars.
It actually makes economic sense to share the information, just to minimize the costs caused by the pandemic, which are greater than any profit to be made from a vaccine
I always viewed it as the opposite -- that U.S. biotech companies can imagine a very large vaccine profit, much greater than any costs we've experienced so far from the coronavirus.
It no doubt costs money to perform any research, and the medical corporations expect a return on investment. While it sounds nice to "share" information regarding the coronavirus, I doubt that other nations are willing to arbitrarily "share" some money to see the research results.
How would end-to-end encryption for DMs help in this circumstance?
Some end-to-end schemes might store messages on a server in encrypted form. The decryption key would then only reside on the user device (smartphone/laptop/desktop/ect.). Someone may be able to hijack the account, and send new messages. But without the key from the original device, the old messages would remain inaccessible.
Where are all the 2nd amendment people when we need them?
An interesting conundrum: left wingers want to outlaw firearms, but then complain when the right wing 2nd amendment crowd doesn't stick up for them. Left wingers might choose to arm themselves for future conflicts, but of course that would then go against their own values.
Perhaps you the enemy of your enemy isn't automatically your friend.
It seems to me that these services are attempting to consolidate all of one type of activity. One stop shopping for static video -- youtube. One stop shopping for blogging -- facebook. One stop shopping for audio -- spotify. Next, monopolize it, then monetize it. Perhaps the opposite of how I envisioned a decentralized internet.
Now, there is some argument here that EU surveillance is just as bad, and it's perhaps more than a little silly that the CJEU basically ignores that as if it's not important.
My take is that the Privacy Shield agreement was just a scam, in that the US spy agencies would snoop on EU data, the EU spy agencies would snoop on US data, and then both sides would "share" information, while simultaneously claiming to civilian legislative representatives that the government was not spying on their own citizens.
Now that one half of the scam is taken down, hopefully the other half will collapse as well. Good riddance.
A number of industries and major corporations have wrecked their reputations over the years, but the destruction didn't happen overnight. Many cable companies and ISPs are now viewed with contempt. Microsoft lost its luster and couldn't push a smartphone into the market despite the hoopla.
I say that mobile carriers are next, with a combination of over-promising, under-delivering, and over-charging customers. Mistakes like this 5G episode will come back to haunt them someday as customers become too wary to buy into some future product. The false promises will hurt them eventually.
The data coming out of John Hopkins University shows that both fatalities per infection, and fatalities per general population are preferable to several other countries that did lockdown, such as Italy, Spain, and the UK. Highly successful for no lockdown.
And booting out non-immigrant students for something as minor as not being able to attend classes that aren't being held in physical classrooms makes even less sense when combined with the economic downturn resulting from the COVID crisis.
I think part of the motivation is the desire to reopen schools. If schools don't reopen, then the schools risk losing a lot of money. Who wants to pay full price for an online course? It exerts a lot of pressure on schools to either reduce tuition, or open back up.
Reopening everything would likely avert any economic downturn. Folks are, of course, going to debate the safety of doing so, but places like Sweeden have shown that it will be okay without a shutdown.
I think that I understand the article. I'm not saying that I agree with their solution, just that I understand what they want.
Around the 1400s to 1600s, people were afraid to publish certain controversial ideas, because governments might get upset, patrons might get angry and cut off your funding, or people who know nothing about the subject might engage in malicious gossip. Sounds like Cancel Culture today!
Thus, a dual system emerged. One was through semi-private, unpublished letters. The other was for publicly published works, which could potentially earn you money. While you couldn't get in trouble for the unofficial, off the cuff remarks that you make through the unpublished network, you probably couldn't make a career out of this aspect. Only through your officially endorsed publications.
The copyright maximalists dream of a world where individuals can charge money for others rebroadcasting their ideas. They wish that if person x says "omg person y said blah blah blah", then somehow person y could silence person x, unless it was the official publication stuff, and they're paying money to do so.
This would re-establish the old Republic of Letters system for unofficial communication, which doesn't get rebroadcasted, and avoids potential controversy. People who want to be an online personality can possibly make a career with their official published works, while still sending unofficial messages unfit for public consumption. Meanwhile, those who don't desire publicity are obscure such that their online commentary doesn't bleed over into real life.
Personally, I don't see how such a system could be implemented in today's day and age of social media. It seems like a money grab to me. So I find it impractical and ridiculous to add a copyright layer onto the modern internet in an attempt to enforce an unofficial commentary system, but I think that's the system they imagine.
Copyright won’t be as big an issue as you’d seemingly love it to be
I hope you're right. I think some of these patent trolls, especially if they begin sinking some of their own money into the effort, might view a situation like this where they kind of come close as similar to losing a large jackpot lottery ticket.
But mostly, I still would love the name change just for the memes. If the team puts the decision up to one of those Twitter polls, I'm totally organizing a campaign! :D
Yes, the initital case is a trademark claim, but I'm just trying to think ahead. We know that once IP trolls begin seeing money flash in front of their eyes, they often don't go away easily. Since this McCauley fellow can't get a trademark, because he won't actually have a football team, all that would remain after designing some t-shirts might be a copyright claim. Expensive litigation could be avoided with this particular name change, not to mention the benefit of the epic humor that would result of this becoming reality!
I have heard rumors online for the past week that there would be a renaming of the team. Sarcastically, several folks predicted that the new team would be called the Swamp-Lizards. As a last resort, Dan Synder's team could make those predictions come true, indeed rename themselves the Swamp-Lizards, and then destroy any copyright claims with the Prior Art defense.
And the way people "speak out against it" is to "demand consequences" which you just said people are not entitled to do.
No, I can advocate for or against any position without demanding consequences. I could say what I think should happen on tax policy, foreign trade, oil pipelines, ANYTHING, without adding "and anyone who disagrees with me is going to have their social media account purged".
Demanding punishment against individuals for mere disagreement is societally wrong.
The way people "speak out against it" is to make a good argument, not to instill fear.
On the post: DHS's Anti-Protest Gestapo Tactics Headed To Other Major Cities, Starting With Chicago
Calculated
I think Trump knows exactly what he's saying. A lot of middle America fears what Portland and Chicago and other Democrat-run cities have become over the years. And they don't want it happening where they live. The ongoing riots in Portland are not viewed as law and order. Any order, even thru martial law, may be preferable to a nightly riot.
And Trump appears to be the only savior.
On the post: Court Tells Trumpian Head Of US Agency For Global Media That He Can't Fire People From The Open Tech Fund (At Least For Now)
What's Behind It
The logic is "Judicial Activism".
On the post: Why Is The US Trying To Punish Hackers For Accessing Vaccine Research We Should Be Sharing With The World?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Always the Money
Somehow, I don't think you'll ever take a trip to Cuba to receive treatment. And those Soviet patients didn't exactly work out too well for you either. Meanwhile, people the world over have travelled to the U.S. to receive treatment. The verdict is clear: free market nations enjoy far higher standards of medical care.
On the post: Why Is The US Trying To Punish Hackers For Accessing Vaccine Research We Should Be Sharing With The World?
Re: Re: Always the Money
If I grow an apple, and I share it with my neighbors, I'm still not allowed to break into my other neighbor's house to steal an orange.
But I'm also skeptical that the research which is being shared is worth very much. The U.S. has eclipsed other nations in recent years in terms of research expenditure.
On the post: Why Is The US Trying To Punish Hackers For Accessing Vaccine Research We Should Be Sharing With The World?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Always the Money
Although I'm not saying that this is the case, because when medical patents are involved, then you are creating a monopoly, but --
Under a capitalist system, if the price is truly excessive then the seller actually loses money, and is incentivized to lower the price. Zero sales multiplied by any price is still zero dollars.
On the post: Why Is The US Trying To Punish Hackers For Accessing Vaccine Research We Should Be Sharing With The World?
Re: Re: Always the Money
I always viewed it as the opposite -- that U.S. biotech companies can imagine a very large vaccine profit, much greater than any costs we've experienced so far from the coronavirus.
On the post: Why Is The US Trying To Punish Hackers For Accessing Vaccine Research We Should Be Sharing With The World?
Always the Money
It no doubt costs money to perform any research, and the medical corporations expect a return on investment. While it sounds nice to "share" information regarding the coronavirus, I doubt that other nations are willing to arbitrarily "share" some money to see the research results.
On the post: Holy Hell Were We Lucky That Twitter's Big Breach Was Just A Bunch Of SIM Swapping Kids; Can We Please Encrypt DMs Now?
Re:
Some end-to-end schemes might store messages on a server in encrypted form. The decryption key would then only reside on the user device (smartphone/laptop/desktop/ect.). Someone may be able to hijack the account, and send new messages. But without the key from the original device, the old messages would remain inaccessible.
On the post: DHS Goes Full Gestapo In Response To Ongoing Protests In Oregon
Re: 2nd Amendment
An interesting conundrum: left wingers want to outlaw firearms, but then complain when the right wing 2nd amendment crowd doesn't stick up for them. Left wingers might choose to arm themselves for future conflicts, but of course that would then go against their own values.
Perhaps you the enemy of your enemy isn't automatically your friend.
On the post: We Shouldn't Call Michelle Obama's (And Joe Rogan's) Proprietary Exclusive Audio From Spotify A 'Podcast' Any More
Silo Value
It seems to me that these services are attempting to consolidate all of one type of activity. One stop shopping for static video -- youtube. One stop shopping for blogging -- facebook. One stop shopping for audio -- spotify. Next, monopolize it, then monetize it. Perhaps the opposite of how I envisioned a decentralized internet.
On the post: As Expected, US Surveillance Of Social Media Leads To EU Court Of Justice Rejecting EU/US Privacy Shield
Good For The Gander
My take is that the Privacy Shield agreement was just a scam, in that the US spy agencies would snoop on EU data, the EU spy agencies would snoop on US data, and then both sides would "share" information, while simultaneously claiming to civilian legislative representatives that the government was not spying on their own citizens.
Now that one half of the scam is taken down, hopefully the other half will collapse as well. Good riddance.
On the post: Verizon Has To Walk Back Bogus 5G Coverage Claims
Slow Train Wreck
A number of industries and major corporations have wrecked their reputations over the years, but the destruction didn't happen overnight. Many cable companies and ISPs are now viewed with contempt. Microsoft lost its luster and couldn't push a smartphone into the market despite the hoopla.
I say that mobile carriers are next, with a combination of over-promising, under-delivering, and over-charging customers. Mistakes like this 5G episode will come back to haunt them someday as customers become too wary to buy into some future product. The false promises will hurt them eventually.
On the post: Facing Multiple Lawsuits, ICE Decides Not To Punish Foreign Students For Furthering Their Education During A Pandemic
Re: Re:
The data coming out of John Hopkins University shows that both fatalities per infection, and fatalities per general population are preferable to several other countries that did lockdown, such as Italy, Spain, and the UK. Highly successful for no lockdown.
On the post: Facing Multiple Lawsuits, ICE Decides Not To Punish Foreign Students For Furthering Their Education During A Pandemic
Re: 'Today is great so tomorrow can take care of itself.'
Attempting to not expose everyone to the coronavirus by imposing lockdowns already caused an economic downturn. Moot point.
On the post: Facing Multiple Lawsuits, ICE Decides Not To Punish Foreign Students For Furthering Their Education During A Pandemic
I think part of the motivation is the desire to reopen schools. If schools don't reopen, then the schools risk losing a lot of money. Who wants to pay full price for an online course? It exerts a lot of pressure on schools to either reduce tuition, or open back up.
Reopening everything would likely avert any economic downturn. Folks are, of course, going to debate the safety of doing so, but places like Sweeden have shown that it will be okay without a shutdown.
On the post: How Absolutely Desperate Must You Be To Try To Claim That The Answer To 'Cancel Culture' Is Stronger Copyright?
I Get It
I think that I understand the article. I'm not saying that I agree with their solution, just that I understand what they want.
Around the 1400s to 1600s, people were afraid to publish certain controversial ideas, because governments might get upset, patrons might get angry and cut off your funding, or people who know nothing about the subject might engage in malicious gossip. Sounds like Cancel Culture today!
Thus, a dual system emerged. One was through semi-private, unpublished letters. The other was for publicly published works, which could potentially earn you money. While you couldn't get in trouble for the unofficial, off the cuff remarks that you make through the unpublished network, you probably couldn't make a career out of this aspect. Only through your officially endorsed publications.
The copyright maximalists dream of a world where individuals can charge money for others rebroadcasting their ideas. They wish that if person x says "omg person y said blah blah blah", then somehow person y could silence person x, unless it was the official publication stuff, and they're paying money to do so.
This would re-establish the old Republic of Letters system for unofficial communication, which doesn't get rebroadcasted, and avoids potential controversy. People who want to be an online personality can possibly make a career with their official published works, while still sending unofficial messages unfit for public consumption. Meanwhile, those who don't desire publicity are obscure such that their online commentary doesn't bleed over into real life.
Personally, I don't see how such a system could be implemented in today's day and age of social media. It seems like a money grab to me. So I find it impractical and ridiculous to add a copyright layer onto the modern internet in an attempt to enforce an unofficial commentary system, but I think that's the system they imagine.
On the post: No, Trademark Trolls Collecting Various Fake Names For A Washington Football Team Will Not Get In The Way Of The NFL Team's Renaming
Re:
I hope you're right. I think some of these patent trolls, especially if they begin sinking some of their own money into the effort, might view a situation like this where they kind of come close as similar to losing a large jackpot lottery ticket.
But mostly, I still would love the name change just for the memes. If the team puts the decision up to one of those Twitter polls, I'm totally organizing a campaign! :D
On the post: No, Trademark Trolls Collecting Various Fake Names For A Washington Football Team Will Not Get In The Way Of The NFL Team's Renaming
Re:
Yes, the initital case is a trademark claim, but I'm just trying to think ahead. We know that once IP trolls begin seeing money flash in front of their eyes, they often don't go away easily. Since this McCauley fellow can't get a trademark, because he won't actually have a football team, all that would remain after designing some t-shirts might be a copyright claim. Expensive litigation could be avoided with this particular name change, not to mention the benefit of the epic humor that would result of this becoming reality!
On the post: No, Trademark Trolls Collecting Various Fake Names For A Washington Football Team Will Not Get In The Way Of The NFL Team's Renaming
Timeline
I have heard rumors online for the past week that there would be a renaming of the team. Sarcastically, several folks predicted that the new team would be called the Swamp-Lizards. As a last resort, Dan Synder's team could make those predictions come true, indeed rename themselves the Swamp-Lizards, and then destroy any copyright claims with the Prior Art defense.
On the post: What That Harper's Letter About Cancel Culture Could Have Said
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I can advocate for or against any position without demanding consequences. I could say what I think should happen on tax policy, foreign trade, oil pipelines, ANYTHING, without adding "and anyone who disagrees with me is going to have their social media account purged".
Demanding punishment against individuals for mere disagreement is societally wrong.
The way people "speak out against it" is to make a good argument, not to instill fear.
Next >>