Re: Re: Re: Re: Remember when TechDirt supported free speech?
Rupert Murdoch does not publish the New York Times. The NYT has, for the last 100+ years, held a special place in American journalism not exactly filled by any other outlet (the Wall Street Journal - owned by Murdoch, and the Washington Post - Bezos come close but haven't been doing the same).
As I said, one can argue that things have changed; maybe they have.
But the NYT is trying to act as if they haven't changed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Remember when TechDirt supported free speech?
Proud Boys are also nobodies (a few cranks). The POTUS thinking otherwise doesn't change that.
The NTY has traditionally printed op-eds by influential people for over a century. That doesn't mean they endorse what those op-eds say, but it's a way for readers to find out what those people think - in their own words. That's a valuable service - whether it results in changing minds, or in understanding the enemy better, or some combination of both.
Democracy runs on an informed public.
Finally, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
Re: Re: Remember when TechDirt supported free speech?
Your position is clear, Mike.
It's reasonable to argue, here in 2020, that the traditional function of a major national newspaper is moot, given that we have the Internet and everybody gets a soapbox of their own.
But the NYT is still in business, and still supposedly trying to perform that traditional function.
I think publishing the viewpoint of major influential players is an important part of that - unedited, in their own words.
Re some of the other comments:
Shiva Ayyadurai is a nobody - the NYT has no reason to publish him; nobody really cares what Shiva thinks.
The head of the KKK would be a "somebody" if the KKK were an influential national movement. It's not - it's a few crazy cranks.
If it was 1940 and Adolf Hitler was running Nazi Germany, I say publish Hitler's op-ed.
If the NYT editors feel these viewpoints are wrong (as is obviously the case with most of these examples), they can and should print opposing editorials on a facing page - directly taking down the arguments made.
But I still want to hear what Hitler, and the Devil, have to say. I want to hear it in their own words.
I'm glad the NYT published the Cotton piece, and the Regina Ip piece.
I want to hear what these people have to say - even if it's "horrific".
Nobody ever thinks they're the bad guy. With rare exceptions, people do and say things because they believe in it. I don't think its the job of the NYT to decide who's right.
Tom Cotton is not some nut in his mother's basement - he's a sitting United States senator. What he thinks, and why, matters. I want to hear it, even if I disagree with it.
Regina Ip isn't a nobody either - she's a prominent Hong Kong politician. What she thinks, and why she thinks it, will have a big effect on the future of Hong Kong, China, and US-China relations. I want to hear it - in her own words.
Sure, the NYT should make crystal-clear they're running these as the opinion of prominent and influential people - not as their own opinion. I think they do that.
But I want to hear what all sides have to say, in their own words, not "interpreted" by somebody else with a different agenda.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Being sacked by the government isn't censors
I'll reply to you since yours was the last comment - the other comments seem to agree with you.
Simply put, just because the guy says he's happy about the kid being killed doesn't mean he won't do his job.
Lots of jobs require people to do things they'd prefer not to.
As long as he does his job, he's entitled to whatever crazy opinions he likes. And to post them online. It wasn't a threat or statement that he'd refuse aid as an EMT.
If he were to refuse to do his job, of course that's another matter.
Re: Re: Being sacked by the government isn't censorship
The court here disagrees with you, AC.
As do I. When the government punishes you because of your speech, that's censorship.
Suppose they put him in prison, but let him write letters while in prison. Would you claim "isn't censorship, as they are not stopping him saying horrific things"?
I hope not.
Censorship has been popular for a long time, in many (most) places in history. That's not because it's a bad thing, it's because lots of people thought it was a good thing (as you seem to).
But after much consideration and debate, 18th century intellectuals decided that censorship did more harm than good. (That doesn't mean it doesn't do good.) Thus, the 1st amendment.
I understand their reasoning, and agree with them. Most people who haven't thought hard about it, don't.
Attacking an opponent's values, based on your imagination of what those values are, is a really weak way of convincing your opponent (who almost certainly doesn't have the values you assume based on a few lines of text), or anybody else.
What's your point, exactly? That you don't care whether the human race survives? That other people shouldn't care? Is it just that I'm today's target for generic negativity?
Or are you just rhetorically masturbating - spouting text that's meant to put down your imaginary opponent - because it feels good, without having any point of your own to make?
You aren't the only one who does this. Y'all seem to be a sub-species of troll, who get their kicks from imagining that they make other people feel bad, but fail to accomplish even that, as they attack imaginary strawmen who don't exist. While not putting forward any ideas, criticism, or opinion of their own.
So, care to enlighten me re the purpose of a comment like yours? I'd really like to know.
Did you think 1000 years from the sky wasn't going to have hundreds of thousands of orbiting objects in it?
Unless you want the human race stuck on this one planet until we kill ourselves off (which won't be long if we're only on one planet), soon or later we're going to colonize the galaxy.
Sooner is better.
Lights in the sky seem a small price to pay for that.
120 years ago you people would have been the ones moaning about how these newfangled "airplane" things are going to mess up view of the clouds.
Re: Re: Re: China and russia have practice in shooting down Sats
It's not that simple.
1) As Douglas Adams said, “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
Because space is big, your bucket of rusty nails needs to be in exactly the right place or the nails won't hit a thing. (Don't think of nails scattered around a big parking lot. Think of nails scattered around the Pacific Ocean. If you want a chance of hitting anything, you need a lot more than a bucketful.) In low earth orbit, they'll decay and re-enter within a matter of weeks.
2) Anybody who can get their bucket of nails in the right place necessarily has highly accurate rockets, and has invested a lot to build that capability.
3) Even if they get the bucket in the right place, they can get at most of a few (count on your fingers) of the 40,000 spacecraft in the constellation.
4) Kessler cascades are theoretical and it's far from clear that the necessary density of spacecraft is anywhere close to the critical threshold. If it is, and the ASAT attempt triggers a cascade of destruction, the attacker will end up destroying their own spacecraft in the attempt. Of which they have many because of (2).
As a practical matter, Starlink is unkillable. Short of intentionally destroying ALL spacecraft of ALL nations, which would be an act of war and is diplomatically untenable. As I said at the start.
Re: China and russia have practice in shooting down Sats
Sorry - you don't get it.
Starlink is THOUSANDS of spacecraft. TENS of thousands.
Once the network is fully deployed (> 40,000 sats), so what if somebody shoots down 1000 of them? Users will hardly notice.
Nobody can shoot down Starlink short of destroying planet Earth. Not only is it economically impossible (they can't afford that many ASAT weapons), it's dipolomatically impossible and anyway SpaceX can replensh with new spacecraft 100x faster than anybody could shoot them down.
Starlink is unkillable. It's a DoD wet dream - one that they didn't think was economically possible until Musk showed otherwise.
I hate to generalize, but for some reason "professional" photographers seem particularly likely to engage in unethical copyright suits. Many post their work online, where they know very well that innocent idiots will find it, use it, and get their pants sued off.
And the idea that this guy Craig (who seemed oh-so-eloquent in the letter to the judge) needs a $300 check - blood squeezed out of his victims - to pay his bills is the opposite of classy.
If he can't make a legit living off of his photography by getting clients to pay him, probably he should find another line of work.
I'm all for creatives reaping the rewards of their successful creations. But not by entrapping innocents into a sticky web of lawsuits.
I don't get the problem with "objectification" of women in movies.
They're movies. We're not hiring the actresses to run our businesses, to do our tax returns, to design our airplanes, to cure our diseases, or to teach English literature.
We are going to LOOK at them on the movie screen.
If we can't objectify people whose JOB it is to be objectified, things have gone too far.
(This applies to men, too, of course. Few people want to watch Danny DeVito play a Clint Eastwood role.)
Yes, SpaceX has plans for de-orbiting failed spacecraft.
All these details you mention have been publicly discussed by SpaceX - they're a Google search away.
Iridium (the original generation of spacecraft) offered 2400 bits/second per user.
SpaceX is offering ~100 Mbps/user. Not at all comparable to Iridium. This necessitates vastly more spacecraft, so each can cover a smaller area on the ground. The number of spacecraft limits the user density on the ground.
On the post: NY Times Editorial Pages Fuck Up Again: Publishes Chinese Official's Ridiculous Defense Of Stifling Freedom In Hong Kong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Remember when TechDirt supported free speech?
Rupert Murdoch does not publish the New York Times. The NYT has, for the last 100+ years, held a special place in American journalism not exactly filled by any other outlet (the Wall Street Journal - owned by Murdoch, and the Washington Post - Bezos come close but haven't been doing the same).
As I said, one can argue that things have changed; maybe they have.
But the NYT is trying to act as if they haven't changed.
On the post: NY Times Editorial Pages Fuck Up Again: Publishes Chinese Official's Ridiculous Defense Of Stifling Freedom In Hong Kong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Remember when TechDirt supported free speech?
Proud Boys are also nobodies (a few cranks). The POTUS thinking otherwise doesn't change that.
The NTY has traditionally printed op-eds by influential people for over a century. That doesn't mean they endorse what those op-eds say, but it's a way for readers to find out what those people think - in their own words. That's a valuable service - whether it results in changing minds, or in understanding the enemy better, or some combination of both.
Democracy runs on an informed public.
Finally, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
On the post: NY Times Editorial Pages Fuck Up Again: Publishes Chinese Official's Ridiculous Defense Of Stifling Freedom In Hong Kong
Re: Re: Remember when TechDirt supported free speech?
Your position is clear, Mike.
It's reasonable to argue, here in 2020, that the traditional function of a major national newspaper is moot, given that we have the Internet and everybody gets a soapbox of their own.
But the NYT is still in business, and still supposedly trying to perform that traditional function.
I think publishing the viewpoint of major influential players is an important part of that - unedited, in their own words.
Re some of the other comments:
Shiva Ayyadurai is a nobody - the NYT has no reason to publish him; nobody really cares what Shiva thinks.
The head of the KKK would be a "somebody" if the KKK were an influential national movement. It's not - it's a few crazy cranks.
If it was 1940 and Adolf Hitler was running Nazi Germany, I say publish Hitler's op-ed.
If the NYT editors feel these viewpoints are wrong (as is obviously the case with most of these examples), they can and should print opposing editorials on a facing page - directly taking down the arguments made.
But I still want to hear what Hitler, and the Devil, have to say. I want to hear it in their own words.
If only to understand the enemy better.
On the post: Ubisoft Bows To Monster Energy To Rename An Upcoming Game Horribly
Re: Re: Lawyers: Professional cowards who earn more than you do
"Even odds" is a vast exaggeration.
There is a risk of that, yes. But MOST of the time courts come to reasonable decisions.
We can't be complete cowards unwilling to accept any risk whatsoever, and expect to keep our freedom.
Otherwise some bully with a pocket knife will take over.
On the post: NY Times Editorial Pages Fuck Up Again: Publishes Chinese Official's Ridiculous Defense Of Stifling Freedom In Hong Kong
I take the opposite viewpoint
Usually I agree with you, Mike. Not this time.
I'm glad the NYT published the Cotton piece, and the Regina Ip piece.
I want to hear what these people have to say - even if it's "horrific".
Nobody ever thinks they're the bad guy. With rare exceptions, people do and say things because they believe in it. I don't think its the job of the NYT to decide who's right.
Tom Cotton is not some nut in his mother's basement - he's a sitting United States senator. What he thinks, and why, matters. I want to hear it, even if I disagree with it.
Regina Ip isn't a nobody either - she's a prominent Hong Kong politician. What she thinks, and why she thinks it, will have a big effect on the future of Hong Kong, China, and US-China relations. I want to hear it - in her own words.
Sure, the NYT should make crystal-clear they're running these as the opinion of prominent and influential people - not as their own opinion. I think they do that.
But I want to hear what all sides have to say, in their own words, not "interpreted" by somebody else with a different agenda.
Who knows, maybe I'll even decide they're right.
On the post: Ubisoft Bows To Monster Energy To Rename An Upcoming Game Horribly
Lawyers: Professional cowards who earn more than you do
Yellow-bellied candy asses who take your money in exchange for telling you to run from bullies the size of a poodle.
On the post: Appeals Court: City Employee's Horrific Facebook Posts About Tamir Rice Shooting Were Likely Protected Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Being sacked by the government isn't censors
I'll reply to you since yours was the last comment - the other comments seem to agree with you.
Simply put, just because the guy says he's happy about the kid being killed doesn't mean he won't do his job.
Lots of jobs require people to do things they'd prefer not to.
As long as he does his job, he's entitled to whatever crazy opinions he likes. And to post them online. It wasn't a threat or statement that he'd refuse aid as an EMT.
If he were to refuse to do his job, of course that's another matter.
I think the court got this right.
On the post: Appeals Court: City Employee's Horrific Facebook Posts About Tamir Rice Shooting Were Likely Protected Speech
Re: Re: Being sacked by the government isn't censorship
The court here disagrees with you, AC.
As do I. When the government punishes you because of your speech, that's censorship.
Suppose they put him in prison, but let him write letters while in prison. Would you claim "isn't censorship, as they are not stopping him saying horrific things"?
I hope not.
Censorship has been popular for a long time, in many (most) places in history. That's not because it's a bad thing, it's because lots of people thought it was a good thing (as you seem to).
But after much consideration and debate, 18th century intellectuals decided that censorship did more harm than good. (That doesn't mean it doesn't do good.) Thus, the 1st amendment.
I understand their reasoning, and agree with them. Most people who haven't thought hard about it, don't.
On the post: Regulators Are Ignoring How Low Orbit Satellite Broadband Is Trashing The Night Sky
Re: Re: Oh calm down
Attacking an opponent's values, based on your imagination of what those values are, is a really weak way of convincing your opponent (who almost certainly doesn't have the values you assume based on a few lines of text), or anybody else.
What's your point, exactly? That you don't care whether the human race survives? That other people shouldn't care? Is it just that I'm today's target for generic negativity?
Or are you just rhetorically masturbating - spouting text that's meant to put down your imaginary opponent - because it feels good, without having any point of your own to make?
You aren't the only one who does this. Y'all seem to be a sub-species of troll, who get their kicks from imagining that they make other people feel bad, but fail to accomplish even that, as they attack imaginary strawmen who don't exist. While not putting forward any ideas, criticism, or opinion of their own.
So, care to enlighten me re the purpose of a comment like yours? I'd really like to know.
On the post: Regulators Are Ignoring How Low Orbit Satellite Broadband Is Trashing The Night Sky
Oh calm down
What did you think was going to happen?
Did you think 1000 years from the sky wasn't going to have hundreds of thousands of orbiting objects in it?
Unless you want the human race stuck on this one planet until we kill ourselves off (which won't be long if we're only on one planet), soon or later we're going to colonize the galaxy.
Sooner is better.
Lights in the sky seem a small price to pay for that.
120 years ago you people would have been the ones moaning about how these newfangled "airplane" things are going to mess up view of the clouds.
On the post: Scientists Forced To Change Names Of Human Genes Because Of Microsoft's Failure To Patch Excel
Re: what percentage of users
This.
It's hardly Microsoft's fault that geneticists chose names that look like dates.
When you decide what to call things, choose wisely.
Microsoft isn't my favorite firm, but this is hardly their fault.
On the post: Space X's Starlink Won't Be The Broadband Disruption Play Many People Think
Re: Re: Re: China and russia have practice in shooting down Sats
It's not that simple.
1) As Douglas Adams said, “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
Because space is big, your bucket of rusty nails needs to be in exactly the right place or the nails won't hit a thing. (Don't think of nails scattered around a big parking lot. Think of nails scattered around the Pacific Ocean. If you want a chance of hitting anything, you need a lot more than a bucketful.) In low earth orbit, they'll decay and re-enter within a matter of weeks.
2) Anybody who can get their bucket of nails in the right place necessarily has highly accurate rockets, and has invested a lot to build that capability.
3) Even if they get the bucket in the right place, they can get at most of a few (count on your fingers) of the 40,000 spacecraft in the constellation.
4) Kessler cascades are theoretical and it's far from clear that the necessary density of spacecraft is anywhere close to the critical threshold. If it is, and the ASAT attempt triggers a cascade of destruction, the attacker will end up destroying their own spacecraft in the attempt. Of which they have many because of (2).
As a practical matter, Starlink is unkillable. Short of intentionally destroying ALL spacecraft of ALL nations, which would be an act of war and is diplomatically untenable. As I said at the start.
On the post: Space X's Starlink Won't Be The Broadband Disruption Play Many People Think
Re: China and russia have practice in shooting down Sats
Sorry - you don't get it.
Starlink is THOUSANDS of spacecraft. TENS of thousands.
Once the network is fully deployed (> 40,000 sats), so what if somebody shoots down 1000 of them? Users will hardly notice.
Nobody can shoot down Starlink short of destroying planet Earth. Not only is it economically impossible (they can't afford that many ASAT weapons), it's dipolomatically impossible and anyway SpaceX can replensh with new spacecraft 100x faster than anybody could shoot them down.
Starlink is unkillable. It's a DoD wet dream - one that they didn't think was economically possible until Musk showed otherwise.
On the post: Space X's Starlink Won't Be The Broadband Disruption Play Many People Think
Re: Shoot down satellites?
Not going to happen. SpaceX can launch new ones FAR faster than anybody can shoot them down.
That's why DoD loves Starlink - with literally thousands of satellites, no enemy can shoot it down. There are too damn many of them.
On the post: ProPublica Releases NYPD Discipline Records Its Union Thought It Had Talked A Court Into Keeping Secret
Re: the mighty Trump
Huh? What does Trump have to do with this?
Cops have been beating people up, and covering up for each other, for a long time.
Did I miss the connection to Trump somewhere?
On the post: Richard Liebowitz Goes Against Client's Interests: Presents Evidence That His Client Did Know About Lawsuits; But Not About Settlements
At this point I don't trust either of them...
Scuzzy lawyers have scuzzy clients.
I hate to generalize, but for some reason "professional" photographers seem particularly likely to engage in unethical copyright suits. Many post their work online, where they know very well that innocent idiots will find it, use it, and get their pants sued off.
And the idea that this guy Craig (who seemed oh-so-eloquent in the letter to the judge) needs a $300 check - blood squeezed out of his victims - to pay his bills is the opposite of classy.
If he can't make a legit living off of his photography by getting clients to pay him, probably he should find another line of work.
I'm all for creatives reaping the rewards of their successful creations. But not by entrapping innocents into a sticky web of lawsuits.
On the post: Facial Recognition Software Finally Gets Around To Getting An Innocent Person Arrested
Can this guy sue?
Anybody know how this works?
If he were to sue for false arrest, would he have a reasonable chance of winning?
On the post: Appeals Court Says California's IMDb-Targeting 'Ageism' Law Is Unconstitutional
Objectification of women - in films!
I don't get the problem with "objectification" of women in movies.
They're movies. We're not hiring the actresses to run our businesses, to do our tax returns, to design our airplanes, to cure our diseases, or to teach English literature.
We are going to LOOK at them on the movie screen.
If we can't objectify people whose JOB it is to be objectified, things have gone too far.
(This applies to men, too, of course. Few people want to watch Danny DeVito play a Clint Eastwood role.)
On the post: FCC Skeptical About Space X Satellite Broadband Claims
Re: Re: SpaceX knows what they're doing
Iridium ended up with 66, plus spares on-orbit.
Yes, SpaceX has plans for de-orbiting failed spacecraft.
All these details you mention have been publicly discussed by SpaceX - they're a Google search away.
Iridium (the original generation of spacecraft) offered 2400 bits/second per user.
SpaceX is offering ~100 Mbps/user. Not at all comparable to Iridium. This necessitates vastly more spacecraft, so each can cover a smaller area on the ground. The number of spacecraft limits the user density on the ground.
On the post: FCC Skeptical About Space X Satellite Broadband Claims
Re: SpaceX knows what they're doing
If Pai was any kind of engineer, he'd know this.
Even if he isn't, the FCC has plenty of competent engineers.
I can only conclude that Pai is being intentionally disingenuous, to hobble SpaceX's and favor the traditional incumbents.
That, or total incompetence. I don't think he's that incompetent.
Next >>