Google has created a situation through hard work, a little luck, a browser, and a free operating system that has made them not just a default choice for consumers, but a wired in choice as search by most makers of smart phones and tablets.
There are literally hundreds of millions of devices that cannot easily avoid Google. It is for all intent and purposes a monopoly.
The infringers would be sued if the ISP wasn't also willing to hide their personal information. Cox stand here is very too faced, it's only based on merely accused infringers, but we are going to make it impossible for you to find out who they are as well.
They want it both ways. They better be careful, because a win one way could mean they get regulated into divulging customer information for lawsuits.
I won't bother to correct you, as you will just come back and spew the same stuff again. Duration of the break in isn't the issue, the breaking in is the issue. Just work with it, it's the truth.
I don't think he is suggesting that at all. The crime isn't "how long" the crime is the illegal access and defacement, period. It's sort of like breaking and entering, it's not how long you stay, it's that you broke in.
As for the "didn't perform himself", we have been over this many times. He provided the password and asked for it to be done. There isn't much wiggle room there for the simple reason that without him, nothing would have happened.
The problem you have is that Shiva doesn't appear to be claiming all rights on all email in all the world.
Further, since the battery you describe has clearly already been invented (and is common knowledge to all, with perhaps of the exception of some 4th world people), it's not going to work.
At the point that Shiva "invented" his email program, it's likely that (a) he had never seen anything like it, and (b) neither had anyone else around him.
Just to put in perspective, Compuserve is often cited as one of the first systems to offer email. from their own site, I quote:
" In 1979, CompuServe became the first service to offer electronic mail capabilities and technical support to personal computer users. "
Now, email may have existed before that in some form, but it's unlikely that a 14 year old high school student had seen it.
Now, did he "invent email"? Probably not as such. But there is little doubt (in fact none at all) that he created an email system that pre-dated many known uses. He may also have the first copyright on code related to email.
The breadth of his claim is perhaps a little far reaching. Does it merit mocking and saying he is a liar? That's something that apparently the courts will decide, if the two parties in the case here can afford to go that long and that far.
If I believe some of Mike's comments, it appears that nobody is paying any big part of this site. It's why there are the constant daily deals and whatnot on the site, as they get a nice percentage on most of it.
Mike has made it clear in the past that banner ads / other ads have lost upwards to 90% of their income. So it's not there!
Re: I think I understand the Techdirt/Democratic Angle now
You are working too hard at it. You gotta simplify to find the real answer.
Techdirt is generally anti-authority and anti-regulation, unless the regulation makes it easier to be anti-authority (think net neutrality).
Demographically, the site plays to mostly male, mostly under 30, mostly with some college education, liberal to libertarian, and many connecting from their work cubicle. Think 4chan grown up and meeting reddit for the first time, and you are sort of there. There are a few outliers (like retired tax evaders and bad rap singers) and a reasonable mix of techie people of all ages, but the skew is young and male.
So f--k the police isn't really off the reserve. It's just part of the package.
When Wikileaks became all about Assange and not about the leaks, they basically lost the plot.
What is remarkable for a site that is all about transparency and revealing everything no matter who gets hurt (or possibly killed), Assange has not only not been forthcoming about his own issues, but has chosen to hide out and avoid facing them in the real world.
He lost the moral right to C&D anything a long time ago.
Well, I have found two things reported in a couple of different places. Being called "Dr Evil" which would imply he is a master criminal is one of the points. The bigger one seems to be related to the accident where Murray claims an Earthqauke had something to do with the accident. Apparently they are upset that only one side was presented and that studied and such that pointed to an Earthquake were ignored.
Laywers don't always get it right. in fact our legal system pretty much assures that at least one lawyer loses in every case, right?
I don't think Murray has a leg to stand on here. But there may be just enough to actually move this into court rather than just being a nastygram thing.
I watched the video, and as always Oliver is quite funny and generally on point. There is plenty in the piece that is clearly protected speech.
I can say, however, that it does also appear to be a fairly one sided piece, and if your opinions of Murray came solely from Oliver's mouth, then you might consider him quite the piece of sh-t.
I am not standing up for Murray in anyway here, I don't know him from a hole in the ground. The question only is did Oliver present the truth, or did he carefully edit together a collection of statements and comments, perhaps even taken out of context, to paint a worse picture that reality? There is a point where that can be actionable if the intent was to change the meaning of statements or to present things together in a way to create meaning where none existed.
Oliver is hilarious. The squirrel bit is pretty darn funny. I hope he keeps up the good work! I also hope for his sake that everything he said is true, solid, and beyond legal reproach. Then he can also win this lawsuit and make another 20 minute bit about how much of a coal hole Murray must surely be.
Canada generally has some of the best building codes in the world. They aren't messing around when it comes to build quality, and any major renovations are held up to the same high standards.
They are also built with higher insulation standards, safer designs (as you point out, multiple stairwells in buildings under 20 stories), and more points of isolation. Grenfell does not appear to have any isolation points between the units and the elevator / stair complex in the core of the building. To me that looks more like a chimney design!
In the case of this fire, it appears that even hallway sprinklers (just in the common areas) would have been a lifesaver for many. That cladding was a better choice is a head shaker.
First and foremost, the fire is tragic, but not a tragedy. It was foreseeable that something of this nature would happen in relation to older, non-sprinkler tall tower buildings. That may be actionable against the council and the govenrment, at the very least it looks bad.
For the first amendment issue, let's be clear. Stating or suggesting someone (or some group) is doing something illegal without proof is one of the basics of libelous or slanderous statements. Since the bar on these things in the UK is quite a bit lower than the US, the letter asking for a retraction / removal of the blog in question is not over the top. It's actually pretty light considering the claims at the time.
Time is key here. A day or a week before the fire, this was all theoretical and hypothetical. The fire brought the situation to a very sad real ending.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Profitability changes as the market does
I just think you are sore because you came to realize that someone else has been trolling you hard as hell.
Look, you don't like what i say, who cares? Nothing you post says much, you talk in circles and try to find ways to blame me for everything. Not going to work.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Profitability changes as the market does
Pretty much all of your post is wrong.
"Which isn't true. They send posts from IPs that have been flagged as spam or trolling by the community here to a spam filter, which is then manually moderated."
Not true. My ISP changes my IP reasonably often over a wide range of IPs (at least 3 different class As, and as a result there is a huge number of possible IPs). Since a post made immediately after an IP change heads directly to moderation, there is only one conclusion to draw. Clearly, it's not driven by flags. You aren't on the receiving end of this treatment, so you have no clue. Stop stating as fact what just isn't proven.
"Neither are arbitrary price rises. More effective would be the changes to the packaging and other systems used by these companies which are both based in market realities from last century and reduce the value offered to customers who increasingly want bespoke choices."
Not as simple as you make it sound. if changing packages around would lead to a drop in per subscriber income, or would encourage existing (and reasonably satisfied customers) to drop to a lower tier, you are shooting yourself in the foot.
Cannibalizing your existing subscriber base to try to attract back a smaller group of lost clients may not be the best bottom line choice, that's all. It's a basic business concept that perhaps Mike can explain better for you one day.
"you've avoided actually answering the points raised by the article"
Nope, I addressed them very directly. The cable industry doesn't "Refuse(s) To Compete On Price" as the article suggests, rather they are unable to arrive at a business model under the current circumstances that is better than the current model - and that is my point entirely.
I didn't figure you would miss it. Next time I try to draw with crayons so you can follow along.
Oh, and calling me a liar? Just keep attacking Paul, it makes you look classy.
Re: Re: Re: Profitability changes as the market does
Hi Paul, nice to see you can't help but attack me personally. I will ignore it, it's just funny to watch you go.
The points are "over simplified" because I don't want people to get stuck in the minutia of 1% here or 3% there. I am just pointing out that a serious price drop in a subscription model is rarely good for the bottom line, and even if it results in recouping the customers who are interested it's unlikely to make for a better bottom line.
These are generally publicly traded companies. They are beholden to their shareholders and are suppose to do what's best for the bottom line of the company.
As for digging their own graves, just remember that the term "cord cutters" is an insane misnomer. Most Americans who "cut the cord" generally drop the cable part of their subscription and then pay much more for slightly higher speed internet from the same company.
As for TOR, I don't use it. I have been sending all of you the dummy because you are silly enough to fall for it. I did mention however that the method used by Techdirt to block me generally has been to just automatically add whatever IP my ISP assigns to me to the TOR list, which in turn pushed all posts into moderation (not flagged by users, but moderation on submit). However, a recent update by my ISP and at my end as well means that I have full IPv6 now, and apparently the TOR blocker doesn't work on that (yet).
So no searching required. As per normal, you missed my points and tried to make it into something else, and as per normal, you failed. Have a nice day!
On the post: Three Thoughts On EU's $2.7 Billion Antitrust Google Fine
Re: Free Market?
There are literally hundreds of millions of devices that cannot easily avoid Google. It is for all intent and purposes a monopoly.
On the post: As Predicted, Cox's Latest Appeal Points To SCOTUS' Refusal To Disconnect Sex Offenders From Social Media
They want it both ways. They better be careful, because a win one way could mean they get regulated into divulging customer information for lawsuits.
On the post: Appeals Court Upholds Matthew Keys' Two-Year Sentence For A 40-Minute Web Defacement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I won't bother to correct you, as you will just come back and spew the same stuff again. Duration of the break in isn't the issue, the breaking in is the issue. Just work with it, it's the truth.
On the post: Appeals Court Upholds Matthew Keys' Two-Year Sentence For A 40-Minute Web Defacement
Re: Re:
As for the "didn't perform himself", we have been over this many times. He provided the password and asked for it to be done. There isn't much wiggle room there for the simple reason that without him, nothing would have happened.
On the post: Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed
Re: Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
Further, since the battery you describe has clearly already been invented (and is common knowledge to all, with perhaps of the exception of some 4th world people), it's not going to work.
At the point that Shiva "invented" his email program, it's likely that (a) he had never seen anything like it, and (b) neither had anyone else around him.
Just to put in perspective, Compuserve is often cited as one of the first systems to offer email. from their own site, I quote:
" In 1979, CompuServe became the first service to offer electronic mail capabilities and technical support to personal computer users. "
Now, email may have existed before that in some form, but it's unlikely that a 14 year old high school student had seen it.
Now, did he "invent email"? Probably not as such. But there is little doubt (in fact none at all) that he created an email system that pre-dated many known uses. He may also have the first copyright on code related to email.
The breadth of his claim is perhaps a little far reaching. Does it merit mocking and saying he is a liar? That's something that apparently the courts will decide, if the two parties in the case here can afford to go that long and that far.
On the post: Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed
Re:
Mike has made it clear in the past that banner ads / other ads have lost upwards to 90% of their income. So it's not there!
On the post: Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed
Re: I think I understand the Techdirt/Democratic Angle now
Techdirt is generally anti-authority and anti-regulation, unless the regulation makes it easier to be anti-authority (think net neutrality).
Demographically, the site plays to mostly male, mostly under 30, mostly with some college education, liberal to libertarian, and many connecting from their work cubicle. Think 4chan grown up and meeting reddit for the first time, and you are sort of there. There are a few outliers (like retired tax evaders and bad rap singers) and a reasonable mix of techie people of all ages, but the skew is young and male.
So f--k the police isn't really off the reserve. It's just part of the package.
On the post: Wikileaks Attempts To Bully Wikileaks Documentary With C&D Notices
WIkileaks lost it a long time ago
What is remarkable for a site that is all about transparency and revealing everything no matter who gets hurt (or possibly killed), Assange has not only not been forthcoming about his own issues, but has chosen to hide out and avoid facing them in the real world.
He lost the moral right to C&D anything a long time ago.
On the post: Coal Boss Files Total SLAPP Suit Against John Oliver & HBO
Re: Re:
Laywers don't always get it right. in fact our legal system pretty much assures that at least one lawyer loses in every case, right?
I don't think Murray has a leg to stand on here. But there may be just enough to actually move this into court rather than just being a nastygram thing.
On the post: Coal Boss Files Total SLAPP Suit Against John Oliver & HBO
I can say, however, that it does also appear to be a fairly one sided piece, and if your opinions of Murray came solely from Oliver's mouth, then you might consider him quite the piece of sh-t.
I am not standing up for Murray in anyway here, I don't know him from a hole in the ground. The question only is did Oliver present the truth, or did he carefully edit together a collection of statements and comments, perhaps even taken out of context, to paint a worse picture that reality? There is a point where that can be actionable if the intent was to change the meaning of statements or to present things together in a way to create meaning where none existed.
Oliver is hilarious. The squirrel bit is pretty darn funny. I hope he keeps up the good work! I also hope for his sake that everything he said is true, solid, and beyond legal reproach. Then he can also win this lawsuit and make another 20 minute bit about how much of a coal hole Murray must surely be.
On the post: SLAPP Threats And The Grenfell Fire: Why We Must Stop Attacks On Free Speech
Re: Re: Two sides
They are also built with higher insulation standards, safer designs (as you point out, multiple stairwells in buildings under 20 stories), and more points of isolation. Grenfell does not appear to have any isolation points between the units and the elevator / stair complex in the core of the building. To me that looks more like a chimney design!
In the case of this fire, it appears that even hallway sprinklers (just in the common areas) would have been a lifesaver for many. That cladding was a better choice is a head shaker.
On the post: SLAPP Threats And The Grenfell Fire: Why We Must Stop Attacks On Free Speech
Two sides
For the first amendment issue, let's be clear. Stating or suggesting someone (or some group) is doing something illegal without proof is one of the basics of libelous or slanderous statements. Since the bar on these things in the UK is quite a bit lower than the US, the letter asking for a retraction / removal of the blog in question is not over the top. It's actually pretty light considering the claims at the time.
Time is key here. A day or a week before the fire, this was all theoretical and hypothetical. The fire brought the situation to a very sad real ending.
On the post: 80% Of Cord Cutters Leave Because Of High Cable TV Prices, But The Industry Still Refuses To Compete On Price
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marketplace making choice beats bureaucrats doing it for us
Gotta ask you: Is your life so productive that attacking me mindlessly is your most productive way to use it?
You are way to easy to provoke, and way too ignorant to know when you have been trolled.
On the post: 80% Of Cord Cutters Leave Because Of High Cable TV Prices, But The Industry Still Refuses To Compete On Price
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Profitability changes as the market does
Look, you don't like what i say, who cares? Nothing you post says much, you talk in circles and try to find ways to blame me for everything. Not going to work.
I'm back dude, get use to it.
On the post: 80% Of Cord Cutters Leave Because Of High Cable TV Prices, But The Industry Still Refuses To Compete On Price
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Profitability changes as the market does
"Which isn't true. They send posts from IPs that have been flagged as spam or trolling by the community here to a spam filter, which is then manually moderated."
Not true. My ISP changes my IP reasonably often over a wide range of IPs (at least 3 different class As, and as a result there is a huge number of possible IPs). Since a post made immediately after an IP change heads directly to moderation, there is only one conclusion to draw. Clearly, it's not driven by flags. You aren't on the receiving end of this treatment, so you have no clue. Stop stating as fact what just isn't proven.
"Neither are arbitrary price rises. More effective would be the changes to the packaging and other systems used by these companies which are both based in market realities from last century and reduce the value offered to customers who increasingly want bespoke choices."
Not as simple as you make it sound. if changing packages around would lead to a drop in per subscriber income, or would encourage existing (and reasonably satisfied customers) to drop to a lower tier, you are shooting yourself in the foot.
Cannibalizing your existing subscriber base to try to attract back a smaller group of lost clients may not be the best bottom line choice, that's all. It's a basic business concept that perhaps Mike can explain better for you one day.
"you've avoided actually answering the points raised by the article"
Nope, I addressed them very directly. The cable industry doesn't "Refuse(s) To Compete On Price" as the article suggests, rather they are unable to arrive at a business model under the current circumstances that is better than the current model - and that is my point entirely.
I didn't figure you would miss it. Next time I try to draw with crayons so you can follow along.
Oh, and calling me a liar? Just keep attacking Paul, it makes you look classy.
On the post: 80% Of Cord Cutters Leave Because Of High Cable TV Prices, But The Industry Still Refuses To Compete On Price
Re: Re: Re: Profitability changes as the market does
The points are "over simplified" because I don't want people to get stuck in the minutia of 1% here or 3% there. I am just pointing out that a serious price drop in a subscription model is rarely good for the bottom line, and even if it results in recouping the customers who are interested it's unlikely to make for a better bottom line.
These are generally publicly traded companies. They are beholden to their shareholders and are suppose to do what's best for the bottom line of the company.
As for digging their own graves, just remember that the term "cord cutters" is an insane misnomer. Most Americans who "cut the cord" generally drop the cable part of their subscription and then pay much more for slightly higher speed internet from the same company.
As for TOR, I don't use it. I have been sending all of you the dummy because you are silly enough to fall for it. I did mention however that the method used by Techdirt to block me generally has been to just automatically add whatever IP my ISP assigns to me to the TOR list, which in turn pushed all posts into moderation (not flagged by users, but moderation on submit). However, a recent update by my ISP and at my end as well means that I have full IPv6 now, and apparently the TOR blocker doesn't work on that (yet).
So no searching required. As per normal, you missed my points and tried to make it into something else, and as per normal, you failed. Have a nice day!
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Dancing Baby Case... Despite Gov't Admitting 'Serious Legal Error'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and my icon to you Paul.
Next >>