The definition/euphemism was AC's setup piece for the punchline: namely his/her observation that evil doers often don't receive the punishment they deserve, at least in so much as prescribed by law. Seemed clear to me.
As I noted, S1m0ne wasn't the first movie, and I didn't even speak to television materials, I stated only that S. was the best by far, to that point in time. And my researches were conducted via Wikipedia, reference.com, etc. - that's because my memory looks more like a sieve than a trap.
I do however take exception to the point of "simulating behavior and not appearance". Recall that an AI "grew up" and took control from its creator, and the continued appearance of a simulcrum from that point forward was based exactly on what had been "posted" before the AI took over - "posted" being the equivalent of what the creator had said while in the persona of S1m0ne. That's exactly what MS is purporting to do, snatch up the social media postings of Person X, and use them to create a believable imitation "Person X", indistinguishable from the real thing.
Indeed, we've actually seen many incarnations of believable AI, but so far all of them have been exposed in due time. I think that MS truly believes they've overcome that hurdle, and will be "testing" it out on the rest of the online populace.... we'll see how that turns out, eh?
So, Microsoft has taken out a patent on how to implement the movie S1m0ne (2002), eh? That may not be the first movie to use that plotline, but it was certainly the most believable one I've seen. And no, Max Headroom (1985) doesn't qualify - that was an actual actor in dress-up, with some mild (by today's standards) computer enhancements.
My real fear about this is a massive escalation of that old scheme of putting an enemy on all the mailing lists the perpetrator can find; magazine subscriptions, various schools like "Learn To Draw", get-rich-quick schemes, etc. In this day and age, that's all done via the internet, and with a plausible (and seemingly verifiable) identity, this kind of thing will cause a lot of tears before it gets handled.
In my day, about the most harmful thing I could do was to call someone on the telephone (remember those?!) and ask them if their refrigerator was running. Ah, but Bob Dylan did say it best: "The times they are a-changin'".
That's easy - if you hate a community and want to see it banned/canned, simply sign up, post a bit of porno, and sit back and watch the fun. The moderation AI won't be long in doing its part to keep the place spic and span. Lather, Rinse, and Repeat, until the entire community goes away.
My point was that someone, or several someones, is/are over-hyping the stock, with an obvious intent to perpetrate a fraud. The net result of an "over 100%" options mark is that the company will be forced to do one of two things: either issue more stock to cover those purchases, which will be at a loss (of course) and will drive them into bankruptcy in a hurry; or beat the fraudsters and simply declare bankruptcy on their own, no impetus needed.
While I freely admit that it's a nice feeling to think that one is "getting back at Wall St.", that's got about zilch to do with it, insofar as the SEC is concerned. Where there's a loss, or potential loss, of money in quantities larger than my wallet can hold, then the government gets pretty nosy as to why, how, etc. One should not forget that this kind of money, going in either direction, means lots of work, with large rewards at the end, for the IRS, and commensurately, the Federal Government - that's why the SEC is involved in the first place, to protect government interests.
My twitchy nose is telling me that the SEC is going to be asking some very pointed questions of certain Reddit subscribers, RSN. I"m already standing in line, waiting to buy tickets to watch that particular show!
.
This is the doctrine of "sue the proximate cause, not the underlying cause" because..... deep pockets?
There is no needle to thread here, the defense will simply state that no evidence has been provided to prove that Apple (and Google) did, with malice aforethought, conspire with certain of its product users with the intention of causing harm, emotionally or otherwise, to non-conspiratorial members of the public who happened to purchase any of their products. Nor did they do so by purest chance accident.
And Apple/Google will be 'nice', and not mention that Altman has a repetitive pattern of bringing similarly merit-less suits for nuisance value only, likely in hopes of gaining an out-of-court settlement. This is known as "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When all you have on your side is bullshit, pound the court of public opinion."
At least Altman hasn't claimed that his grandfather has died....so far.
Yes, BMG does need to follow the rules, but... I'm still waiting to see the actual timetable of the procedures/rules not being followed. It seems to me that if I apply for a compulsory license, and you (as the copyright holder) don't comply with the law as required (meaning, in a timely fashion), I'd be in a position to say "You didn't specifically deny it, so I'm good to go", then let the court(s) figure it out.
In the meantime, a pretty fair chunk of listeners have been exposed to a variety of music based in religion - I'd be sorely tempted to call that "free advertising". Countering that with claims of "exposing our innermost secrets" falls into the Dick Move category, IMO.
Oh, wait, I forgot.... any publicity is good publicity, is that what's going on here?
[BMG was] apparently in the process of obtaining a compulsory mechanical license to use the song. However, Watch Tower says the necessary procedures weren’t followed so that licensing opportunity failed.
I'm under the impression that compulsory means that a legitimate licensor can not withhold permission - am I completely off-base here? And separately from that, I read the second sentence to mean "we think they didn't do it correctly, so we get to say the application is denied". Should I be looking for some other way they might've meant it? For all the article goes off on BMG (and deservedly so), I'm pretty confident that they know how to obtain compulsory licenses, that "not following the procedures" isn't easily found in their playbook.
Not trying to defend the 800 pound gorilla here, I'm more interested in how Watch Tower thinks they have a chance greater than that of a snowball in Hell.
Abusive or not, it's sewer-level pollution, and the public is better off without it. No matter what the level of office, from dog-catcher on up, the rancorous discourse really has to stop.... and shutting down all manner of political posting is a good first step.
Political advertising can be polite and informative without vituperation, but it's been a long time since we've seen such. It seems to me like the last 40 years or more, ads have been about 80 or 90% pointing out "the other guy's" alleged faults, not so much bolstering your own good points (if you have any, that is - some would posit that wanting to run for office is already on the negative side of desirability). That's called "playing to the public's fears", and it's exactly why Sanders, Warren and a host of other wannabe's didn't get very far - we'd already seen enough of #45's daily (hourly!) trumpeting of fear.
To paraphrase Stone Cold Steve Austin; "Oh, HELL NO!"
did they not learn [anything] during their grade school years?
I'm sorry to have to inform you that you've committed a faux pas - you incorrectly assumed that the aforementioned troll(s) made it into grade school in the first place. No, they were simply placed into a state-mandated incarceration involving advanced sand pounding and other toddler-appropriate activities.
Education of any sort, including treating others with civility, being the lowest on the list of those other activities.
I'd ask for her law license - in all jurisdictions, not just her home system. Better to get imbeciles like her out of the legal profession than to let them get out of having to answer for her indiscretions because she doesn't have that kind of money.
Remember, defamation of almost every kind is a civil matter, so no jail time will attach to her claims/actions. But hey, if it could be proven that she acted in conspiracy with others to defraud the country of its rightful voting results, then that would likely get right next to Prenda-ville.... I mean, both defrockation and a new orange wardrobe for the next decade or two. Best possible outcome in my book.
Discomfort over power? A sure sign of maturity right there. Kudos to all in that particular boat.
But I have a question, hopefully a simple one: Without the power of the Ban Hammer, how do you inveigle someone to act in a civil manner? To me, that is the crux of the whole matter. Jack did say "We failed to promote healthy .conversation", and the only way to do that is to put members of a group on notice of potential ostracization for those who blatantly ignore the rules of civility.
I must say, hanging a small tag around the neck of the poster saying something like "this topic is disputed" or some such, that's about a worthwhile as a screen door on a submarine. Better to say "this tweet contains one or more outright lies, but the tweeter is free to express his opinion, and make a fool of himself in the doing of it". Seems drastic to you? OK, then how would you word it so that readers of an outright lie don't get all emotional and go bonkers? That's also a good question, no?
On the post: No, Getting Rid Of Anonymity Will Not Fix Social Media; It Will Cause More Problems
Re: Wrong Point of view
Gets my vote for both categories, Insightful and Funny!
On the post: No, Getting Rid Of Anonymity Will Not Fix Social Media; It Will Cause More Problems
Re:
Not from the Supreme Court, it isn't. For all the reasons cited above, etc.
On the post: No, Getting Rid Of Anonymity Will Not Fix Social Media; It Will Cause More Problems
Re:
I would contend that #45 did his damndest to incite others to go out and put Democracy's dick in the dirt.
On the post: No, Getting Rid Of Anonymity Will Not Fix Social Media; It Will Cause More Problems
Re: Re: "Hold accountable"
The definition/euphemism was AC's setup piece for the punchline: namely his/her observation that evil doers often don't receive the punishment they deserve, at least in so much as prescribed by law. Seemed clear to me.
On the post: Microsoft Patent: Chatbots Made From The Online Habits Of Dead People
Re:
Not odd at all. But the real sticking point is this: who's gonna be the owner of this "fake but believable" persona?
On the post: Microsoft Patent: Chatbots Made From The Online Habits Of Dead People
Re: Re: Max Headroom
MC,
As I noted, S1m0ne wasn't the first movie, and I didn't even speak to television materials, I stated only that S. was the best by far, to that point in time. And my researches were conducted via Wikipedia, reference.com, etc. - that's because my memory looks more like a sieve than a trap.
I do however take exception to the point of "simulating behavior and not appearance". Recall that an AI "grew up" and took control from its creator, and the continued appearance of a simulcrum from that point forward was based exactly on what had been "posted" before the AI took over - "posted" being the equivalent of what the creator had said while in the persona of S1m0ne. That's exactly what MS is purporting to do, snatch up the social media postings of Person X, and use them to create a believable imitation "Person X", indistinguishable from the real thing.
Indeed, we've actually seen many incarnations of believable AI, but so far all of them have been exposed in due time. I think that MS truly believes they've overcome that hurdle, and will be "testing" it out on the rest of the online populace.... we'll see how that turns out, eh?
On the post: Microsoft Patent: Chatbots Made From The Online Habits Of Dead People
So, Microsoft has taken out a patent on how to implement the movie S1m0ne (2002), eh? That may not be the first movie to use that plotline, but it was certainly the most believable one I've seen. And no, Max Headroom (1985) doesn't qualify - that was an actual actor in dress-up, with some mild (by today's standards) computer enhancements.
My real fear about this is a massive escalation of that old scheme of putting an enemy on all the mailing lists the perpetrator can find; magazine subscriptions, various schools like "Learn To Draw", get-rich-quick schemes, etc. In this day and age, that's all done via the internet, and with a plausible (and seemingly verifiable) identity, this kind of thing will cause a lot of tears before it gets handled.
In my day, about the most harmful thing I could do was to call someone on the telephone (remember those?!) and ask them if their refrigerator was running. Ah, but Bob Dylan did say it best: "The times they are a-changin'".
On the post: Discord Takes Over Moderation Of r/WallStreetBets Server As Facebook Shuts Down Popular Stock Trading Group
What's the fastest to to shut down a community?
That's easy - if you hate a community and want to see it banned/canned, simply sign up, post a bit of porno, and sit back and watch the fun. The moderation AI won't be long in doing its part to keep the place spic and span. Lather, Rinse, and Repeat, until the entire community goes away.
On the post: Parole Violator Who Raided Senate Building Sold Out By The GPS Unit Attached To Him For Previous Parole Violations
Re: Re:
Sigh.
On the post: Parole Violator Who Raided Senate Building Sold Out By The GPS Unit Attached To Him For Previous Parole Violations
Let us not forget that old maxim:
On the post: For Basically No Reason, Gamestop's Stock Price Is Rollercoastering In A Tug Of War Being Fought On Reddit
Re: Re:
My point was that someone, or several someones, is/are over-hyping the stock, with an obvious intent to perpetrate a fraud. The net result of an "over 100%" options mark is that the company will be forced to do one of two things: either issue more stock to cover those purchases, which will be at a loss (of course) and will drive them into bankruptcy in a hurry; or beat the fraudsters and simply declare bankruptcy on their own, no impetus needed.
While I freely admit that it's a nice feeling to think that one is "getting back at Wall St.", that's got about zilch to do with it, insofar as the SEC is concerned. Where there's a loss, or potential loss, of money in quantities larger than my wallet can hold, then the government gets pretty nosy as to why, how, etc. One should not forget that this kind of money, going in either direction, means lots of work, with large rewards at the end, for the IRS, and commensurately, the Federal Government - that's why the SEC is involved in the first place, to protect government interests.
On the post: For Basically No Reason, Gamestop's Stock Price Is Rollercoastering In A Tug Of War Being Fought On Reddit
My twitchy nose is telling me that the SEC is going to be asking some very pointed questions of certain Reddit subscribers, RSN. I"m already standing in line, waiting to buy tickets to watch that particular show!
.
On the post: Former US Ambassador Sues Apple Because Telegram Users Are Making Him Feel Scared [Update]
This is the doctrine of "sue the proximate cause, not the underlying cause" because..... deep pockets?
There is no needle to thread here, the defense will simply state that no evidence has been provided to prove that Apple (and Google) did, with malice aforethought, conspire with certain of its product users with the intention of causing harm, emotionally or otherwise, to non-conspiratorial members of the public who happened to purchase any of their products. Nor did they do so by purest chance accident.
And Apple/Google will be 'nice', and not mention that Altman has a repetitive pattern of bringing similarly merit-less suits for nuisance value only, likely in hopes of gaining an out-of-court settlement. This is known as "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When all you have on your side is bullshit, pound the court of public opinion."
At least Altman hasn't claimed that his grandfather has died....so far.
On the post: BMG, Aggressive Champion Of Copyright Enforcement, Accused Of Copyright Infringement By Jehovah's Witnesses
Re: Re: Reputational damage?
Yes, BMG does need to follow the rules, but... I'm still waiting to see the actual timetable of the procedures/rules not being followed. It seems to me that if I apply for a compulsory license, and you (as the copyright holder) don't comply with the law as required (meaning, in a timely fashion), I'd be in a position to say "You didn't specifically deny it, so I'm good to go", then let the court(s) figure it out.
In the meantime, a pretty fair chunk of listeners have been exposed to a variety of music based in religion - I'd be sorely tempted to call that "free advertising". Countering that with claims of "exposing our innermost secrets" falls into the Dick Move category, IMO.
Oh, wait, I forgot.... any publicity is good publicity, is that what's going on here?
On the post: BMG, Aggressive Champion Of Copyright Enforcement, Accused Of Copyright Infringement By Jehovah's Witnesses
Here's the rub, IMO:
I'm under the impression that compulsory means that a legitimate licensor can not withhold permission - am I completely off-base here? And separately from that, I read the second sentence to mean "we think they didn't do it correctly, so we get to say the application is denied". Should I be looking for some other way they might've meant it? For all the article goes off on BMG (and deservedly so), I'm pretty confident that they know how to obtain compulsory licenses, that "not following the procedures" isn't easily found in their playbook.
Not trying to defend the 800 pound gorilla here, I'm more interested in how Watch Tower thinks they have a chance greater than that of a snowball in Hell.
On the post: In Departing Statement, FCC Boss Ajit Pai Pretends He 'Served The People'
Re: Served them a backhand, middle finger, kick to the groin...
Rod Serling thanks you for remembering him, and his visions of potential alternative realities. :)
On the post: Inauguration Has Happened, Google And Facebook Should End The Ban On Political Advertisements
I"m gonna have to go with NO, as well.
Abusive or not, it's sewer-level pollution, and the public is better off without it. No matter what the level of office, from dog-catcher on up, the rancorous discourse really has to stop.... and shutting down all manner of political posting is a good first step.
Political advertising can be polite and informative without vituperation, but it's been a long time since we've seen such. It seems to me like the last 40 years or more, ads have been about 80 or 90% pointing out "the other guy's" alleged faults, not so much bolstering your own good points (if you have any, that is - some would posit that wanting to run for office is already on the negative side of desirability). That's called "playing to the public's fears", and it's exactly why Sanders, Warren and a host of other wannabe's didn't get very far - we'd already seen enough of #45's daily (hourly!) trumpeting of fear.
To paraphrase Stone Cold Steve Austin; "Oh, HELL NO!"
On the post: Dominion Voting Systems Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Former Trump Lawyer, Sidney Powell
Re:
I'm sorry to have to inform you that you've committed a faux pas - you incorrectly assumed that the aforementioned troll(s) made it into grade school in the first place. No, they were simply placed into a state-mandated incarceration involving advanced sand pounding and other toddler-appropriate activities.
Education of any sort, including treating others with civility, being the lowest on the list of those other activities.
On the post: Dominion Voting Systems Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Former Trump Lawyer, Sidney Powell
I'd ask for her law license - in all jurisdictions, not just her home system. Better to get imbeciles like her out of the legal profession than to let them get out of having to answer for her indiscretions because she doesn't have that kind of money.
Remember, defamation of almost every kind is a civil matter, so no jail time will attach to her claims/actions. But hey, if it could be proven that she acted in conspiracy with others to defraud the country of its rightful voting results, then that would likely get right next to Prenda-ville.... I mean, both defrockation and a new orange wardrobe for the next decade or two. Best possible outcome in my book.
On the post: Jack Dorsey Explains The Difficult Decision To Ban Donald Trump; Reiterates Support For Turning Twitter Into A Decentralized Protocol
Discomfort over power? A sure sign of maturity right there. Kudos to all in that particular boat.
But I have a question, hopefully a simple one: Without the power of the Ban Hammer, how do you inveigle someone to act in a civil manner? To me, that is the crux of the whole matter. Jack did say "We failed to promote healthy .conversation", and the only way to do that is to put members of a group on notice of potential ostracization for those who blatantly ignore the rules of civility.
I must say, hanging a small tag around the neck of the poster saying something like "this topic is disputed" or some such, that's about a worthwhile as a screen door on a submarine. Better to say "this tweet contains one or more outright lies, but the tweeter is free to express his opinion, and make a fool of himself in the doing of it". Seems drastic to you? OK, then how would you word it so that readers of an outright lie don't get all emotional and go bonkers? That's also a good question, no?
Next >>