"teh Techies" are generally quite well aware of this fact, and many indeed object rather strenuously especially the ones that have particular expertise in security, etc.
But actual expert opinion about the deficiencies and dangers of electronic voting are routinely ignored and over-ruled by the politicians (with remarkably little attention by the mass media).
It's the politicians, not "the techies" who for whatever reason have been studiously ignoring the experts repeated explanations (and demonstrations) about how/why secure but anonymous electronic voting is inherently a really difficult problem (and certainly not just like electronic banking).
And of course it's generally (in the USA) the politicians, not "the techies" or any expert, neutral parties, who have the actual say in how the balloting systems are designed, what balloting method is implemented and how elections are conducted.
About as possible that a coven of LGBTQ BLM Satanists, lacking physical access to the machines, resorted to conducting a human sacrifice based, satanic ritual, which successfully cursed the voting devices and thereby foiled the techno-ninja auditors in their efforts to uncover the Democrat's underhanded tampering.
And that's not even considering the what the extra-galactic aliens did...
And also to motivate the rubes to keep donating "to the cause".
It's a can't lose proposition for the "leadership" -- every set-back, and every finding (no matter how definitive) against them, becomes just another strand in the web of conspiracy theory, and another item entered on the fund-raising cash register.
The idea that this slice of history could be locked up by a television show and prohibit its use in a totally unrelated market flies in the face of the purpose of trademark law.
I would love an explanation on why this issue apparently wasn't even considered in the court's decision.
It strikes me that this is an ongoing problem in "Intellectual Property" law, and many historical matters do in fact get locked behind "Intellectual Property" pay walls, when perhaps they shouldn't. (The example that most readily comes to mind for me is the notorious locking away of Martin Luther Kings famous I Have A Dream speech.)
Does that actually mean they can't tell what you're watching, though?
For example, couldn't the same technologies used to scan for copyright "infringement" in other contexts, could be incorporated to compile a record of what you've been watching?
Just because you have nothing to hide, doesn't mean you don't have a few things that other parties might exploit to your disadvantage, for their benefit.
The fields of medical knowledge are vast -- and not only constantly being updated, but sometimes even changing.
I damn well hope that my doctor is prepared to consult reference materials before proffering a professional opinion or advising treatment.
If there's anything thing scarier than a newly minted, "inexperienced" doctor fresh out of med school, it's an old practitioner who hasn't bothered to keep him or herself current since they graduated med school.
"Heritage Minister" tends (mostly) to be a sort of on-the-job-training or apprenticeship position, that gives newcomers a chance to prove they have what it takes for a "more important" portfolio.
And historically speaking, it's clear that less competent Heritage Ministers have tended (whether through disinterest, corporate supineness or just simple gullibility) to uncritically forward unchallenged the wish-list proposals of entertainment industry lobbyists.
At this point, whenever a new face appears at the Heritage Minister's desk, my preliminary working assumption is that the minister concerned is an incompetent, who has been given a "ministerial" position for internal political considerations -- though it's always possible that they're simply inexperienced and being given a chance to prove to their colleagues that they can learn and perhaps show themselves sufficiently capable to be advanced to a responsible position, eventually, after all.
The current Heritage Minister appears to be failing this test (which seems to be the usual outcome for those in this role).
You appear to have inadvertently missed a few characters when typing. With corrected numbers (and typos) that should actually read:
It's because the CEOs/Owners tend to want wages 100's - 1000's of times higher than the employees.
.
(Additionally, I personally would have used "expect" or "feel entitled to", rather than soft-pedalling it as "tend to want" -- but arguably that's merely a matter of judgment or opinion, rather than of fact.)
... in my first read through, I scanned this as...
even though these debates always revolve around money in one form or another. How much access each side has to valuable user hostage data, where and how channels see placement within the GUI, search results, etc.
These days, large corporations seem more likely to act as if they own their customers, rather than acting like they serve their customers.
Re: Re: Things can't possibly get more comical than this.
No. They made sure to break and destroy many essential, and difficult to replace, parts in the process of "dismantling" them. They weren't dismantled, they were scrapped (often directly to dumpster boxes) -- "tear that out" and "rip it apart" weren't just metaphorical expressions.
O.T, but...
What ice cream would that be?
Does their "ice cream" contain any more actual dairy product than does their "shake" (which carefully doesn't even include the word "milk" in their name or description)?
On the post: Arizona County's Voting Machines Rendered Unusable By OAN-Financed Vote Auditors
Re: Machines
"teh Techies" are generally quite well aware of this fact, and many indeed object rather strenuously especially the ones that have particular expertise in security, etc.
But actual expert opinion about the deficiencies and dangers of electronic voting are routinely ignored and over-ruled by the politicians (with remarkably little attention by the mass media).
It's the politicians, not "the techies" who for whatever reason have been studiously ignoring the experts repeated explanations (and demonstrations) about how/why secure but anonymous electronic voting is inherently a really difficult problem (and certainly not just like electronic banking).
And of course it's generally (in the USA) the politicians, not "the techies" or any expert, neutral parties, who have the actual say in how the balloting systems are designed, what balloting method is implemented and how elections are conducted.
On the post: Arizona County's Voting Machines Rendered Unusable By OAN-Financed Vote Auditors
Re:
The way these people are going at it, it will turn out to be both.
On the post: Arizona County's Voting Machines Rendered Unusable By OAN-Financed Vote Auditors
Re:
About as possible that a coven of LGBTQ BLM Satanists, lacking physical access to the machines, resorted to conducting a human sacrifice based, satanic ritual, which successfully cursed the voting devices and thereby foiled the techno-ninja auditors in their efforts to uncover the Democrat's underhanded tampering.
And that's not even considering the what the extra-galactic aliens did...
On the post: Arizona County's Voting Machines Rendered Unusable By OAN-Financed Vote Auditors
Re: Re:
And also to motivate the rubes to keep donating "to the cause".
It's a can't lose proposition for the "leadership" -- every set-back, and every finding (no matter how definitive) against them, becomes just another strand in the web of conspiracy theory, and another item entered on the fund-raising cash register.
On the post: Biden Cuts $35 Billion From New Broadband Plan To Appease The GOP
Re:
We're not surprised.
On the post: Makers Of 'Peaky Blinders' Show Fail To Get Injunction Against Distillery For 'Peaky Blinders' Whiskey
I would love an explanation on why this issue apparently wasn't even considered in the court's decision.
It strikes me that this is an ongoing problem in "Intellectual Property" law, and many historical matters do in fact get locked behind "Intellectual Property" pay walls, when perhaps they shouldn't. (The example that most readily comes to mind for me is the notorious locking away of Martin Luther Kings famous I Have A Dream speech.)
On the post: Parler Was Allowed Back In The Apple App Store Because It Will Block 'Hate Speech,' But Only When Viewed Through Apple Devices
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blind Spot
You need to keep a closer eye on your auto-correct.
That was presumably supposed to read "political views that lost all credibility in the early 20th century".
On the post: Scammers Use The Public's Fear Of Copyright Culture To Trick People Into Installing Malware
Re: Re:
Thanks for that pointer -- despite my interest, I've somehow managed to have not actually read it yet.
On the post: Smart TV Makers Will Soon Make More Money Off Your Viewing Habits Than The TV Itself
Re: Modern problems require modern solutions
Does that actually mean they can't tell what you're watching, though?
For example, couldn't the same technologies used to scan for copyright "infringement" in other contexts, could be incorporated to compile a record of what you've been watching?
On the post: Smart TV Makers Will Soon Make More Money Off Your Viewing Habits Than The TV Itself
Re: Re:
Just because you have nothing to hide, doesn't mean you don't have a few things that other parties might exploit to your disadvantage, for their benefit.
On the post: Dartmouth's Insane Paranoia Over 'Cheating' Leads To Ridiculous Surveillance Scandal
Re: Re: Out Here in the Real World
The fields of medical knowledge are vast -- and not only constantly being updated, but sometimes even changing.
I damn well hope that my doctor is prepared to consult reference materials before proffering a professional opinion or advising treatment.
If there's anything thing scarier than a newly minted, "inexperienced" doctor fresh out of med school, it's an old practitioner who hasn't bothered to keep him or herself current since they graduated med school.
On the post: The Stunning Inability Of Canada's Heritage Minister To Answer Questions About His Internet Regulation Bill
Re: Why am I not surprised?
"Heritage Minister" tends (mostly) to be a sort of on-the-job-training or apprenticeship position, that gives newcomers a chance to prove they have what it takes for a "more important" portfolio.
And historically speaking, it's clear that less competent Heritage Ministers have tended (whether through disinterest, corporate supineness or just simple gullibility) to uncritically forward unchallenged the wish-list proposals of entertainment industry lobbyists.
At this point, whenever a new face appears at the Heritage Minister's desk, my preliminary working assumption is that the minister concerned is an incompetent, who has been given a "ministerial" position for internal political considerations -- though it's always possible that they're simply inexperienced and being given a chance to prove to their colleagues that they can learn and perhaps show themselves sufficiently capable to be advanced to a responsible position, eventually, after all.
The current Heritage Minister appears to be failing this test (which seems to be the usual outcome for those in this role).
On the post: Wall Street Journal Editorial Tries To Pretend That Fixing Repair Monopolies Is Bad For Your Health
Re: Re: Re: Re: Company has rights?
Well... you thought you owned the tractor, until you tried to fix it.
On the post: Wall Street Journal Editorial Tries To Pretend That Fixing Repair Monopolies Is Bad For Your Health
Re: you would think
You appear to have inadvertently missed a few characters when typing. With corrected numbers (and typos) that should actually read:
.
(Additionally, I personally would have used "expect" or "feel entitled to", rather than soft-pedalling it as "tend to want" -- but arguably that's merely a matter of judgment or opinion, rather than of fact.)
On the post: Roku Users Lose Access To YouTube TV As Dumb Contract Fights Shift From Cable TV To Streaming
It's probably just me, but...
... in my first read through, I scanned this as...
These days, large corporations seem more likely to act as if they own their customers, rather than acting like they serve their customers.
On the post: Rep. Lauren Boebert Decides To Streisand Parody Site Making Fun Of Her, Threatens To Take Legal Action Against It
Re: Add a few more entries to that list
But... but... that's her Constitutional right!
On the post: Hollywood Lobbyists So Afraid Of Any Public Benefit From 'Intellectual Property' That They're Trying To Block COVID Vaccine Sharing
Really? They deployed *at least* five lobbyists to fight this?
Gosh, it sounds pretty important !
Hmmm.... that's odd.
I don't recall hearing a single word about this during the Oscar Awards ceremonies?
I wonder why not..?
On the post: US Postal Service Is Surveilling Social Media Services Because It Apparently Has Plenty Of Time And Money To Waste
Re: Re: Things can't possibly get more comical than this.
No. They made sure to break and destroy many essential, and difficult to replace, parts in the process of "dismantling" them. They weren't dismantled, they were scrapped (often directly to dumpster boxes) -- "tear that out" and "rip it apart" weren't just metaphorical expressions.
On the post: Captive Markets Are Just Hostages; Or Why Your McDonalds Never Seems To Have A Functioning Shake Machine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
O.T, but...
What ice cream would that be?
Does their "ice cream" contain any more actual dairy product than does their "shake" (which carefully doesn't even include the word "milk" in their name or description)?
On the post: Thanks Copyright Culture: Web Comic '8-Bit Theater' Releases Book With No Pictures Out Of Fear
Re:
That "rightly" belongs in quotation marks.
Next >>