Re: I could do a simple two-word reply, but then I would get flagged.
if you thought a post was insightful, and then the POST EXECUTIONER wanted to bury it under a nameless headstone, do you get a voice? Do you vote?
Yes, you get a vote. Those buttons at the top-right corner of a comment allow you to vote on whether you think a comment is insightful or funny. They also allow you to flag a comment as "abusive/trolling/spam". The whole point of the system is to allow the commenter community a degree of control over what comments are deemed worthwhile to a given conversation.
Sometimes the same post gets enough votes to be marked both ways: with the ! for Insightful, and the "click here to show it" hidden status of trolling.
I've actually flagged a single post with both votes myself, at least once in the past...
CyanogenMod as such doesn't exist anymore; the company pulled the plug on it on December 25th, 2016.
The development community have migrated over to a fork called LineageOS; the development, build, and release patterns are a little different, and the process of migrating from CyanogenMod to LineageOS isn't as clean and simple as could be hoped for, but the result seems to be just as good overall as CyanogenMod was. (At least so far.)
At first glance, I couldn't even see where they were drawing a similarity from.
It took me a moment to figure out that they're reading the name of the restaurant as (The Kitchen) Cafe, whereas I was reading it as The (Kitchen Cafe).
Since the other restaurant doesn't include the phrase "Kitchen Cafe", it wouldn't even have occurred to me to think of it as being possibly connected, much less confusingly similar.
Even not permitting a keyboard app access to network communications doesn't protect against keystroke surveillance entirely.
If you permit it to access storage, and then the people behind it get another app onto your device which _does_ need to access both network communications and storage (such apps being far from uncommon), that app can transmit a stored record of keystrokes.
Er. Apparently even I am susceptible to failing to notice the "reply to this" link. This was intended for the "if you follow orders to sexually assault people as part of your job" comment, which is just above it as I type thos.
And get fired. And replaced by other people, who won't say no.
For so long as we still have the TSA, which is worse: to have the TSA staffed by people who think the groping is a bad thing and don't want to do it, or to have the TSA staffed by people who see nothing wrong with the groping or outright want to do it?
The former type of people are more likely to exercise appropriate restraint, and use good judgment about when the groping (and/or even worse measures) is and is not necessary.
If the former type of people refuse to do it and either quit or get fired, we will be left with nothing but the latter type of people in the job. I am not at all convinced that that is an improvement.
The term refers to the cathode-ray tube, or CRT, and to the boobs (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boob, sense 1) who make up its audience.
There is an alternate definition given which has the sense you describe, but TTBOMK that's comparatively much newer than the other; I certainly don't think I've heard it before today.
Leaving aside the possible legal consequences of that suggested course of action, the problem isn't actually the TSA "gropey people" themselves; it's the system which mandates that such people be present, and engage in the groping, regardless of whether or not they actually *want* to be "gropey".
The thing to target here is the rules, and (if necessary) the laws which give rise to them, not the people who apply them and carry them out - even if some of those people seem as if they might be inclined to do such things even without the protection of those rules.
If you don't like these problems, lobby Congress - and the airline industry, and anyone else you think may be able to affect things - to abolish the TSA as security theater and go back to something more like the metal-detectors-and-passive-explosives-sensors model of airport security we had before 9/11, as being a better solution to the cost/benefit problem.
It's this particular anonymous troll's next-to-latest thinks-he's-clever nickname for Mike Masnick. (The latest being a literary reference I haven't bothered to remember, something about comparing him to a socialist dog - a literal canine.)
When I shared the gist of this article with my father, he suggested that the complaints about (alleged) wiretapping of Trump are being done in order to establish "hey, they did it first!" / "everyone does this, what are you complaining about?" precedent for when Trump wants to surveil people using the same authority.
The standard answer is: Because those regulations were written to rein in the problems with a particular business model (or collection of business models), and Uber is using a different business model to which that specific set of problems does not apply. Thus, if regulations for what Uber is doing are needed, they should be written with Uber's actual business model in mind, not applied blindly on the assumption that Uber is using the same business model as their competitors.
How much the various assumptions behind that answer are or are not true is something to which I cannot personally testify.
I know a little about this topic as I've had to explain to people the sad news that whatever they sent or received via a gov't account was public record, no matter what it was about (you wouldn't believe it if I told you). This was the 90's and soon anyone with a brain knew to keep private info off the public network.
Hmm. How far does that reach?
For example, a state university is considered to be a state actor - i.e., an arm of government - for e.g. First Amendment purposes; are the university-provided E-mail accounts of staff and faculty considered government accounts for this purpose?
The ruling discussed in the article is about whether government employees' non-government-provided E-mail accounts are subject to the rules of government-transparency law; would that extend to staff and faculty of such universities?
I'd expect the answer to be "no" in both cases, but it might be interesting to see the legal reasoning for why.
Counterargument / devil's advocate: people who respond to a yellow light by trying to get through before it turns red will fail more often when the time is shorter, and will end up running the red light. Those people would contribute to an increase in red-light running as a result of the timing change, but are indeed - as you put it - disrespecting the red light.
Long ago though it was, Lindows was still well after the time I'm thinking of for "original"; I'm thinking as in the days of Windows 3.x or earlier. (Which is when I got my start with Windows, as it happens.) The Microsoft-v.-Lindows court case was apparently in 2001; it's entirely likely that even if the original trademark was for "Microsoft Windows", they may have extended things to also trademark the shorter term by that point.
To be fair, I think the original Windows trademark may have been on "Microsoft Windows", not just on "Windows".
But yes, like all other forms of intellectual property that I'm aware of, trademarks are out of control in the modern world - and they're the form for which I have the least idea of how to fix the problem.
Firefox added support for this a year or three back, in a "sandboxed" form in partnership with an EME blob provider whom Mozilla considers reasonably trustworthy (Adobe), for exactly the reasons you cite.
There was considerable pushback/backlash at the time (and at least one article here on Techdirt about it) - but as with most unpopular decisions by Mozilla in the last decade, by the time it became publicly known that the decision was being considered it had already become final and no reversal was made.
I'm pretty sure that, when he says the problem is the business models, he means the business models of the Internet companies which are protected by the DMCA safe harbors, not the business models of the artists and the labels.
I.e., those companies are using business models which are bad for the creative 'industry' (for lack of a better word), and so they should be forbidden from using those models - whether explicitly, or (preferably) by making those models unprofitable.
If you start from his premises, his conclusions aren't wrong, either. It's just that his premises have flaws.
All actors in the online space should be subject to the same rules, and the federal government shouldn’t favor one set of companies over another.
This is actually quite true! Barring extreme circumstances such as a monopoly position, all actors in the same market should be subject to the same rules. (I say "market" rather than "online space" both because this applies equally well to offline contexts, and because the "online space" actually represents many different markets.)
The snag is that a company providing a connection to the Internet is not operating within the "online space". That company is operating between the "online space" and the rest of the world.
All actors within that market should be subject to the same rules, but the rules to which they should be subject are not the same as the rules to which those operating within the different market that is the "online space" should be subject.
(There's actually a lot more to it, in various crannies of the above - to do with things such as "natural monopoly" and "network effect" and "pro bono publico" and "non-profit" and so forth. But that's a decent overall short summary.)
As it happens, most of the companies involved in this fight - including, if I understand correctly, both Google and Facebook - fall into both categories: they both provide access to the Internet, and provide services on the Internet. Those different parts of their business should be regulated separately, according to the different rules which apply to those different markets.
On the post: First Amendment Lawyer Apparently Surprised That The First Amendment Covers Everyone
Re: I could do a simple two-word reply, but then I would get flagged.
Sometimes the same post gets enough votes to be marked both ways: with the ! for Insightful, and the "click here to show it" hidden status of trolling.
I've actually flagged a single post with both votes myself, at least once in the past...
On the post: CIA Leak Shows Mobile Phones Vulnerable, Not Encryption
Re: Re:
The development community have migrated over to a fork called LineageOS; the development, build, and release patterns are a little different, and the process of migrating from CyanogenMod to LineageOS isn't as clean and simple as could be hoped for, but the result seems to be just as good overall as CyanogenMod was. (At least so far.)
On the post: Wolfgang Puck Battles Elon Musk's Brother Over Trademark Rights For 'The Kitchen' In Restaurant Industry
It took me a moment to figure out that they're reading the name of the restaurant as (The Kitchen) Cafe, whereas I was reading it as The (Kitchen Cafe).
Since the other restaurant doesn't include the phrase "Kitchen Cafe", it wouldn't even have occurred to me to think of it as being possibly connected, much less confusingly similar.
On the post: CIA Leak Shows Mobile Phones Vulnerable, Not Encryption
Re: Re:
If you permit it to access storage, and then the people behind it get another app onto your device which _does_ need to access both network communications and storage (such apps being far from uncommon), that app can transmit a stored record of keystrokes.
On the post: Senator Thune Begins Pushing A 'Net Neutrality' Bill That's Likely To Kill Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Table
On the post: TSA Now Making Its Intrusive Searches Even More Gropey & Assaulty
Re:
On the post: TSA Now Making Its Intrusive Searches Even More Gropey & Assaulty
For so long as we still have the TSA, which is worse: to have the TSA staffed by people who think the groping is a bad thing and don't want to do it, or to have the TSA staffed by people who see nothing wrong with the groping or outright want to do it?
The former type of people are more likely to exercise appropriate restraint, and use good judgment about when the groping (and/or even worse measures) is and is not necessary.
If the former type of people refuse to do it and either quit or get fired, we will be left with nothing but the latter type of people in the job. I am not at all convinced that that is an improvement.
On the post: Vizio Fails To Dodge Class Action Over Its Spying 'Smart' Televisions
Re: "the ... boob-tube"
The term refers to the cathode-ray tube, or CRT, and to the boobs (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boob, sense 1) who make up its audience.
There is an alternate definition given which has the sense you describe, but TTBOMK that's comparatively much newer than the other; I certainly don't think I've heard it before today.
On the post: TSA Now Making Its Intrusive Searches Even More Gropey & Assaulty
Re: For those who have
The thing to target here is the rules, and (if necessary) the laws which give rise to them, not the people who apply them and carry them out - even if some of those people seem as if they might be inclined to do such things even without the protection of those rules.
If you don't like these problems, lobby Congress - and the airline industry, and anyone else you think may be able to affect things - to abolish the TSA as security theater and go back to something more like the metal-detectors-and-passive-explosives-sensors model of airport security we had before 9/11, as being a better solution to the cost/benefit problem.
On the post: Here's A Tip: If You're Desiging Special Apps To Hide From Regulators, You're Going To Get In Trouble
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Trump Administration Wants A Clean Reauthorization For NSA Surveillance
Re: Re:
On the post: Trump Administration Wants A Clean Reauthorization For NSA Surveillance
On the post: Here's A Tip: If You're Desiging Special Apps To Hide From Regulators, You're Going To Get In Trouble
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How much the various assumptions behind that answer are or are not true is something to which I cannot personally testify.
On the post: State Supreme Court Says California Officials Can No Longer Hide Documents In Personal Email Accounts And Devices
Re: Use of private email for government business
Hmm. How far does that reach?
For example, a state university is considered to be a state actor - i.e., an arm of government - for e.g. First Amendment purposes; are the university-provided E-mail accounts of staff and faculty considered government accounts for this purpose?
The ruling discussed in the article is about whether government employees' non-government-provided E-mail accounts are subject to the rules of government-transparency law; would that extend to staff and faculty of such universities?
I'd expect the answer to be "no" in both cases, but it might be interesting to see the legal reasoning for why.
On the post: California City Finds Optimum Balance Between Safety And Profit, Trims Yellow Light Times To Produce Spike In Citations
Re:
On the post: Soundcloud Tells Guy It Needs To Kill His Account Of 8 Years Because Someone Else Trademarked His Name
Re: Re: Re: Re: First come first serve
On the post: Soundcloud Tells Guy It Needs To Kill His Account Of 8 Years Because Someone Else Trademarked His Name
Re: Re: First come first serve
But yes, like all other forms of intellectual property that I'm aware of, trademarks are out of control in the modern world - and they're the form for which I have the least idea of how to fix the problem.
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Endorses DRM In HTML5, Offers Depressingly Weak Defense Of His Decision
Re:
There was considerable pushback/backlash at the time (and at least one article here on Techdirt about it) - but as with most unpopular decisions by Mozilla in the last decade, by the time it became publicly known that the decision was being considered it had already become final and no reversal was made.
On the post: The Internet Is Silencing Artists, According To An Artist On The Internet
Re: What does this have to do with the internet
I'm pretty sure that, when he says the problem is the business models, he means the business models of the Internet companies which are protected by the DMCA safe harbors, not the business models of the artists and the labels.
I.e., those companies are using business models which are bad for the creative 'industry' (for lack of a better word), and so they should be forbidden from using those models - whether explicitly, or (preferably) by making those models unprofitable.
If you start from his premises, his conclusions aren't wrong, either. It's just that his premises have flaws.
On the post: FCC Boss Moves To Kill Broadband Privacy Protections. You Know, To Help The Little Guy.
This is actually quite true! Barring extreme circumstances such as a monopoly position, all actors in the same market should be subject to the same rules. (I say "market" rather than "online space" both because this applies equally well to offline contexts, and because the "online space" actually represents many different markets.)
The snag is that a company providing a connection to the Internet is not operating within the "online space". That company is operating between the "online space" and the rest of the world.
All actors within that market should be subject to the same rules, but the rules to which they should be subject are not the same as the rules to which those operating within the different market that is the "online space" should be subject.
(There's actually a lot more to it, in various crannies of the above - to do with things such as "natural monopoly" and "network effect" and "pro bono publico" and "non-profit" and so forth. But that's a decent overall short summary.)
As it happens, most of the companies involved in this fight - including, if I understand correctly, both Google and Facebook - fall into both categories: they both provide access to the Internet, and provide services on the Internet. Those different parts of their business should be regulated separately, according to the different rules which apply to those different markets.
Next >>