Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Aug 2019 @ 5:51pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have been declared numerous times as first word. None of those times did I do it myself, even though that opportunity presented itself. I always appreciated that recognition, as I do when I get a funny or insightful badge.
But that is the point, first, last word or Insightful or funny badges are recognition from the community, not an opportunity for self aggrandizement. I, personally, would prefer the recognition from the community as apposed to self promotion, which is why I have never used the buttons in the reply box, nor the buttons available on each post for any of my comments. Ever.
I don't always get recognition from the community. That doesn't mean my post was neither insightful nor funny (depending on what I was trying for). It just means that my comment did not meet some quotient that awards the badge. In the end, some of my comments make the weekend analysis. Sometimes those happen because of sheer number of votes. Sometimes because what I had to say caught enough attention to be marked insightful/funny but didn't make the top two, yet were appropriate for mention, none the less.
In any of those cases, I appreciate the recognition I get from the community, and am not particularly upset when that recognition doesn't come. It would be weird if everyone agreed with me all of the time.
Which brings up the question: 'Why don't you?'. -:)
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Aug 2019 @ 7:12am
Re: Because of course
"Intellectual Monopolies"
How long till this concept means I can't think what your thinking because you have an Intellectual Monopoly on that thought?
The instant case seems to express that creating a banana costume that looks like a natural banana is copyrightable so anyone else creating a banana costume that looks like a banana would be infringing:
"Those sculptural features include the banana’s combination of colors, lines, shape, and length."
which part of a natural banana doesn't contain combinations of colors, lines, shape and length?
Now, I am pretty sure that not all bananas look alike. They all look similar, but I can, and do, choose a particular banana, to eat now, from the others in the bunch even thought over time I will eat all of those bananas, I can distinguish which one I want now. So, even though bananas have combinations of color, lines, shape, and length they can be differentiated. Which brings us to the question, which banana did each of these two companies copy? Did they both have access to the same banana? Or did they create their costumes from generalizations of what bananas look like, and how can those generalizations be copyrightable?
Given the characteristics of banana similarity it is highly questionable that one company copied the costume of the other company, but copied an actual banana, and that that banana was similar to the banana that the former company copied was a stroke of nature, rather than a conscious decision to expropriate the intellectual property of a competitor..
I think this appeals court confused one of these two banana costumes with a strawberry.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Aug 2019 @ 9:42am
Re: Re: Campaign promises...NOT
Which makes the lies told during this campaign (assuming that the elected fail to live up to their promises during their tenure) what...misdirection, hopeful wishes, statements expressing ignorance of reality? How is that acceptable?
I want my President to be honest and effective, from the moment the candidacy is announced to the inauguration of their replacement. Unfortunately playing politics is still a part of our system, but I don't believe government should behave purely for political gain, but in the interest of us, the people they represent.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Aug 2019 @ 7:03am
Speculation
This may be apocryphal but my understanding is that only the original classifying authority has the ability to declassify something, and that that original classifying authority could be almost anyone. Now an executive branch order to some executive branch entity to declassify something might sound authoritative, but what if that order is refused?
What could happen? The original classifying authority might get fired, but what does that do to the 'classification'? Does it go to the next person up the chain? What if that fired person was part of a joint task force and reported to several people, and those several people disagree on whether they should declassify or not? Does everyone get fired and the decision move up another notch? The turnover in Trump's advisers suggests that disagreeing with the President will probably lead to job loss, but that does nothing to clean up the mess of getting things declassified when ordered to.
Then, there is of course, the question of whether the President actually understands the purpose of the original classification and ordering declassification would do some actual harm with willy nilly orders to do something politically motivated, rather than security motivated.
Now I am not for classification. I think the government should be much more open about what it does in our name, and while I respect that classifying something because it could put persons at risk seems reasonable, there should be time limits, such as X amount of time after those persons were no longer at risk, and that that X amount of time should be measured in years or months, not decades. There is no good reason for classification to cover embarrassment or incompetence, as the public has a right to know about those.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Aug 2019 @ 6:42am
Campaign promises...NOT
The problem I have with these staged infomercials is that nothing any candidate says now will be relevant when/if they achieve office. There is nothing to hold them to whatever positions they espouse.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Aug 2019 @ 11:35am
And do what?
Isn't Trump complaining about how social media goes about content moderation? Isn't he saying that conservatives are being disproportionately kicked off social media platforms for their political views, rather than the TOS violations the platforms claim? What makes him think they could do this any better? New algorithms? As Tim mentioned, technology cannot solve human resource issues.
Now, Trump trusts the social media platforms to be able to discern who might become a mass killer (there are more than one ways to kill, let's not give up on the others). And what will be done?
They could kick the 'potential offender' off their platform, but as with the supposed sex traffickers that would take information away from authorities, not to mention that there is probably nothing in the TOS about being...well let's call it obtuse.
They could notify the police, but at that point no crime has been committed and there is a certain reputation for the police answering 911 calls with loaded and drawn weapons, not to mention shooting first and talking later.
I cannot think of another action that could be taken by social media platforms, and those two don't make any sense. Even if they were carefully and scrupulously applied, I doubt that anything Trump doesn't want would stop, but there might be a few more people being ostracized and accused for things only someone elses imagination perceives. That is, unless they have acted.
To Trump, and a bunch of other politicians, something must be done, and any crazy, unworkable, ineffective, and very possibly unconstitutional solution they come up with is something.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Aug 2019 @ 12:15pm
Re: Re: Re:
I don't disagree with what you say, but I did not say that all mentally ill people are dangerous. And, there are many types of mental illness. These could be cases of clinical depression, or severe anxiety or being badly maladjusted or some sort of psychosis (I don't know all the definitions) and did not, nor would I try to diagnose what was wrong. And yes, to say mental health issues (which is what I said) is a generalization, but what more could a layperson say?
At the same time, to ignore that there was something, emotional, mental, associative, or another wrong would be missing a possible solution, and I don't think we should leave anything on the table, though I don't think movies and video games belong on the table. They might contribute, but I don't believe they are causal. How to get those diagnosis' is part of the issue. Another part is getting an accurate diagnosis. Further, it is more than likely that there is no one cause.
There could be many contributing factors, and there probably are. But somehow, these shooters seem to think it is OK to kill a bunch of strangers, and if there is no derangement in that thought process then how do you explain it, other than mental health issues?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Aug 2019 @ 11:27am
Re:
Sorry Stephen, but if you think going someplace and shooting a bunch of people you don't know without any apparent provocation doesn't have mental health issues, then we will have to agree to disagree on that point. Whether this kind of behavior can be predicted is another matter.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Aug 2019 @ 10:36am
How to is frustrated with what to
"So it seems like a better plan is to figure out a way to arm people -- especially young people -- with knowledge and facts that will help them resist the lure of darkness, alienation [SIC], anger and hate."
That may be the only way, along with better evaluation of the mental stability of our youngsters, which won't be easy and will come fraught with assumptions and diagnosis' by untrained and ideologically tainted authoritarians rather than psychologists trained to be objective.
Changing the way guns are bought won't necessarily help, as the guns are already out there.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Aug 2019 @ 8:25am
Smite the opposition
Seems like Nunes is quaking in his boots. Afraid to let those who can do something about it to know where that spike in money came from. Afraid of competition speaking out. Afraid of what FOIA requests might produce.
And his response? A good defense is an offensive offense.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Aug 2019 @ 5:47pm
The truth is out there
The truth is what it is, regardless of what others say it is. Denial is not a defense, and it takes more than one to make any kind of argument. Where is the corroborating evidence?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Aug 2019 @ 7:41am
Re: Re: Same old song and dance.
While any of those things might be nice, and maybe even appropriate, no. I was thinking of the FCC and FTC and Congress and the courts actually doing their jobs (I know, ridiculous) and not the jobs they currently imagine they should be, but the jobs imagined by the regulations that established those agencies.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Aug 2019 @ 7:15am
Same old song and dance.
Is there any expectation that AT&T will treat this customer any different than they treat their other customers?
It is true that this customer is bigger than other customers, and this customer has some ability to adversely impact AT&T in ways other customers cannot (though there is no evidence that it would), but does any of that make any difference to AT&T?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Aug 2019 @ 6:22am
Re: Because apparently it needs to be said yet again...
This is true, but until, and if, we can get the device and OS manufacturers to understand this, and implement this, the common user is probably not going to get it.
"Again, this is not an excuse. It's all a problem. But we don't solve large societal problems by picking off one symptom of the disease that's really just a link in a larger societal chain. Surveillance capitalism is a symptom. Abusive data practices are a symptom. Propaganda and political grandstanding are symptoms. There are big societal problems at the root of all this -- but very few seem to be interested in exploring what they are and how to deal with them. Instead, we just get one part of the surveillance capitalist propaganda machine to convince everyone that another part of the surveillance capitalist propaganda machine is the problem. And, because that bit of propaganda is successfully manipulative and compelling, lots of people buy into it."
This collection of symptoms point to the underlying base, Humans (and greed). None of those symptoms would exist without either humans or greed. If we eliminate either of those, the problem would cease to exist.
Now I am not suggesting that human kind kill itself off, and I don't see any readily available cure for greed, but there is a certain remedial effect in recognizing the causes of symptoms, especially when the disease is psychological (the greed part). Acceptance that one is impacted is a major step to crossing the river of denial.
Of course the greed part will be minimized by many as an existential part of capitalism, but I don't think that is actually true. Turning profit, and turning egregious profit are not one in the same. Wall Street with its:
"...flips out any time they can't keep growing at insane, unsustainable rates..."
seems to think egregious is a minimal step toward their expectations and desires.
Getting the world to agree on some form of control for the 'Wall Streets' of the world does not seem like a credible goal as greed and power tend to go hand in hand and, those in power want to keep it (power), and their greed (greed, of course, is not expressed monetarily in all instances) in perfect running order. Yet there it is, and a possible cog in the solution set necessary to resolve the issue.
Or is it problem? That might depend upon perspective, but there are probably more of us than them, even if they are, for now, in control.
Wouldn't the best way to muddy the 'anonymized' data be to irregularly, but often, do something entirely out of character for yourself? Maybe someone could make an app for that?
The hardest part might be finding out what your 'characteristics' are so that doing something 'out of character' can be determined (denial of what 'your' characteristics are will be a problem). The second piece, the list of things that are 'out of character' for you, but still acceptable (which might be a characteristic that in the end 'outs' you) would also be hard. But sending data that you did something you didn't actually do might actually make acceptance irrelevant.
And, since we don't seem to do random very well, making 'random' injections might just provide sufficient information to identify individual 'randomness' and separate that from other identifiable data points.
Oh well. Maybe it would just be best to no let anyone have the data to begin with, but Pandora's box has been opened and I cannot think of any way of putting what has escaped back in the box. That is likely not possible and banning future collections might just be futile.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Banana Costume Is Infringing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have been declared numerous times as first word. None of those times did I do it myself, even though that opportunity presented itself. I always appreciated that recognition, as I do when I get a funny or insightful badge.
But that is the point, first, last word or Insightful or funny badges are recognition from the community, not an opportunity for self aggrandizement. I, personally, would prefer the recognition from the community as apposed to self promotion, which is why I have never used the buttons in the reply box, nor the buttons available on each post for any of my comments. Ever.
I don't always get recognition from the community. That doesn't mean my post was neither insightful nor funny (depending on what I was trying for). It just means that my comment did not meet some quotient that awards the badge. In the end, some of my comments make the weekend analysis. Sometimes those happen because of sheer number of votes. Sometimes because what I had to say caught enough attention to be marked insightful/funny but didn't make the top two, yet were appropriate for mention, none the less.
In any of those cases, I appreciate the recognition I get from the community, and am not particularly upset when that recognition doesn't come. It would be weird if everyone agreed with me all of the time.
Which brings up the question: 'Why don't you?'. -:)
On the post: Appeals Court Says Banana Costume Is Infringing
Re: Because of course
How long till this concept means I can't think what your thinking because you have an Intellectual Monopoly on that thought?
The instant case seems to express that creating a banana costume that looks like a natural banana is copyrightable so anyone else creating a banana costume that looks like a banana would be infringing:
which part of a natural banana doesn't contain combinations of colors, lines, shape and length?
Now, I am pretty sure that not all bananas look alike. They all look similar, but I can, and do, choose a particular banana, to eat now, from the others in the bunch even thought over time I will eat all of those bananas, I can distinguish which one I want now. So, even though bananas have combinations of color, lines, shape, and length they can be differentiated. Which brings us to the question, which banana did each of these two companies copy? Did they both have access to the same banana? Or did they create their costumes from generalizations of what bananas look like, and how can those generalizations be copyrightable?
Given the characteristics of banana similarity it is highly questionable that one company copied the costume of the other company, but copied an actual banana, and that that banana was similar to the banana that the former company copied was a stroke of nature, rather than a conscious decision to expropriate the intellectual property of a competitor..
I think this appeals court confused one of these two banana costumes with a strawberry.
On the post: NY Times Joins Lots Of Other Media Sites In Totally And Completely Misrepresenting Section 230
One says it's pink, the other says it's purple
I hate these discussions of what is or isn't hate speech.
Is that hate speech?
On the post: Yes, The DNC's Debate Format Sucks, And There's An Easy Fix
Re: Re: Campaign promises...NOT
Which makes the lies told during this campaign (assuming that the elected fail to live up to their promises during their tenure) what...misdirection, hopeful wishes, statements expressing ignorance of reality? How is that acceptable?
I want my President to be honest and effective, from the moment the candidacy is announced to the inauguration of their replacement. Unfortunately playing politics is still a part of our system, but I don't believe government should behave purely for political gain, but in the interest of us, the people they represent.
On the post: Judge Not Impressed With DOJ's Attempt To Claim Presidential Tweets And Orders Don't Mean Anything
Speculation
This may be apocryphal but my understanding is that only the original classifying authority has the ability to declassify something, and that that original classifying authority could be almost anyone. Now an executive branch order to some executive branch entity to declassify something might sound authoritative, but what if that order is refused?
What could happen? The original classifying authority might get fired, but what does that do to the 'classification'? Does it go to the next person up the chain? What if that fired person was part of a joint task force and reported to several people, and those several people disagree on whether they should declassify or not? Does everyone get fired and the decision move up another notch? The turnover in Trump's advisers suggests that disagreeing with the President will probably lead to job loss, but that does nothing to clean up the mess of getting things declassified when ordered to.
Then, there is of course, the question of whether the President actually understands the purpose of the original classification and ordering declassification would do some actual harm with willy nilly orders to do something politically motivated, rather than security motivated.
Now I am not for classification. I think the government should be much more open about what it does in our name, and while I respect that classifying something because it could put persons at risk seems reasonable, there should be time limits, such as X amount of time after those persons were no longer at risk, and that that X amount of time should be measured in years or months, not decades. There is no good reason for classification to cover embarrassment or incompetence, as the public has a right to know about those.
On the post: Yes, The DNC's Debate Format Sucks, And There's An Easy Fix
Campaign promises...NOT
The problem I have with these staged infomercials is that nothing any candidate says now will be relevant when/if they achieve office. There is nothing to hold them to whatever positions they espouse.
On the post: Trump Calls On Social Media Companies To Become Pre-Crime Agents
And do what?
Isn't Trump complaining about how social media goes about content moderation? Isn't he saying that conservatives are being disproportionately kicked off social media platforms for their political views, rather than the TOS violations the platforms claim? What makes him think they could do this any better? New algorithms? As Tim mentioned, technology cannot solve human resource issues.
Now, Trump trusts the social media platforms to be able to discern who might become a mass killer (there are more than one ways to kill, let's not give up on the others). And what will be done?
They could kick the 'potential offender' off their platform, but as with the supposed sex traffickers that would take information away from authorities, not to mention that there is probably nothing in the TOS about being...well let's call it obtuse.
They could notify the police, but at that point no crime has been committed and there is a certain reputation for the police answering 911 calls with loaded and drawn weapons, not to mention shooting first and talking later.
I cannot think of another action that could be taken by social media platforms, and those two don't make any sense. Even if they were carefully and scrupulously applied, I doubt that anything Trump doesn't want would stop, but there might be a few more people being ostracized and accused for things only someone elses imagination perceives. That is, unless they have acted.
To Trump, and a bunch of other politicians, something must be done, and any crazy, unworkable, ineffective, and very possibly unconstitutional solution they come up with is something.
On the post: Why Is Our First Reaction To Mass Shootings To Talk About Censorship?
Re: Re: Re:
I don't disagree with what you say, but I did not say that all mentally ill people are dangerous. And, there are many types of mental illness. These could be cases of clinical depression, or severe anxiety or being badly maladjusted or some sort of psychosis (I don't know all the definitions) and did not, nor would I try to diagnose what was wrong. And yes, to say mental health issues (which is what I said) is a generalization, but what more could a layperson say?
At the same time, to ignore that there was something, emotional, mental, associative, or another wrong would be missing a possible solution, and I don't think we should leave anything on the table, though I don't think movies and video games belong on the table. They might contribute, but I don't believe they are causal. How to get those diagnosis' is part of the issue. Another part is getting an accurate diagnosis. Further, it is more than likely that there is no one cause.
There could be many contributing factors, and there probably are. But somehow, these shooters seem to think it is OK to kill a bunch of strangers, and if there is no derangement in that thought process then how do you explain it, other than mental health issues?
On the post: Why Is Our First Reaction To Mass Shootings To Talk About Censorship?
Re:
Sorry Stephen, but if you think going someplace and shooting a bunch of people you don't know without any apparent provocation doesn't have mental health issues, then we will have to agree to disagree on that point. Whether this kind of behavior can be predicted is another matter.
On the post: 'Free Speech Defender' Devin Nunes Sues More Critics, Promises More Such Lawsuits Are Coming
Re: Is there a limit?
Once. But only if it is libel/slander, read the legal definitions, not the ones you make up in your head.
Whether anyone would care what you have to say is another matter.
On the post: Why Is Our First Reaction To Mass Shootings To Talk About Censorship?
How to is frustrated with what to
That may be the only way, along with better evaluation of the mental stability of our youngsters, which won't be easy and will come fraught with assumptions and diagnosis' by untrained and ideologically tainted authoritarians rather than psychologists trained to be objective.
Changing the way guns are bought won't necessarily help, as the guns are already out there.
On the post: 'Free Speech Defender' Devin Nunes Sues More Critics, Promises More Such Lawsuits Are Coming
Smite the opposition
Seems like Nunes is quaking in his boots. Afraid to let those who can do something about it to know where that spike in money came from. Afraid of competition speaking out. Afraid of what FOIA requests might produce.
And his response? A good defense is an offensive offense.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Ah, mainstream media. A bastion of truth in all its forms.
On the post: SLAPP Suit In Virginia Tries To Silence Historian Highlighting Ancestry Of Guy Suing To Keep Confederate Statues In Charlottesville
The truth is out there
The truth is what it is, regardless of what others say it is. Denial is not a defense, and it takes more than one to make any kind of argument. Where is the corroborating evidence?
On the post: AT&T Scores $1 Billion Contract To Rebuild DOJ Systems
Re: Re: Same old song and dance.
While any of those things might be nice, and maybe even appropriate, no. I was thinking of the FCC and FTC and Congress and the courts actually doing their jobs (I know, ridiculous) and not the jobs they currently imagine they should be, but the jobs imagined by the regulations that established those agencies.
On the post: AT&T Scores $1 Billion Contract To Rebuild DOJ Systems
Same old song and dance.
Is there any expectation that AT&T will treat this customer any different than they treat their other customers?
It is true that this customer is bigger than other customers, and this customer has some ability to adversely impact AT&T in ways other customers cannot (though there is no evidence that it would), but does any of that make any difference to AT&T?
On the post: District Court Rolls Back Magistrate's Decision, Says Compelled Fingerprint Product Isn't A Fifth Amendment Issue
Re: Because apparently it needs to be said yet again...
This is true, but until, and if, we can get the device and OS manufacturers to understand this, and implement this, the common user is probably not going to get it.
On the post: Amazon's Free Doorbell Cameras Only Cost Law Enforcement Agencies Their Dignity And Autonomy
Re:
Only them, but then only from their perspective, at least in recent history.
On the post: The Great Hack Wasn't A Hack And Big Tech's Problems Aren't Really About Big Tech
Root causes
This collection of symptoms point to the underlying base, Humans (and greed). None of those symptoms would exist without either humans or greed. If we eliminate either of those, the problem would cease to exist.
Now I am not suggesting that human kind kill itself off, and I don't see any readily available cure for greed, but there is a certain remedial effect in recognizing the causes of symptoms, especially when the disease is psychological (the greed part). Acceptance that one is impacted is a major step to crossing the river of denial.
Of course the greed part will be minimized by many as an existential part of capitalism, but I don't think that is actually true. Turning profit, and turning egregious profit are not one in the same. Wall Street with its:
seems to think egregious is a minimal step toward their expectations and desires.
Getting the world to agree on some form of control for the 'Wall Streets' of the world does not seem like a credible goal as greed and power tend to go hand in hand and, those in power want to keep it (power), and their greed (greed, of course, is not expressed monetarily in all instances) in perfect running order. Yet there it is, and a possible cog in the solution set necessary to resolve the issue.
Or is it problem? That might depend upon perspective, but there are probably more of us than them, even if they are, for now, in control.
On the post: Once More With Feeling: 'Anonymized' Data Is Not Really Anonymous
Inject false data
Wouldn't the best way to muddy the 'anonymized' data be to irregularly, but often, do something entirely out of character for yourself? Maybe someone could make an app for that?
The hardest part might be finding out what your 'characteristics' are so that doing something 'out of character' can be determined (denial of what 'your' characteristics are will be a problem). The second piece, the list of things that are 'out of character' for you, but still acceptable (which might be a characteristic that in the end 'outs' you) would also be hard. But sending data that you did something you didn't actually do might actually make acceptance irrelevant.
And, since we don't seem to do random very well, making 'random' injections might just provide sufficient information to identify individual 'randomness' and separate that from other identifiable data points.
Oh well. Maybe it would just be best to no let anyone have the data to begin with, but Pandora's box has been opened and I cannot think of any way of putting what has escaped back in the box. That is likely not possible and banning future collections might just be futile.
Next >>