I haven't really 'gotten' the Olympics since the early 90's.
100 years ago it made perfect sense. The world was huge then, not many people travelled inter-continentally, that was mostly the domain of the rich - as long as they had 4 months to spare for the travel. So having this world-wide event every 4 years allowed athletes to compete with people from countries they'd never heard of let alone would have ever been able to visit.
But today? Nearly every sport has their own yearly 'world championships'. The every 4-year World Cups that various sports have (e.g. football aka soccer, Rugby, etc.) are far, far more important than the Olympics. Individual events in some sports shit all over the Olympics - Tour de France, any of the 4 tennis grand slams, etc. You can be in any major city in the world within 48 hours, many within 20. The Olympics revels in it's own memories of past glory and importance. These days, it's nothing more than a corrupt scam earning the IOC billions of unearned income.
There is just no point to the Olympics anymore. There hasn't been for at least 30 years now.
When I was at university, maths/statistics exams (among a few others) were open-book. you could bring anything into the exam that:
didn't disturb anyone else taking the exam (e.g. playing music);
wasn't a communications device (so you couldn't call a friend);
you could carry by yourself into the room and could fit on/about the desk not intruding on walkways/other peoples work space.
They recognised that being able to look up an equation didn't do much to help you solve that equation if you didn't know how it worked (and the mathematic processes for solving it). And there are so many equations available, that it's impossible for everyone to remember the full, exact, equations for everything in their heads.
From memory, chemistry parctical (i.e. lab work) exams were also open book. If you don't know how to do a titration, wasting time reading up how to do it isn't going to help you get that done before the cutoff time.
Wow, awesome. So just making something illegal makes it impossible to do?
We really are wasting money on cops and courts if all it takes is making something illegal to stop people doing things society (well, the legislature) doesn't want them to do.
Are journalists/news organisations immune from receipt of stolen goods laws?
If someone stole a car, and gave it to the NYT and the NYT added it to their corporate fleet of cars, would they be immune to receiving stolen goods because they are a newspaper?
What about a burgular taking someones family silver cutlery, and giving it to CNN and they put it in their caffeteria for use? Would they be immune to receipt of stolen goods just because they are a news organistion?
What about a manuscript, an author is traditional and uses an old-fashioned typewriter to type their manuscript. They then send that hand-typed manuscript to their publisher, it's the only one in existence, there are no computer files, no microfiche copies, no photocopies - the publisher has just received it and put it in their wallsafe and hasn't had a chance to make copies of it, and it is burgled - the original and only item in existence - and given to the NYP, not a copy, the actual hand-typed original, and they start publishing excerpts. Are they immune to receipt of stolen goods because they are a news organisation?
As I understand it (I may be wrong), this isn't a copy of an electronic file, not photos taken of documents scattered on a desk, not even someone printing a copy of a document on a companies printer and taking those physical printouts to a paper. As I understand it, the diary is a physical diary, a book with hand-written pages on it, the only copy in existence. It isn't photos or photocopies of the diary, it is the actual physical diary that is owned personally by Ashley Biden.
This is not an 'information' crime, it is a physical burglary of physical goods (a hand-written 'book') that may be in the possession of people who also are journalists. If that is the case, are they not in receipt of stolen goods, just like if they had a stolen car or jewelery or paintings from an art-heist?
For contracts unilaterally written up by one party with a more or less implied agreement of the other (like the sales conditions of a shop), this implied agreement can only be assumed for conditions that are reasonable and customary. If people routinely agree to outlandish terms, those terms can eventually be considered customary, leading to an erosion of reasonableness.
Same in Australia, which is why such contracts also usually include a 'severability' clause, that is, such an offending clause does not invalidate the entire contract, just that particular invalid clause is 'severed' from the contract, with the rest of it remaining valid (barring any other invalide caluses that is).
The incumbent governments in the UK and Australia at least are always bagging the state-funded but independently run public broadcasters, the BBC and ABC respectively, for being biased against the government.
This is irrespective of the party in power, conservative or liberal, whoever is in power bags the broadcasters to lesser or greater extents. I think this is because the incumbent government thinks that since the broadcaster receives government funding that they should be fawning over the government, rather than being independent and reporting on both the good and bad the government is doing.
And it's just another reputational hit for NSO Group, which has been remarkably resilient, considering its now fighting a PR battle on multiple fronts while being dragged down by its long, sordid past.
Like any tool an algorithm can be good or bad, well-crafted or bodgy, used for good or evil.
But the thing is, I don't care how good or bad the algorithm is. One thing in common with all algorithms, is they need some sort of data to use as input to the algotithm. And of course, the more personalized the algorithm, the more personal data it needs from me to function. That is what I care about. That is what I don't want. I don't want any system - wether private or government - to collect and analyze data on me beyond what is required to provide the services I want to receive. I don't want personalised ads. I don't want personalised news feeds. I don't want my data being collected, analysed, assessed, used, mined, collated, experimented with, used as AI training data, whether by the service itself or sold or otherwise passed onto third parties. I don't want to be the product.
It should be noted that these are problems of Facebook's making, not end users.
I do think it is a problem of end-users own making (at least those who purchased after the takeover). They were stupid enough to buy a VR headset that is tied to a Facebook account. Even if they purchased during the Facebook-owned but not-yet-tied period, they still made a very poor decision as that was the only way it was ever going to go, and many publications raised that possibility at the time of the Facebook takeover.
I wouldn't mind cops and military if they had a check on them. But there isn't.
What do you mean there isn't a check on them? Of course there is.
For starters, other police/military personnel. The police and military can be arrested by other police if they break the law. Judges can issue arrest warrants brought to them by other police or by the DPP (or whatever the state's name for the equivalent is). Some states have independent (allegedly) crime commissions that can investigate the activity of the police and military acting within their state (the military is not inviolate, state agencies have investigated military activities that have breached state laws, e.g. when 6 naval trainees died on a submarine during a training exercise in the 80's I think it was, the state the event occured in investigated and charged for negligence the captain of the submarine).
talking point that "it's a private company" nonsense.
Its not a "talking point", it's the law.
Now whether it's good law or not is another discussion. But whether it's good or not it is still the law as it currently stands.
You are free to lobby congress and exercise your first amendment rights to advocate for a change in the laws and/or constitution to make the status of these companies fit your ideals.
But if and until congress changes the laws and/or passes and has ratified any necessary constitutional changes to make your ideas a reality, it is what it is, that is, the law as it stands today.
(untitled comment)
I haven't really 'gotten' the Olympics since the early 90's.
100 years ago it made perfect sense. The world was huge then, not many people travelled inter-continentally, that was mostly the domain of the rich - as long as they had 4 months to spare for the travel. So having this world-wide event every 4 years allowed athletes to compete with people from countries they'd never heard of let alone would have ever been able to visit.
But today? Nearly every sport has their own yearly 'world championships'. The every 4-year World Cups that various sports have (e.g. football aka soccer, Rugby, etc.) are far, far more important than the Olympics. Individual events in some sports shit all over the Olympics - Tour de France, any of the 4 tennis grand slams, etc. You can be in any major city in the world within 48 hours, many within 20. The Olympics revels in it's own memories of past glory and importance. These days, it's nothing more than a corrupt scam earning the IOC billions of unearned income.
There is just no point to the Olympics anymore. There hasn't been for at least 30 years now.
(untitled comment)
Rather than helping Sponsel's cause, that seems to be implicating other people in lieing in front of a Grand Jury.
Re: Re: Re:
It is a case of "knew or should have known". Not knowing is negligence at best, recklessness at worst.
"I didn't know your honor", i.e. incompetence, is not a defense. It is likely a mitigation, but not a defense.
Re: But WHY...?
When I was at university, maths/statistics exams (among a few others) were open-book. you could bring anything into the exam that:
They recognised that being able to look up an equation didn't do much to help you solve that equation if you didn't know how it worked (and the mathematic processes for solving it). And there are so many equations available, that it's impossible for everyone to remember the full, exact, equations for everything in their heads.
From memory, chemistry parctical (i.e. lab work) exams were also open book. If you don't know how to do a titration, wasting time reading up how to do it isn't going to help you get that done before the cutoff time.
(untitled comment)
There are other Berenson's out there?
Fuck me.
Re: settle?
Maybe Fox needs help with the mathematics on the amount to settle for?
Something that, perhaps, a MathFox could help with? ;)
(untitled comment)
This is like watching Kim Jong-un call Xi Jinping too authoritarian.
Is China irredeemable?
Sure it is. But most of the current ruling people aren't. And as such, while they remain in power, the country as a while won't be redeemed.
It'll take a generational replacement in the composition of the ruling party, if not an outright revolution, for it to happen.
(untitled comment)
Wow, awesome. So just making something illegal makes it impossible to do?
We really are wasting money on cops and courts if all it takes is making something illegal to stop people doing things society (well, the legislature) doesn't want them to do.
(untitled comment)
Are journalists/news organisations immune from receipt of stolen goods laws?
If someone stole a car, and gave it to the NYT and the NYT added it to their corporate fleet of cars, would they be immune to receiving stolen goods because they are a newspaper?
What about a burgular taking someones family silver cutlery, and giving it to CNN and they put it in their caffeteria for use? Would they be immune to receipt of stolen goods just because they are a news organistion?
What about a manuscript, an author is traditional and uses an old-fashioned typewriter to type their manuscript. They then send that hand-typed manuscript to their publisher, it's the only one in existence, there are no computer files, no microfiche copies, no photocopies - the publisher has just received it and put it in their wallsafe and hasn't had a chance to make copies of it, and it is burgled - the original and only item in existence - and given to the NYP, not a copy, the actual hand-typed original, and they start publishing excerpts. Are they immune to receipt of stolen goods because they are a news organisation?
As I understand it (I may be wrong), this isn't a copy of an electronic file, not photos taken of documents scattered on a desk, not even someone printing a copy of a document on a companies printer and taking those physical printouts to a paper. As I understand it, the diary is a physical diary, a book with hand-written pages on it, the only copy in existence. It isn't photos or photocopies of the diary, it is the actual physical diary that is owned personally by Ashley Biden.
This is not an 'information' crime, it is a physical burglary of physical goods (a hand-written 'book') that may be in the possession of people who also are journalists. If that is the case, are they not in receipt of stolen goods, just like if they had a stolen car or jewelery or paintings from an art-heist?
Re: Re: Re:
Same in Australia, which is why such contracts also usually include a 'severability' clause, that is, such an offending clause does not invalidate the entire contract, just that particular invalid clause is 'severed' from the contract, with the rest of it remaining valid (barring any other invalide caluses that is).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The incumbent governments in the UK and Australia at least are always bagging the state-funded but independently run public broadcasters, the BBC and ABC respectively, for being biased against the government.
This is irrespective of the party in power, conservative or liberal, whoever is in power bags the broadcasters to lesser or greater extents. I think this is because the incumbent government thinks that since the broadcaster receives government funding that they should be fawning over the government, rather than being independent and reporting on both the good and bad the government is doing.
(untitled comment)
And in more bad news for them (good for us), the Whatsapp (Facebook) suit against NSO is being allowed to go forward: Legal woes mount for NSO after court rules WhatsApp lawsuit can proceed.
Re: Re:
I don't ...
(untitled comment)
Like any tool an algorithm can be good or bad, well-crafted or bodgy, used for good or evil.
But the thing is, I don't care how good or bad the algorithm is. One thing in common with all algorithms, is they need some sort of data to use as input to the algotithm. And of course, the more personalized the algorithm, the more personal data it needs from me to function. That is what I care about. That is what I don't want. I don't want any system - wether private or government - to collect and analyze data on me beyond what is required to provide the services I want to receive. I don't want personalised ads. I don't want personalised news feeds. I don't want my data being collected, analysed, assessed, used, mined, collated, experimented with, used as AI training data, whether by the service itself or sold or otherwise passed onto third parties. I don't want to be the product.
New Research Shows Social Media Doesn't Turn People Into Asshole
I resemble that remark!
(untitled comment)
I do think it is a problem of end-users own making (at least those who purchased after the takeover). They were stupid enough to buy a VR headset that is tied to a Facebook account. Even if they purchased during the Facebook-owned but not-yet-tied period, they still made a very poor decision as that was the only way it was ever going to go, and many publications raised that possibility at the time of the Facebook takeover.
(untitled comment)
And if (when TBH) this article is plagarised we'll have a plagarised article about A Plagiarized Set Of NFTs About Plagiarism.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do you mean there isn't a check on them? Of course there is.
For starters, other police/military personnel. The police and military can be arrested by other police if they break the law. Judges can issue arrest warrants brought to them by other police or by the DPP (or whatever the state's name for the equivalent is). Some states have independent (allegedly) crime commissions that can investigate the activity of the police and military acting within their state (the military is not inviolate, state agencies have investigated military activities that have breached state laws, e.g. when 6 naval trainees died on a submarine during a training exercise in the 80's I think it was, the state the event occured in investigated and charged for negligence the captain of the submarine).
Re: Pity
Its not a "talking point", it's the law.
Now whether it's good law or not is another discussion. But whether it's good or not it is still the law as it currently stands.
You are free to lobby congress and exercise your first amendment rights to advocate for a change in the laws and/or constitution to make the status of these companies fit your ideals.
But if and until congress changes the laws and/or passes and has ratified any necessary constitutional changes to make your ideas a reality, it is what it is, that is, the law as it stands today.
More comments from Eldakka >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Eldakka.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt