I was just going to say: I originally thought this was Monster Cable suing a beverage company. The sad part is, given Monster Cable's behavior, I could believe it. (I wonder whether the two have sued each other yet, and if not, why not.)
Indeed, there is a lot of work in sifting through what people submit to whittle down to work that is worthy of publication (though that is not to say that there aren't problems in how those determinations are made, nor that there aren't problems in using that to justify the obscenely high prices of journals, because there are).
I remember seeing TV ads a while ago for Securus. It was disgusting to see how nakedly they were trying to profiteer off of imprisonment while sprucing up the image of their modus operandi to the general public.
This makes me think that this is like the breakup of a collusive oligopoly. In particular, content providers had to fight against the ease with which people could provide free unauthorized copies of their content, so they did so by joining forces in just a few streaming services (Netflix, Amazon Prime, and maybe one or two others that I'm missing), the idea being that people would be willing to pay for a service that provided all of the high-quality content they ever wanted in a convenient place with a business model built around such convenience, while piracy would entail looking at many different random providers showing content of questionable (video/audio) quality (also hampered by DRM and other such things). Now, if Disney is breaking away from this collusion, the value of that convenience is greatly diminished, and Disney and Netflix will have to compete with consumers who would rather only choose one or the other, and would therefore be more likely to consider piracy again.
If the fight between Haagen-Dasz (an larger player with a faux-Scandinavian name) and Frusen Gladje (a smaller player with an actual Scandinavian name) is any indication, even if Dawa wins, it may be a pyrrhic victory.
I was wondering about this too. Leaving aside everything else that is wrong about her imprisonment, if the goal is to prevent her from trying to kill herself, wouldn't moving her to solitary confinement be counterproductive? Oh wait, I forgot: this is about punishment, not prevention/rehabilitation.
What is with authoritarians hating Pokemon? Are they afraid that their true dreams of being a Pokemon master will be unmasked, leading to embarrassment and shame? More seriously, I remember my mother telling me many years ago (in my Pokemon-obsessed childhood years), as a way of weaning me off of that obsession, that Turkey had banned Pokemon because kids were jumping off of buildings in imitation of their favorite Pokemon types flying (or whatever). Even then, I sensed something didn't add up with that story, and much more recently, I've read that it was a story invented by the Turkish government to hide the fact that they were doing it because they felt it was somehow subversive. It makes me wonder what element of subversion was involved in Pokemon then, and also why few media outlets reporting this at that time seemed to catch on to Turkey's increasingly authoritarian behaviors.
This is my concern too. I have a disability that requires use of a wheelchair, and if I lived in an area which had a bus service that was subsequently killed off in the name of efficiency (and for which no Uber or Lyft service was offered as a replacement, again for "efficiency"), I'd be pretty pissed. This is why some basic level of public transportation service is needed (and is related to why private delivery services can't and shouldn't fully replace the USPS): if you consider transportation a right (and it is certainly a necessity for poorer people who still need to get to work somehow, even if owning or renting a car is unaffordable), there will be certain routes that need to be serviced even though their market inefficiency will mean private companies would generally shy away.
This is basically what I was getting at in my comment above, and while I'm glad that the author of the article replied to my comment concurring with my opinion, I would have liked to see a little more detailed discussion.
This isn't entirely relevant to the actual discussion at hand, but I have to wonder: is it that realistic to expect significant decreases in drunk driving rates across the board just through better availability of alternatives (like ridesharing)? There are two issues that I can think of in this regard. 1. Wouldn't it be plausible that the people who drive drunk are the people who would rather drive under any circumstance anyway (so they wouldn't even consider ridesharing, while they are drunk)? 2. Aren't the people who drive drunk the people who brought their car to wherever they consumed alcohol and are under the belief that they need to drive back to bring their car back home too? Why would they take ridesharing then?
How is this indefensible for ordinary citizens but somehow now defensible for police officers, who, in being sworn to uphold the law and protect citizens (should be in that order), should be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens?
As shocking as it is for me to see a hawk like Lindsey Graham turn around on this issue, I'm even more shocked that a politician like him is willing to admit that (1) they changed positions and (2) they did so after carefully reconsidering the evidence and talking to experts. Even if it went the other way (going from supporting Apple to supporting the FBI/DOJ), I'd be heartened by the honesty.
Here's my question: given that the phone was modified on FBI orders soon after the crime, even if Apple were somehow able to find a way to get evidence from the phone without compromising the security of all of its other phones, would the extracted evidence even be admissible in court?
released a statement along the same lines, supposedly asking people in Silicon Valley to help the government in fighting terrorism and asking them to take seriously the concerns of those in power with regard to encryption. With all that we've seen the government do to hamper civil liberties (in this regard at least), how again are we supposed to take such calls seriously?
I saw his interview two nights ago on The Daily Show, and I was a bit disappointed to see Trevor Noah just rolling with it. More than that, though, I smelled something fishy when Ted Koppel was quoting DHS and other such people as his sources for his apocalyptic predictions, given their history of overhyping these threats; in that sense, I'm glad to see that it wasn't just me. It's sad to see a man with such a storied and respected history in journalism stoop to such levels just to stay relevant today.
With the VW scandal, diesel's brand image seems to be going down the drain anyway I feel bad for both of these companies for fighting their way into oblivion.
Re:
Re: Somewhat misleading
TV ads
Effective oligopoly breakup
How to help?
Supported by "no one"
Establishment versus small player
Re: Sounds like a B.F. Skinner experiment...
Oh wait, I forgot: this is about punishment, not prevention/rehabilitation.
Authoritarians and Pokemon
More seriously, I remember my mother telling me many years ago (in my Pokemon-obsessed childhood years), as a way of weaning me off of that obsession, that Turkey had banned Pokemon because kids were jumping off of buildings in imitation of their favorite Pokemon types flying (or whatever). Even then, I sensed something didn't add up with that story, and much more recently, I've read that it was a story invented by the Turkish government to hide the fact that they were doing it because they felt it was somehow subversive. It makes me wonder what element of subversion was involved in Pokemon then, and also why few media outlets reporting this at that time seemed to catch on to Turkey's increasingly authoritarian behaviors.
Re: The worry
Re: Logical Errors in Study
Driving drunk anyway
1. Wouldn't it be plausible that the people who drive drunk are the people who would rather drive under any circumstance anyway (so they wouldn't even consider ridesharing, while they are drunk)?
2. Aren't the people who drive drunk the people who brought their car to wherever they consumed alcohol and are under the belief that they need to drive back to bring their car back home too? Why would they take ridesharing then?
Ignorance of the law
Re: New type of content removal?
Turnaround, in public too
Admissible evidence
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton
What else would you expect to hear about encryption
Saw him this week on The Daily Show
Diesel is going down the drain anyway
More comments from Prashanth >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Prashanth.
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