Which is exactly the point - a publicly traded company answers to the stockholders. If they act like they don't care about what the stockholders think, then how long do you suppose they'll be trading publicly? Tell us, if you held stock in a company that pulled this kind of stunt, would you keep your money there, or would you sell your stake and move on to something more likely to succeed without screaming, wailing and gnashing their teeth, all because they were short-sighted?
But more important is the fact that while trading is suspended, not only can one not sell his/her stock, but no one can buy it either. That can ham-string a company at a critical time. And don't think that stockholders, current or potential, won't pay attention to that kind of thing. It's in their nature to do so, less they loose their investment all the more foolishly.
Oh, wait... were you thinking in terms of the individual investor, the guy who puts in between 10,000 and 100,000 bucks? No, my friend, I'm talking about the institutional investors, the ones with more money to invest than the value of all small-cap and many medium-cap corporations. Those are the people who will pull up stakes as soon as trading resumes, and trust me, that kind of sell-off is not something from which a company can easily recover.
If you're going to compare reporters with legislators, the main difference is that some reporters can fool some of the people some of the time, whereas legislators can fool only themselves.
Secondary to that, reporters have a steady income, whereas legislators receive a varying amount over time, depending on which lobbyists need what legislation to be passed (or opposed).
I'd rather have a reporter making laws for me, instead of a legislator that bought his/her way into the seat of power. At least reporters have seen what's really happening in the streets of America, to people from all walks of life. Legislators?
(I'll admit that there have been some exceptions to my thoughts on legislators, but they've been too few and much too far between.)
Copyright law explicitly exempts as fair use at least some of the following: parody, satire, commentary, critical commentary, newsworthiness, and probably a couple more things.... is that about correct?
Well, I'm pretty sure that newsroom managers, the ones who assign jobs to on-site news gathers, don't send out reporters and cameramen to cover "horrific" events. Instead, their job description calls for them to assign those folks to cover newsworthy events. So let's do this: let's trade out the word "horrible", and replace it with "newsworthy" instead.
That removes knee-jerk emotion from the immediate equation, and let's us more easily bring 1A into the discussion. Which in turn lets me ask, how is 1A not going to protect the posting of this video, should a platform wish to categorize it as newsworthy and leave it up? Yes, someone has hurt feelings, but that's not up for discussion about what interest does the public have in such newsworthy matters. (Don't forget, 1A has no bearing on a citizen's private thoughts or emotions, it covers only the public interest.)
I can feel for Parker, so I won't belittle his loss. At the same time, if I were his friend, I'd be advising him that it's been nearly 7 years, and it's time to put the past behind him and move on.
p.s. You've all covered already my thoughts on copyright and NFT's, I'll incorporate them here by proxy. ;)
It does make one wonder where all that money is ending up, doesn't it?
I mean, host countries spend their own money building villages, arenas, infrastructure, taking care of security, etc., none of that comes out of the billions paid to the Committee by advertisers and televisors. Participating countries spend their own money to train, clothe, feed, and transport their athletes to the event locations, so the Committee isn't spending money in this fashion either.
Advertising? Possibly, but certainly not billions' worth. And insofar as I can determine, they couldn't possibly spend enough on advertising to sway those who don't give a damn about the Olympics in the first place, and it's wasted on those who are already fanatical about the whole schmear.
I'd like some transparency here, please - just who pocketed nearly all that incoming money? 'Cause sure as shit those lame-ass medallions aren't made of real gold, etc.
"A failure to plan (on your part) does not constitute an emergency (on my part)."
My personal favorite:
Failing to plan is exactly the same as planning to fail.
My solution, as a preventative measure against this kind of thing happening again? If I were in charge, I'd formally suspend trading of any public company that pulled such a stunt. They very obviously did it for the money, a short-term gain at the potential expense of lost lives and property. A monetary penalty of this nature just might be sufficient to deter doing it again, because it's all too obvious that a one-time fine won't accomplish the mission.
Oh, and if they say they need only 60-70 days, you can take it to the bank that they'll be asking for more extensions beyond that period. Shall we start a pool as to how often they "go back to the well," before they finally get the job done?
You do understand, don't you, that on the very same day that Biden took office, Pai quit sucking Big Telecom's chota. That left the FCC at 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats, which translates to a stalemate in any vote that would work to benefit the people. What that boils down to is, lacking a clear majority in any vote, everything remains at status quo. Right now, the status quo is that you're still going to have to pay through the nose to get your nightly pron fix at glacial speeds.
The solution is easy: call your senators and tell them that if they don't get with the program and confirm Gigi Sohn, then you're going to vote for someone else come next election day.
The problem with your idea is that not even 10% of the population actually complains about/reports a robo-call. That means that the telco's profit is only slightly reduced... 10 cents per reported robo-call becomes a mere "business expense", if you will.
And if Congress were to pass a law requiring the telco to fork over all company records vis-a-vis calls originated or received within their domain(s), they'd start hollering "unwarranted invasion of privacy", and tie the government up in the courts for at least 2 years, but probably more like 8 - 10 years.
The true way to change this is to simply require the telcos to charge the originator a hefty fee per number dialed. The telcos won't mind making the money, not at all. But as the fee per call increases on a sliding scale, the caller will eventually "do the math", and start scaling back. Only the low-volume callers (such as explicit debt collections) and the like will be able to handle this expense.
Oh, and no carve-outs. Period. Not even non-profit charities. Especially not even political calls, as they are often the worst offenders. When one is on a minutes-per-month plan, or a calls-per-month plan, these bastids eat up all kinds of time/calls, and that needs to be addressed in any such law. A simple record of your incoming calls should be sufficient proof to demand recompense in the form of 2X the monthly cost of your plan. (And payable per infraction.)
Then we need to do the same for unwanted texts as well, not everyone has an unlimited plan.
One assumes that Blumenthal thinks at all - this is a most dangerous position to take! I could say more on this topic, but I'll trust that most readers here understand my point.
What I'm seeing is that the so-called Blue Laws that included "no booze or porn for minors" is spreading out to, essentially, "no life experiences for minors". All I can say is that no other country even attempts to go this far "in the name of the children". The adults in the room (i.e. the leadership of other non-dictatorial countries) know that they grew up without all this protection, and turned out just fine. I can imagine that they are reading this crap, and just tsk-tsking and shaking their heads at us.
And lastly, has anyone looked at Section 9? That's the part about age verification, which interested me. First, how many of you either know, or have heard of, a kid who bragged/admitted that he had signed up with a fake name to get into a porn site? More than a few of you, I'd lay odds. So have you looked at how Blumenthal intends to solve that issue? You won't like it, trust me.
He wants to have every computer that might be used by a child to have installed on it whatever technology that can withstand robust hacking by said child/children. This tech to be determined by a council of investigators, with their final approval for said tech. If a parent (or presumably a custodian of other computers accessible to children) does not comply, then take a look at Section 10, Enforcement. That should raise some eyebrows.
My father used to bemoan that the hippies were tearing down that which (his generation) had built up for those hippies to inherit. I now wonder, what kind of upbringing did Blumenthal have - could he have been a latent hippie from years gone by, busy tearing down that which his forefathers spent a lot of years/money/sweat building up? For the betterment of all, not just a few? Inquiring minds wish to know....
Paul, you're close to correct, I did do that tinkering in the '50s as a kid! But I also remember Chevy coming out with fuel injection in 1957, first on a Corvette, then spreading out to other models in later years. Hell, the Europeans had timed fuel injection well before Chevrolet. And as to the business of "clean", yes the computer makes that simple as apple pie, true. But it can be done without, if one wishes to suffer through the difficulties.
Please understand that before I went to law school, I had already earned my EE degree. I pretty emphatically do understand electricity, electronics, computers, and a great variety of disciplines that fall under that rubric. And it should not need saying that I'm about as free from fear of these as a frog is of feathers.
nasch, thanks for the tip. ;)
p.s. Opening up the hood has been replaced by the OBD port. Certainly cheaper in most cases, potentially even more fun, and much easier on an old man's back. :)
Well, that was certainly a lot of over-reaction, but I did expect such.
I think it's fair to say that you all missed the point, and are harping on free speech. Let me be crystal clear - no matter how it is framed, if you inflame others to do something illegal, such as delivering death threats, then you are on the hot seat for having done so.
Color me cynical as hell, but I don't believe for a moment that Vinson didn't have exactly this intent in her missive - she wanted Antoniello to suffer the maximum amount possible, and while I can't read her mind from here, I've no doubt that she would've accepted, and even encouraged, bodily harm as a minimum 'justified retribution' for her imaginary harm.
But what the hell, your mileage is varying dramatically from mine. So be it.
reduce box office .... revenue generated from tent pole films that Village Roadshow and others would be entitled to ....
Say the fuck WHAT? You think you're entitled to some (all!) of the money in people's wallets??? Really?
And since when does the world owe you a living, eh? Take my advice, free of charge: Do some research and learn what happened to the several thousand buggy whip makers that were extant in the early 1900's. Then go review the definition of adaptability.
I may be too early to post, and thus I may be over-accusatory, but it seems to me that someone's missing an important piece of the puzzle here. Most people tend to forget that the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the Constitution, and does not generally override that document in its entirety. There are specific amendments that do change specific parts, but none of those, and most spiritedly not 1A, change any part of "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness".
From that, we get the old meme: "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". 1A does not give one the right to speak in a manner that provably endangers another person - that would upend the other's right to pursuit of happiness. Even if one only expresses an opinion, if that opinion can be interpreted as endangerment to another (i.e. inciting one or more 3rd parties to partake in a campaign of harassment), then 1A provides no protection for the original speaker.
The law as written is not overly broad, though I do take issue with the narrowing of "other electronic means" - that specifically precludes any old-school written/printed communications, ala Letters To The Editor and so forth. I'd've stood for "any means", with no exclusions. But as it stands, it ameliorates not one's freedom of expression, but one's desire to express an opinion in an inflammatory manner, attempting to outrage others, and thus create a state of fear for the target party's safety or life. Or that thing about pursuing happiness, you know.
That's how the lawmakers envisioned it back then. Today we'd say "Vinson's lawyers have weaponized the very word "opinion", and are attempting to cloak it with 1A." But hey, why not? #45 got away with it for more than 4 years, so....
Stated in short words, Antoniello expressed an opinion that a reasonable person would consider neutral at best. Vinson responded by swinging her fist at Antoniello's nose, with the intent of connecting forcefully via social media outrage. One could opine that doing so is the equivalent of hiring a hitman to kill somebody, only she "purchased the hit" in public view. That's not just a no-no, that a stupid no-no.
I predict a hard row to hoe for the plaintiff. But as usual, I've been wrong far more often in life than not, so I may be wrong here as well.
... scientists may be able to invent a way to manufacture automobiles that do not require microprocessors.
Speaking as the fucktard that I am, they don't need them now. Microprocessors are simply a revenue stream, a very profitable one at that. This business of "buyer's convenience", "features", "luxury", or the one that really bugs me, "driver safety", that's all bullshit. If you need to be pampered, then do it outside of a 2 or 3 ton mobile killing machine.
And for Gawd's sake, don't drive like a waste of oxygen... enough other people are already doing that, don't unbalance the equation any further.
Mom!!!! I bricked the Buick trying to use this open firmware.
So call those off-shore rom programmers who gave the finger to John Deere, they'll get you back on the road without the high costs of going to a Buick dealer.
Re: Re: Re:
Which is exactly the point - a publicly traded company answers to the stockholders. If they act like they don't care about what the stockholders think, then how long do you suppose they'll be trading publicly? Tell us, if you held stock in a company that pulled this kind of stunt, would you keep your money there, or would you sell your stake and move on to something more likely to succeed without screaming, wailing and gnashing their teeth, all because they were short-sighted?
But more important is the fact that while trading is suspended, not only can one not sell his/her stock, but no one can buy it either. That can ham-string a company at a critical time. And don't think that stockholders, current or potential, won't pay attention to that kind of thing. It's in their nature to do so, less they loose their investment all the more foolishly.
Oh, wait... were you thinking in terms of the individual investor, the guy who puts in between 10,000 and 100,000 bucks? No, my friend, I'm talking about the institutional investors, the ones with more money to invest than the value of all small-cap and many medium-cap corporations. Those are the people who will pull up stakes as soon as trading resumes, and trust me, that kind of sell-off is not something from which a company can easily recover.
Re:
If you're going to compare reporters with legislators, the main difference is that some reporters can fool some of the people some of the time, whereas legislators can fool only themselves.
Secondary to that, reporters have a steady income, whereas legislators receive a varying amount over time, depending on which lobbyists need what legislation to be passed (or opposed).
I'd rather have a reporter making laws for me, instead of a legislator that bought his/her way into the seat of power. At least reporters have seen what's really happening in the streets of America, to people from all walks of life. Legislators?
(I'll admit that there have been some exceptions to my thoughts on legislators, but they've been too few and much too far between.)
(untitled comment)
So let's see if I've got this right....
Copyright law explicitly exempts as fair use at least some of the following: parody, satire, commentary, critical commentary, newsworthiness, and probably a couple more things.... is that about correct?
Well, I'm pretty sure that newsroom managers, the ones who assign jobs to on-site news gathers, don't send out reporters and cameramen to cover "horrific" events. Instead, their job description calls for them to assign those folks to cover newsworthy events. So let's do this: let's trade out the word "horrible", and replace it with "newsworthy" instead.
That removes knee-jerk emotion from the immediate equation, and let's us more easily bring 1A into the discussion. Which in turn lets me ask, how is 1A not going to protect the posting of this video, should a platform wish to categorize it as newsworthy and leave it up? Yes, someone has hurt feelings, but that's not up for discussion about what interest does the public have in such newsworthy matters. (Don't forget, 1A has no bearing on a citizen's private thoughts or emotions, it covers only the public interest.)
I can feel for Parker, so I won't belittle his loss. At the same time, if I were his friend, I'd be advising him that it's been nearly 7 years, and it's time to put the past behind him and move on.
p.s. You've all covered already my thoughts on copyright and NFT's, I'll incorporate them here by proxy. ;)
Re:
T,FTFY
In no case that a sensible person can imagine would the words "IOC" and "earn" ever be used in the same sentence.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What was that meme again? Oh yeah, it goes something like
For all I know (and I don't), each and everyone of you could be a white male - how am I supposed to figure out any differently.
Re:
It does make one wonder where all that money is ending up, doesn't it?
I mean, host countries spend their own money building villages, arenas, infrastructure, taking care of security, etc., none of that comes out of the billions paid to the Committee by advertisers and televisors. Participating countries spend their own money to train, clothe, feed, and transport their athletes to the event locations, so the Committee isn't spending money in this fashion either.
Advertising? Possibly, but certainly not billions' worth. And insofar as I can determine, they couldn't possibly spend enough on advertising to sway those who don't give a damn about the Olympics in the first place, and it's wasted on those who are already fanatical about the whole schmear.
I'd like some transparency here, please - just who pocketed nearly all that incoming money? 'Cause sure as shit those lame-ass medallions aren't made of real gold, etc.
Re:
My personal favorite:
My solution, as a preventative measure against this kind of thing happening again? If I were in charge, I'd formally suspend trading of any public company that pulled such a stunt. They very obviously did it for the money, a short-term gain at the potential expense of lost lives and property. A monetary penalty of this nature just might be sufficient to deter doing it again, because it's all too obvious that a one-time fine won't accomplish the mission.
Oh, and if they say they need only 60-70 days, you can take it to the bank that they'll be asking for more extensions beyond that period. Shall we start a pool as to how often they "go back to the well," before they finally get the job done?
Re:
You do understand, don't you, that on the very same day that Biden took office, Pai quit sucking Big Telecom's chota. That left the FCC at 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats, which translates to a stalemate in any vote that would work to benefit the people. What that boils down to is, lacking a clear majority in any vote, everything remains at status quo. Right now, the status quo is that you're still going to have to pay through the nose to get your nightly pron fix at glacial speeds.
The solution is easy: call your senators and tell them that if they don't get with the program and confirm Gigi Sohn, then you're going to vote for someone else come next election day.
Re:
Where are those Anonymous doxers when you need them??
Re:
The problem with your idea is that not even 10% of the population actually complains about/reports a robo-call. That means that the telco's profit is only slightly reduced... 10 cents per reported robo-call becomes a mere "business expense", if you will.
And if Congress were to pass a law requiring the telco to fork over all company records vis-a-vis calls originated or received within their domain(s), they'd start hollering "unwarranted invasion of privacy", and tie the government up in the courts for at least 2 years, but probably more like 8 - 10 years.
The true way to change this is to simply require the telcos to charge the originator a hefty fee per number dialed. The telcos won't mind making the money, not at all. But as the fee per call increases on a sliding scale, the caller will eventually "do the math", and start scaling back. Only the low-volume callers (such as explicit debt collections) and the like will be able to handle this expense.
Oh, and no carve-outs. Period. Not even non-profit charities. Especially not even political calls, as they are often the worst offenders. When one is on a minutes-per-month plan, or a calls-per-month plan, these bastids eat up all kinds of time/calls, and that needs to be addressed in any such law. A simple record of your incoming calls should be sufficient proof to demand recompense in the form of 2X the monthly cost of your plan. (And payable per infraction.)
Then we need to do the same for unwanted texts as well, not everyone has an unlimited plan.
Re: Re:
And I was thinking that his first name must be "Smallus", to go along with the size of his intellect.
Regulation or Incarceration?
One assumes that Blumenthal thinks at all - this is a most dangerous position to take! I could say more on this topic, but I'll trust that most readers here understand my point.
What I'm seeing is that the so-called Blue Laws that included "no booze or porn for minors" is spreading out to, essentially, "no life experiences for minors". All I can say is that no other country even attempts to go this far "in the name of the children". The adults in the room (i.e. the leadership of other non-dictatorial countries) know that they grew up without all this protection, and turned out just fine. I can imagine that they are reading this crap, and just tsk-tsking and shaking their heads at us.
And lastly, has anyone looked at Section 9? That's the part about age verification, which interested me. First, how many of you either know, or have heard of, a kid who bragged/admitted that he had signed up with a fake name to get into a porn site? More than a few of you, I'd lay odds. So have you looked at how Blumenthal intends to solve that issue? You won't like it, trust me.
He wants to have every computer that might be used by a child to have installed on it whatever technology that can withstand robust hacking by said child/children. This tech to be determined by a council of investigators, with their final approval for said tech. If a parent (or presumably a custodian of other computers accessible to children) does not comply, then take a look at Section 10, Enforcement. That should raise some eyebrows.
My father used to bemoan that the hippies were tearing down that which (his generation) had built up for those hippies to inherit. I now wonder, what kind of upbringing did Blumenthal have - could he have been a latent hippie from years gone by, busy tearing down that which his forefathers spent a lot of years/money/sweat building up? For the betterment of all, not just a few? Inquiring minds wish to know....
Re:
The assholishness is strong with you, feeble-minded one. Glad we shall be when visit anymore you don't.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Future Prediction
Paul, you're close to correct, I did do that tinkering in the '50s as a kid! But I also remember Chevy coming out with fuel injection in 1957, first on a Corvette, then spreading out to other models in later years. Hell, the Europeans had timed fuel injection well before Chevrolet. And as to the business of "clean", yes the computer makes that simple as apple pie, true. But it can be done without, if one wishes to suffer through the difficulties.
Please understand that before I went to law school, I had already earned my EE degree. I pretty emphatically do understand electricity, electronics, computers, and a great variety of disciplines that fall under that rubric. And it should not need saying that I'm about as free from fear of these as a frog is of feathers.
nasch, thanks for the tip. ;)
p.s. Opening up the hood has been replaced by the OBD port. Certainly cheaper in most cases, potentially even more fun, and much easier on an old man's back. :)
Re:
Well, that was certainly a lot of over-reaction, but I did expect such.
I think it's fair to say that you all missed the point, and are harping on free speech. Let me be crystal clear - no matter how it is framed, if you inflame others to do something illegal, such as delivering death threats, then you are on the hot seat for having done so.
Color me cynical as hell, but I don't believe for a moment that Vinson didn't have exactly this intent in her missive - she wanted Antoniello to suffer the maximum amount possible, and while I can't read her mind from here, I've no doubt that she would've accepted, and even encouraged, bodily harm as a minimum 'justified retribution' for her imaginary harm.
But what the hell, your mileage is varying dramatically from mine. So be it.
Re: Re:
No, this is Deja Moo, where we've all seen the same bull before.
(untitled comment)
Say the fuck WHAT? You think you're entitled to some (all!) of the money in people's wallets??? Really?
And since when does the world owe you a living, eh? Take my advice, free of charge: Do some research and learn what happened to the several thousand buggy whip makers that were extant in the early 1900's. Then go review the definition of adaptability.
Asshole. In fact, make that fuckin' asshole.
(untitled comment)
I may be too early to post, and thus I may be over-accusatory, but it seems to me that someone's missing an important piece of the puzzle here. Most people tend to forget that the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the Constitution, and does not generally override that document in its entirety. There are specific amendments that do change specific parts, but none of those, and most spiritedly not 1A, change any part of "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness".
From that, we get the old meme: "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". 1A does not give one the right to speak in a manner that provably endangers another person - that would upend the other's right to pursuit of happiness. Even if one only expresses an opinion, if that opinion can be interpreted as endangerment to another (i.e. inciting one or more 3rd parties to partake in a campaign of harassment), then 1A provides no protection for the original speaker.
The law as written is not overly broad, though I do take issue with the narrowing of "other electronic means" - that specifically precludes any old-school written/printed communications, ala Letters To The Editor and so forth. I'd've stood for "any means", with no exclusions. But as it stands, it ameliorates not one's freedom of expression, but one's desire to express an opinion in an inflammatory manner, attempting to outrage others, and thus create a state of fear for the target party's safety or life. Or that thing about pursuing happiness, you know.
That's how the lawmakers envisioned it back then. Today we'd say "Vinson's lawyers have weaponized the very word "opinion", and are attempting to cloak it with 1A." But hey, why not? #45 got away with it for more than 4 years, so....
Stated in short words, Antoniello expressed an opinion that a reasonable person would consider neutral at best. Vinson responded by swinging her fist at Antoniello's nose, with the intent of connecting forcefully via social media outrage. One could opine that doing so is the equivalent of hiring a hitman to kill somebody, only she "purchased the hit" in public view. That's not just a no-no, that a stupid no-no.
I predict a hard row to hoe for the plaintiff. But as usual, I've been wrong far more often in life than not, so I may be wrong here as well.
Re: Future Prediction
Speaking as the fucktard that I am, they don't need them now. Microprocessors are simply a revenue stream, a very profitable one at that. This business of "buyer's convenience", "features", "luxury", or the one that really bugs me, "driver safety", that's all bullshit. If you need to be pampered, then do it outside of a 2 or 3 ton mobile killing machine.
And for Gawd's sake, don't drive like a waste of oxygen... enough other people are already doing that, don't unbalance the equation any further.
Re: Re:
So call those off-shore rom programmers who gave the finger to John Deere, they'll get you back on the road without the high costs of going to a Buick dealer.
More comments from sumgai >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by sumgai.
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