Mr Hosein has convinced me that I don't want to pay the University of Washington for the privilege of attending his Digital Media Program, I cannot understand why anyone would hire Dan Safkow as a "video marketing strategist", and that short clip of "Pretty Much It" makes me wish that they would move their show behind the paywall so that I wouldn't run the risk of seeing any more of it by accident.
In principle, yes, a patent should contain all information necessary to reproduce the process, so that anyone could visit the patent office, read the "Stradivarius" patent and then start making Strads.
In practice, patent documents have become lawyer-cant, almost unintelligible to anyone but patent lawyers, practically useless to anyone trying to reproduce the invention, and unrecognizable to the very engineers who invented the thing being patented.
(Also, I doubt that Stradivari himself could have written such instructions, since he was surely not conscious of all the little things he was doing, perhaps not aware of some vital contingencies of his workshop or supply chain, and probably not inclined to perform scientific experiments to see which elements were really needed and which were just tradition. We've been studying his instruments for centuries and we still can't reproduce them.)
It's a little more nuanced than that. When a messed-up teenager sees that shooting up a school gets you instant nationwide attention, and shoots up a school, it's the guns' fault. When a messed-up teenager sets off a bomb at a time and place where there will be lots and lots of video cameras-- we need more cameras.
It's more than that. They chose the finish line of the Marathon because they knew there would be hundreds of cameras there. They wanted a big audience-- why else choose that street on that day? They weren't indifferent to camera coverage, they wanted it. To suggest that more cameras could have deterred them is idiotic, even for surveillance maximalists.
"[E]ngineers at many of these companies... think the CFAA is ridiculous, turning ordinary everyday activity into a possible felony. But some of the execs at these companies see a weapon to be used against people who make off with digital information..."
This shortsightedness supports the theory that the only real talent executives have is the ability to get themselves promoted.
The trouble with keeping a dinosaur on life support is that it becomes a habit, especially when the dinosaur lobby is strong. And feeding money to a failed business so that people can keep working there doesn't solve the problem of unemployment, it just hides it-- and prolongs it.
If the idea is to stagger the bankruptcies, so that they do less damage, then 1) I'd like to see some clear evidence that that can really bring a net benefit, and 2) if there is a net benefit, I'd like to know why those who enjoy that benefit won't chip in voluntarily to keep the company alive for the correct amount of time.
"[W]ere Apple to stick to their "it's illegal" reason for taking the app down, then they need to come out and explain the other examples of takedowns above, since those are not illegal."
To be fair, Apple can have more than one criterion for rejecting an app. They can refuse one because it allows locally illegal subject matter, and another because it allows material Apple considers too strong for children.
Hey, if they want to reduce their own market share arbitrarily, that's their prerogative.
This journalist has a machine that sifts through lots of raw data and writes a story -- using a style tuned to his specifications -- which I then read. I can keep reading his stuff or look elsewhere, but if that feedback reaches him at all, it must reach through several layers.
What if I had a machine like that, which sifted through the same data and wrote stories suited to my taste. I could make minute adjustments whenever I pleased, or read articles by multiple "journalists" on the same subject, give my scores and let them fight it out and evolve. The human journalists could still do the research, but I'd be subscribing to the pool of their findings, not to the condensate articles. And I could gin up as much of this bespoke news as I wanted, on any topic I wanted...
What if there were a complementary engine that could read a story (with a certain date), extract the constituent facts, and deduce the settings the robo-journalist should have in order to produce something similar given the facts known at the time. Then one could reverse the editorial bias settings and read an opposing view. Or study a large body of articles to make a robo-journalist mimic of any human journalist, living or dead. (Maybe not a very convincing one, but the technology can only improve.) Ah, to read Hitchens again...
Such robo-journalists could have blogs, singly or in groups, and evolve to...
I wonder if they'd agree to a proviso that all chocolate manufactured in Belgium must be clearly marked "Belgian chocolate". After all, if their standard is high enough to shut out the rest of the world, surely they won't mind standing behind it.
Suddenly I feel a desire to become a Wikipedia editor. I feel a particularly strong urge to contribute to the articles concerning ICD and Mark Donfried. Maybe I should get out my German-English dictionary and tackle de.wikipedia.org at the same time.
I believe that Rep. Gohmert knew -- on some level -- that what he was saying was factually incorrect, he just didn't care. He had his prepared questions, and when the lawyer began to point out that he was flat wrong, klaxons sounded in Gohmert's head and he simply started talking over the objections and making full speed for the segue into asking the room for legislation (pausing mid-sentence to throw one last dart, "protecting your employer", that he still had in his hand). He conspicuously did not allow further explanation.
What's most interesting about this the Representative's keen instinct for knowing what he can get away with. Someone less polite than that lawyer could have demolished the whole argument with a loud and well-timed "You don't know what you're talking about!" But Rep. Gohmert made that psychologically impossible.
It's like watching a good mentalism act, only less entertaining. And far, far more expensive.