You're under the impression that the government fears gun owners? You honestly think that the 2nd amendment is what is keeping the the Government at bay?
The only thing the Government fears is knowledge. With out freedom of speech and freedom from warrentless searches the 2nd amendment doesn't mean squat.
The per-capita death toll from guns now exceeds per-capita death toll from traffic accidents.
Traffic is highly monitored by governments (directional signs, police monitoring, traffic lights, "red light" cameras, multiple levels of licensing, speed limits, alcohol check points, age requirements, safety requirements mandated, yearly inspections, etc etc etc), and because of it the death tolls have been dropping considerably.
You're right, protection from "terrorist" can be measured in 100's per year (IF you include domestic terrorist) while traffic/guns are measured in 10,000s per year (about 30,000 each).
The same politicians that want to keep you safe from terrorist will not touch the 2nd amendment with a 10' pole. If we had 30,000 deaths per year from terrorist, I would probably relent on giving the NSA more power to monitor my email. But clearly (from my perspective) legally owned guns are a significantly larger problem than the US being attacked by terrorist.
In all of this, I'm surprised. Especially with the TechDirt - /. crowd, that nobody has seen the obvious link.
NSA is only asking for phone numbers (and call durations). There are claims that need to be looked at deeper about Google, Facebook, et al giving the NSA access to their data in one form or another. What do the two have in common?
Every *major* social media site is requesting that your account be validated by your cell phone.
It's an obvious way to tie the two data sources together. And it gives the NSA a cover ("we are not looking at phone account information"). At least not from the phone company....
Some will argue that it takes LONGER to secure patents than it does to go to market. Others will be fundamentally against patents for all the issues that the TD readership will be more than happy to tell you about.
Regardless, that IS the reason that the patent system was created. To give inventors a *temporary* monopoly in order to allow them time to bring their product to market without some large corporation burring them before they even get off the ground.
I fully admit that I could be wrong.... but my understanding is that CNC machines are subtractive in nature (drill, saw, cut, sand, etc) Where as 3D Printing is additive (print x, y till "picture" is complete; drop (or increment) z-axis; print next picture).
To your point, a combined additive, subtractive, parts placement, assembly "robot" would be awesome.
"... Sadly I think people won't learn better until they've been abused for another ten years....."
Consumers will never learn. And corporations have already learned *that*:
Verizon recently raised their rates in a very underhanded way. All the Internet was in an uproar. Of those who complained the loudest, how many actually dropped Verizon?
Companies do what makes sense monetarily. As Monsanto says "We're in business to make money. It's the FDA's responsibility to keep the public safe." (Nevermind the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto....)
Aero isn't just "rebroadcasting". They are providing a legitimate service. A maintained wireless antenna service.
Aereo Haters - Please draw the line - because I'm not seeing it:
Some citizen (Cit) of Manhatten lives in 2nd basement (2 floors under ground) of a popular high-rise. Cit loves to watch Big Bang Theory, but reception does not penetrate to the depth of his apartment.
Case 1.
So an electrical engineer (of which Cit is not) offers to mount an antenna on the roof, runs a long wire down to the basement and into Cit's TV. The improved performance is great and he gladly pays the EE for his time.
Case 2.
EE was happy to help out Cit for a nominal fee, but the long wire gets cut by maintenance crews and other tenants of the building. So he begin charging Cit a yearly fee for maintaining the antenna.
Case 3.
EE likes the arrangement he has with Cit, but realizes that his repair costs would shrink if he made the antenna connection wireless. So he configures several WAPS to send the digital information from the top of the building to Cit's apartment.
Case 4.
EE realizes that the wireless connection could just as easily run from the top of his building as it could from the top of Cit's building. His building has fewer pigeons that break the antenna, so he moves the antenna and is able to provide Cit with better service.
Case 5.
EE realizes that Cit does have an internet connection, so he configures the setup to provide the signal over the internet instead of a dedicated WLAN.
Case 6.
EE realizes that Cit is not the only one in this predicament, so he start Aereo and offers the service to everyone who lives in the city...each getting their own dedicated antenna.
Case 7.
EE realizes that providing everyone with their own antenna is ridiculous and consolidates it down to one antenna which is then shared with all his customers.
Please tell at which case you draw the line - and then why.
Note which case (each case extends the previous one) where the case is not acceptable to you.
Some citizen (Cit) of Manhatten lives in 2nd basement (2 floors under ground) of a popular high-rise. Cit loves to watch Big Bang Theory, but reception does not penetrate to the depth of his apartment.
Case 1.
So an electrical engineer (of which he is not) offers to mount an antenna on the roof, runs a long wire down to the basement and into Cit's TV. The improved performance is great and he gladly pays the EE for his time.
Case 2.
EE was happy to help out Cit for a nominal fee, but the long wire gets cut by maintenance crews and other tenants of the building. So he begin charging Cit a yearly fee for maintaining the antenna.
Case 3.
EE likes the arrangement he has with Cit, but realizes that his repair costs would shrink if he made the antenna connection wireless. So he configures several WAPS to send the digital information from the top of the building to Cit's apartment.
Case 4.
EE realizes that the wireless connection could just as easily run from the top of his building as it could from the top of Cit's building. His building has fewer pigeons that break the antenna, so he moves the antenna and is able to provide Cit with better service.
Case 5.
EE realizes that Cit does have an internet connection, so he configures the setup to provide the signal over the internet instead of a dedicated WLAN.
Case 6.
EE realizes that Cit is not the only one in this predicament, so he start Aereo and offers the service to everyone who lives in the city...each getting their own dedicated antenna.
Case 7.
EE realizes that providing everyone with their own antenna is ridiculous and consolidates it down to one antenna which is then shared with all his customers.
How far down the slipper slope are you willing to go?
(Personally I pick 7, but I'm curious about the Aereo haters).
There was a time on TD when the great Dark Helmet *whom I miss dearly* would come on here and throw down the gauntlet and ACs would try their best (and fail spectacularly) in a no-holds bar discussion about the topic du jour.
Those discussions where never censored "or flagged" or what-ever you want to spin it.
That time is obviously long gone when the "Insiders" can't even see the irony of their own special blend of censorship.
Granted... TD never claimed to be Fair and Balanced.
Does it or does it not take an extra click to see this one comment?
Are all comments treated the same?
You'd be okay with only dissenting comments being displayed fully with all other comments hidden behind a "This comment is preaching to the choir. Click here to show it"?
Maybe you'd be okay with that, but I think the site would be become pretty worthless.
The whole point in having the "flag" is to mark messages that are threatening or obscene or just spam. Sadly it has become a "mark of 'alternate viewpoint'"
It was hidden for "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it."
While not strictly "inaccessible" many will skip over it so it is effectively censored. Why? I don't see one thing in his comment that was trolling or offensive. I've brought this up before - it was essentially flagged because it brought a view that does not jive with the "community".
For a site that puffs its chest for "free and open", the readers are amazingly thin-skinned. It's the most hypocritical aspect of this website.
Blackberry had the market for "Business Smart Phones" fairly well corned prior to the iPhone and Android devices showing up.
They had all the things that Business needs (Control over devices, rich administrative tools, corporate licensing, etc)
When apple showed up, executives essentially said 'screw you local IT people, I want an iPhone whether the company supports it or not' That put a huge push towards the already established thrust of BYOD. Couple of years later corporations were ditching BlackBerries because service providers like Verizon were offering enterprise administration tools that IT departments crave - with a focus on Android devices.
Apple has little patience for "enterprise" devices. The iPad got no bulk quantity breaks in price. iPads have shown up in the enterprise ONLY because consumers love them. He's right...they don't make a lot of business sense. But they are great for what they do - which is entertain.
So in the corporate environment, the tablet will not become the device of choice. He is right about that. But all he knows is the business space. He is not concerned about the consumer space anymore than Apple is concerned about the business space.
Tablets are here to stay. In the consumer market they will continue to destroy the laptop and desktop market. But in a business setting, they will relegated as a "nice-to-have" peripheral (except in some specialized settings) and the Desktop/Laptop/Large Screen will continue to be the computing device of choice - at least as long as touch-typing on a tactile keyboard is the most effective way of entering data in large spreadsheets.
You've got three guys who are witness to each other, each saying the other two were responsible....but only kinda. It's just enough keep doubt about who exactly was responsible for what. If the evidence doesn't point to all three, and each one has a plausible deniability then none of them can be found guilty.
Chess match. They will drag it out as long as humanly possible and admit to nothing. I would hate to be the judge "knowing" all three deserve punishment, and not having the evidence to see that they get it.
I'm a long time follower and occasionally comment provider.... I'm sad to see so many of the alternate views having been flagged:
"This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it."
Is this what TechDirt has become? Is the community so sensitive that it must hide the alternate viewpoints? I have yet to a viewpoint that was in any way offensive. At least not to the point that it should have been hidden.
Man Up TD. Your arguments stand on their own. You don't need to engage in protectionism....that just makes you like those you claim to be against....
1. Company claims they can record but don't want to be recorded : Company is mean spirited
2. Government records (3rd party recording) : Government is abhorrent
3. Individual forced to reveal they are recording (2 party consent) : Such an awful law.
4. I am recording every phone call, don't have to get approval or give notification (1 party consent): The stuff dreams are made of.
How is 1 and 4 NOT in conflict? Either you agree that one party notification is good (in which case #1 is mute because the company doesn't even need to let you know) or you agree that 2 party notification is good (in which case #4 goes away).
Based on the comments here the headline should read:
"We Can Record You Time Warner Cable, But You Can't Record Us"
(cable) Chord cutter since 2001.... I was only interested in 2 games... which were on at the same time. I watched the one I was most interested in and got see my Alma-matter advance.
While it may have not been as free and open as you wanted, it certainly satisfied my needs.
Re: Re: Re: That's strike 1
Or Mr. F.
Re: Re: Re: ftp
You're under the impression that the government fears gun owners? You honestly think that the 2nd amendment is what is keeping the the Government at bay?
The only thing the Government fears is knowledge. With out freedom of speech and freedom from warrentless searches the 2nd amendment doesn't mean squat.
-CF
Re: ftp
The per-capita death toll from guns now exceeds per-capita death toll from traffic accidents.
Traffic is highly monitored by governments (directional signs, police monitoring, traffic lights, "red light" cameras, multiple levels of licensing, speed limits, alcohol check points, age requirements, safety requirements mandated, yearly inspections, etc etc etc), and because of it the death tolls have been dropping considerably.
You're right, protection from "terrorist" can be measured in 100's per year (IF you include domestic terrorist) while traffic/guns are measured in 10,000s per year (about 30,000 each).
The same politicians that want to keep you safe from terrorist will not touch the 2nd amendment with a 10' pole. If we had 30,000 deaths per year from terrorist, I would probably relent on giving the NSA more power to monitor my email. But clearly (from my perspective) legally owned guns are a significantly larger problem than the US being attacked by terrorist.
-CF
I'm surprised
In all of this, I'm surprised. Especially with the TechDirt - /. crowd, that nobody has seen the obvious link.
NSA is only asking for phone numbers (and call durations). There are claims that need to be looked at deeper about Google, Facebook, et al giving the NSA access to their data in one form or another. What do the two have in common?
Every *major* social media site is requesting that your account be validated by your cell phone.
It's an obvious way to tie the two data sources together. And it gives the NSA a cover ("we are not looking at phone account information"). At least not from the phone company....
-CF
Re: Re: Re:
Hence the reasons for patents.
Some will argue that it takes LONGER to secure patents than it does to go to market. Others will be fundamentally against patents for all the issues that the TD readership will be more than happy to tell you about.
Regardless, that IS the reason that the patent system was created. To give inventors a *temporary* monopoly in order to allow them time to bring their product to market without some large corporation burring them before they even get off the ground.
-CF
Re:
I fully admit that I could be wrong.... but my understanding is that CNC machines are subtractive in nature (drill, saw, cut, sand, etc) Where as 3D Printing is additive (print x, y till "picture" is complete; drop (or increment) z-axis; print next picture).
To your point, a combined additive, subtractive, parts placement, assembly "robot" would be awesome.
-CF
Re:
"... Sadly I think people won't learn better until they've been abused for another ten years....."
Consumers will never learn. And corporations have already learned *that*:
Verizon recently raised their rates in a very underhanded way. All the Internet was in an uproar. Of those who complained the loudest, how many actually dropped Verizon?
Companies do what makes sense monetarily. As Monsanto says "We're in business to make money. It's the FDA's responsibility to keep the public safe." (Nevermind the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto....)
-CF
via twitter
Dana McClintock @Dana_McClintock 23 Apr
And we will be there to sue them RT: “@TimAMolloy: Aereo Expands to Boston - First City Outside NYC - Next Month http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/aereo-expands-boston-first-city-outside-nyc-next-month-87266 …”
Dana McClintock @Dana_McClintock 3 Apr
"Just because a company gets sued by the broadcasters doesn’t make their service/business 'disruptive.'" http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2013/04/the-media-loves-to-use-aereo-to-cre ate-panic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediaredef+%28jas on+hirschhorn%27s+Media+ReDEFined%29 …
Re: The prior case isn't exactly over.
Aero isn't just "rebroadcasting". They are providing a legitimate service. A maintained wireless antenna service.
Aereo Haters - Please draw the line - because I'm not seeing it:
Some citizen (Cit) of Manhatten lives in 2nd basement (2 floors under ground) of a popular high-rise. Cit loves to watch Big Bang Theory, but reception does not penetrate to the depth of his apartment.
Case 1.
So an electrical engineer (of which Cit is not) offers to mount an antenna on the roof, runs a long wire down to the basement and into Cit's TV. The improved performance is great and he gladly pays the EE for his time.
Case 2.
EE was happy to help out Cit for a nominal fee, but the long wire gets cut by maintenance crews and other tenants of the building. So he begin charging Cit a yearly fee for maintaining the antenna.
Case 3.
EE likes the arrangement he has with Cit, but realizes that his repair costs would shrink if he made the antenna connection wireless. So he configures several WAPS to send the digital information from the top of the building to Cit's apartment.
Case 4.
EE realizes that the wireless connection could just as easily run from the top of his building as it could from the top of Cit's building. His building has fewer pigeons that break the antenna, so he moves the antenna and is able to provide Cit with better service.
Case 5.
EE realizes that Cit does have an internet connection, so he configures the setup to provide the signal over the internet instead of a dedicated WLAN.
Case 6.
EE realizes that Cit is not the only one in this predicament, so he start Aereo and offers the service to everyone who lives in the city...each getting their own dedicated antenna.
Case 7.
EE realizes that providing everyone with their own antenna is ridiculous and consolidates it down to one antenna which is then shared with all his customers.
Please tell at which case you draw the line - and then why.
-CF
Improved Reception Service
Aereo Haters - Where is the line?
Note which case (each case extends the previous one) where the case is not acceptable to you.
Some citizen (Cit) of Manhatten lives in 2nd basement (2 floors under ground) of a popular high-rise. Cit loves to watch Big Bang Theory, but reception does not penetrate to the depth of his apartment.
Case 1.
So an electrical engineer (of which he is not) offers to mount an antenna on the roof, runs a long wire down to the basement and into Cit's TV. The improved performance is great and he gladly pays the EE for his time.
Case 2.
EE was happy to help out Cit for a nominal fee, but the long wire gets cut by maintenance crews and other tenants of the building. So he begin charging Cit a yearly fee for maintaining the antenna.
Case 3.
EE likes the arrangement he has with Cit, but realizes that his repair costs would shrink if he made the antenna connection wireless. So he configures several WAPS to send the digital information from the top of the building to Cit's apartment.
Case 4.
EE realizes that the wireless connection could just as easily run from the top of his building as it could from the top of Cit's building. His building has fewer pigeons that break the antenna, so he moves the antenna and is able to provide Cit with better service.
Case 5.
EE realizes that Cit does have an internet connection, so he configures the setup to provide the signal over the internet instead of a dedicated WLAN.
Case 6.
EE realizes that Cit is not the only one in this predicament, so he start Aereo and offers the service to everyone who lives in the city...each getting their own dedicated antenna.
Case 7.
EE realizes that providing everyone with their own antenna is ridiculous and consolidates it down to one antenna which is then shared with all his customers.
How far down the slipper slope are you willing to go?
(Personally I pick 7, but I'm curious about the Aereo haters).
-CF
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There was a time on TD when the great Dark Helmet *whom I miss dearly* would come on here and throw down the gauntlet and ACs would try their best (and fail spectacularly) in a no-holds bar discussion about the topic du jour.
Those discussions where never censored "or flagged" or what-ever you want to spin it.
That time is obviously long gone when the "Insiders" can't even see the irony of their own special blend of censorship.
Granted... TD never claimed to be Fair and Balanced.
Sad.
Re: Re: Re:
Does it or does it not take an extra click to see this one comment?
Are all comments treated the same?
You'd be okay with only dissenting comments being displayed fully with all other comments hidden behind a "This comment is preaching to the choir. Click here to show it"?
Maybe you'd be okay with that, but I think the site would be become pretty worthless.
The whole point in having the "flag" is to mark messages that are threatening or obscene or just spam. Sadly it has become a "mark of 'alternate viewpoint'"
-CF
Re: Re: Re:
Rikuo,
It was hidden for "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it."
While not strictly "inaccessible" many will skip over it so it is effectively censored. Why? I don't see one thing in his comment that was trolling or offensive. I've brought this up before - it was essentially flagged because it brought a view that does not jive with the "community".
For a site that puffs its chest for "free and open", the readers are amazingly thin-skinned. It's the most hypocritical aspect of this website.
-CF
Re:
I've never understood why they are so opposed to their advertising getting more eyeballs....for free (no infrastructure investment)!
Plus with the 'net you can get real data rather than estimation based on a sample.
The combination should allow for higher advertising fees.
Seems to me like a no-brainer....
Re: You all missed the underlying implication
I expect plugging into nothing.
I set my phone down and my two 20" monitors come to life. I type on my keyboard and it just works. No "plugs" necessary - except *maybe* for power.
-CF
He's not in denile, just in the wrong space
Blackberry had the market for "Business Smart Phones" fairly well corned prior to the iPhone and Android devices showing up.
They had all the things that Business needs (Control over devices, rich administrative tools, corporate licensing, etc)
When apple showed up, executives essentially said 'screw you local IT people, I want an iPhone whether the company supports it or not' That put a huge push towards the already established thrust of BYOD. Couple of years later corporations were ditching BlackBerries because service providers like Verizon were offering enterprise administration tools that IT departments crave - with a focus on Android devices.
Apple has little patience for "enterprise" devices. The iPad got no bulk quantity breaks in price. iPads have shown up in the enterprise ONLY because consumers love them. He's right...they don't make a lot of business sense. But they are great for what they do - which is entertain.
So in the corporate environment, the tablet will not become the device of choice. He is right about that. But all he knows is the business space. He is not concerned about the consumer space anymore than Apple is concerned about the business space.
Tablets are here to stay. In the consumer market they will continue to destroy the laptop and desktop market. But in a business setting, they will relegated as a "nice-to-have" peripheral (except in some specialized settings) and the Desktop/Laptop/Large Screen will continue to be the computing device of choice - at least as long as touch-typing on a tactile keyboard is the most effective way of entering data in large spreadsheets.
-CF
They'll get off
Sadly.
You've got three guys who are witness to each other, each saying the other two were responsible....but only kinda. It's just enough keep doubt about who exactly was responsible for what. If the evidence doesn't point to all three, and each one has a plausible deniability then none of them can be found guilty.
Chess match. They will drag it out as long as humanly possible and admit to nothing. I would hate to be the judge "knowing" all three deserve punishment, and not having the evidence to see that they get it.
-CF
Important to keep the discussion - not preaching to the choir
I'm a long time follower and occasionally comment provider.... I'm sad to see so many of the alternate views having been flagged:
"This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it."
Is this what TechDirt has become? Is the community so sensitive that it must hide the alternate viewpoints? I have yet to a viewpoint that was in any way offensive. At least not to the point that it should have been hidden.
Man Up TD. Your arguments stand on their own. You don't need to engage in protectionism....that just makes you like those you claim to be against....
-CF
Am I the only one who sees the irony here?
From what I am picking up from the TD populous:
1. Company claims they can record but don't want to be recorded : Company is mean spirited
2. Government records (3rd party recording) : Government is abhorrent
3. Individual forced to reveal they are recording (2 party consent) : Such an awful law.
4. I am recording every phone call, don't have to get approval or give notification (1 party consent): The stuff dreams are made of.
How is 1 and 4 NOT in conflict? Either you agree that one party notification is good (in which case #1 is mute because the company doesn't even need to let you know) or you agree that 2 party notification is good (in which case #4 goes away).
Based on the comments here the headline should read:
"We Can Record You Time Warner Cable, But You Can't Record Us"
-CF
Got the game I wanted...no auth check
(cable) Chord cutter since 2001.... I was only interested in 2 games... which were on at the same time. I watched the one I was most interested in and got see my Alma-matter advance.
While it may have not been as free and open as you wanted, it certainly satisfied my needs.
-CF