No, i don't think FOIA should be changed. But i do think there is a duty of responsibility that media (the Journal) needs to exercise in its actions. I don't believe that this was a case where they correctly handled their responsibility. But that's fine because I vote with my feet (and my wallet). I generally don't read or buy newspapers. They've lost my eyeballs a while ago. And that goes for the rest of the lame stream media as well. If they all imploded tomorrow, it would be months before I would notice.
I don't know, but my take on Mr. Masnick is the opposite. I get the distinct impression that when all is said and done, he is still siding with the FOIA and the right of the newspaper to publish that data.
I personally disagree with him on that point, so my complaint is the opposite of yours. I have no issue with the FOIA, but I do have an issue with irresponsible use of said data. I believe the Journal's act was simply to get publicity and to sell papers.
Having lived in NYC for many years, I know how difficult it is to get a CCW. I my current home state, it was not that difficult, and I am a proud, law-abiding gun owner, and a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment.
I was also pained by the tragic event in CT, and am disgusted that someone could do something so horrible. However, that has not changed my mind about the 2nd amendment, nor have I even given a thought to giving up my guns.
I feel that the Journal's attempt to vilify law abiding gun owners was completely pointless, and was designed to play to the fear that many Americans now have about guns. The fact that they are completely ignoring is that someone pulled the trigger. Had the perpetrator of the act in CT used a baseball bat or an axe, I doubt the Journal would have created a map of all homes where baseball bats or axes are owned, because that wouldn't sell ink-stained paper.
OK. But here's the thing: I am already watching about 5 to 10 times more on Netflix than on Comcast. When I do watch something on Comcast, its usually on-demand rather than the inconvenient fixed schedule. I have to imagine that I am not so different from most subscribers. Personally, I don't find HBO that compelling either, but I would bet that if they teamed up with, say, Netflix, and offered a premium version that included HBO content, they would capture a significant portion of that user-base without breaking a sweat. Just my 2 cents.
The 'innovation' you refer to includes (by my count) at least 3 'reality' shows about towing companies, 3 about pawn brokers, and about 9 billion about housewives that make me want to puke. Sorry, I think the innovation is in delivery to my platform of choice, and the rare but exceptional new premise, like 'Breaking Bad' or 'Mad Men', but even for those, the plot gets stale after 5 seasons.
On the assumption that this is really a problem (an assumption that I would not automatically make), I think there is actually a better solution. The algorythm that an elevator operates on is often referred to as 'elevator seeking' (although I think this term came from r/w head movements on disk arrays).
Suppose that I get on on the first floor and press 10.
Then the elevator stops on the 2nd floor, new passenger enters and presses 3.
The elevator stops at 3 before proceeding on to 10.
Now revise the logic:
Suppose that I get on (first) on the first floor and press 10.
Then the elevator stops on the 2nd floor, new passenger enters and presses 3.
The elevator proceeds up to 10 since my request was the first request, then goes back down to stop at 3.
I am, of course, suggesting this a bit tongue in cheek. The current elevator seeking logic works because its more efficient. However, it does favor the passenger with the shortest journey, at the detriment of passengers with the longest. (just like socialism here in europe)
But back to the subject at hand, rather than subjecting someone to scorn, if they were instead subjected to inconvenience (and knew so beforehand) then the logical course of action would be to take the stairs in the first place.
As a TD follower of several years, I've found its informative and balanced. I consider myself fortunate to live in a society that tolerates and mostly encourages such a level of discussion, and that's still the most amazing aspect of all this. Don't change a thing!
I'm afraid I disagree on this one. If Apple didn't take the heavy handed approach to app approval, then you could make a case for absolving them of responsibility in this. However, I think they are in it up to their eyeballs having put their stamp of approval on these invasive apps. I believe Android would have a stronger case for being absolved of liability because of their 'you choose' approach.
Perhaps I'm not quite as trusting of companies mining my data in a way that I don't have oversight on, and I think I still prefer an 'opt-in' choice rather than 'opt-out', and I personally have found Apple's attitude a bit too invasive to make me comfortable. Granted, their corporate policy is their choice, by my choice not to agree with it is mine.
The really serious issue will be whether this will include banking transaction messages. Assuming, just like every other attempt at secure encryption (or DRM, etc), this will be hacked in about 5 nanoseconds. Then, if financial transactions also have a backdoor, then the 2008 banking crisis will seem like an insignificant blip on the radar when the entire global financial transaction messaging system becomes vulnerable to hackers.
Along with the announcement today of the Obama administration's plans to force a massive change on the core fabric of the internet itself (mandating a 'back door' in all web based communications) this is yet another indication where we are all headed. I was at first concerned when Dubai and Saudi Arabia announced plans to block Blackberry traffic unless they were given a way of eavesdropping on every email. Sure, you would expect that from regimes where individual liberties are subjective at best. But now, it looks like this is the new norm for all of us. Depressing.
I'm afraid I don't see the logic in this suggestion. This would be comparable to early automotive manufactures being required to build cars that drive no faster that horses. Should every gallon of petrol (US gasoline) be taxed to support the buggy whip industry? Perhaps every car driver should have been required to keep a buggy whip (and a bale of hay) in his car for the first year of ownership? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me.
There is an even bigger flaw in his argument: Here in the UK, the BBC is not our only media source. In fact, there are so many cable channels and newspapers that they are all fighting over the same consumer that the BBC does only a mediocre job in serving. Further, the model that force-funds the BBC is one that is commonly recognised as being unsustainable. Throw in some recent scandals that the BBC has managed, notably that about 80 of their top managers make more money than the Prime Minister, and you begin to see the forming of an inevitable unwinding of this structure. Where is Larry's logic in recommending a system that is failing elsewhere?
Total agree with this sentiment. As the theme of this blog in all about trying new business models, I believe everyone has the right to try something new. As for the value that scalpers add to the ecosystem, I have my doubts. All they seem to do is pervert the scarcity of a product and make their profit on that, yet add no value. Ticketmaster may not be the most admired business, but if they are going to limit the rip-off factor with this change, I, for one, may even be tempted to buy a ticket from them. The frustration I've had in the past has kept me away from buying tickets for such over-hyped events for more than decade, and I'll bet a lot of people stay away for the same reason.