I think there's another analogy that fits Ari's side more closely, although it took me a while to come up with it.
I took the "roads" analogy literally, and thought of the DOT, which regulates private activity on the roads. But that's no good, because Google is not a regulatory agency in any sense.
So what's an example of a private entity--a carrier, if you will--that has legal requirements with regard to the content that it carries? Well, you could argue that UPS is legally required to report contraband if it becomes aware of it, right? Granted, UPS is a carrier, and Google is technically a directory, but I think that line gets a bit blurred on the Internet.
Now, of course, we're back to the child porn analogy, and Mike's response is sound. I think the whole, "roads" analogy is flawed, though, and I don't blame Ari for seeing it differently than we do.
Also, it just irritates the piss out of me when I hear someone blathering about OH NOES A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON THE HORRORS. It's as if they're saying, "Oh noes! A fuel injected car! The horrors!" I just roll my eyes. But in Mike's case, I want him to be better than that.
I think that it does matter, or I wouldn't have said anything. I agree that the inaccurate reporting about the gun is secondary to the civil rights violation that occurred when he was arrested. Nevertheless, it just goes back to basic reporting: get the facts right. This is an important fact that has been reported incorrectly, and it has serious legal and political implications. That those implications are not directly relevant to the blog's domain doesn't make them less serious.
He saw police in the station carrying semi-automatic weapons (an unfortunately common site in Penn Station), and he decided to photograph them with his phone.
I wish that Firearms 101 was a part of every journalist's basic education.
Semi-automatic weapons are simply weapons that load the next round without any action from the user when a round is fired. In other words, a pump-action shotgun is not semiauto, because you have to rack the slide after firing to load the next round. A lever-action rifle is not semiauto because you have to work the lever. A bolt-action rifle is not semiauto... etc...
Every. Single. Pistol. That you see a police officer carrying in the US is semiauto. Every. Single. Police. Officer. That you see in the US is carrying a semiauto weapon in their belt holster.
Now, I realize that you are just parroting what the original source said, but that's no excuse. If he said they were carrying knives and it was obvious they actually had guns, you would probably point out that he was mistaken. If he said they were from SFPD but they were really State Patrol, you might point that out.
Why does this matter? Because misconceptions about guns factor into what laws get passed. Want to pass a law restricting the possession of semiautomatic firearms? Hell yes! It's got the word "auto" in it. That must be bad, right? Wrong. Automatic weapons, which fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger, are a whole different beast, legally, and functionally, from semiauto ones, which are the bread and butter of all modern firearms. This is exactly like when people confuse trademark, patent, and copyright law, and people like Mike speak out vehemently to clarify the confusion, because it matters when confused people try to mis-apply the law, or, worse yet, pass new laws based on mis-understanding of the facts.
Please update the article with a correct. Thank you.
I didn't read it as, "gift free copies of the movie," I read it as, "buy the movie and send it to your friend as a gift."
As for Netflix's costs: let's remember that the bulk of those costs are licensing fees to studios. Netflix's business model is more lean than any other distribution model in existence. They could make a lot more with a lot less. But the studios are fixed on bleeding them dry with licensing fees. Of course when the people you rely on to provide you with product are intent on over-charging you and driving you out of business, you'll probably eventually go out of business. This is not an indictment of Netflix's business model.
I do the same thing. My primary reason is that I don't trust the safety of the scanners, especially the backscatter machines. But my secondary reason is that I want to make explicit the invasive interaction that is occurring. My third reason is that it costs them more to pat me down than to scan me, and it slows down the line, so I see it as a mild form of civil disobedience.
I'm not an accountant, but I'm pretty sure that things like website expenses and paying employees count as business expenses, for which you don't pay taxes. You only pay taxes on profits, not revenue. Or he'd pay personal income taxes on whatever he pays himself.
This may be too obvious, but Bittorrent is not "the web". Or were they using "the web" as a proxy for "the Internet as a whole." I mean, if they were blocking port 80 and 443 on that IP range, their statement could be true, and they could still have downloaded the files.
This is also consistent with the email originating from an address in that range. SMTP is not "the web".
Yes. This. You can say, "The ratings agencies' opinion shouldn't matter all you want," but my understanding is that the change in rating directly equates to higher interest rates on US debt. In that respect, it absolutely does matter, and there is absolutely something to get worked up about.
The problem with this is that, in many areas, customers do not have the option to subscribe to an ISP that doesn't implement this policy. For example, only Comcast services my home with broadband Internet. Nobody else, unless I want to go satellite, which I don't consider to be a viable alternative for performance reasons. Even in a more urban area, there may only be Comcast and AT&T or Time Warner.
Again, I'm at a loss here. Yes, they're both boys, and there's a blue background in both images... but that's about it. Suggesting that one is a "copy" of the other seems ridiculous.
I basically agree with you, but there's more similarity to the two "boy crying" images than you mention. The lighting is very similar, as is the use of HDR. Well, I'm pretty sure the first image uses HDR. The second one, I'm not 100%, but if HDR wasn't used, it's lit in a way that produces a similar result--as if somebody wanted to create an HDR effect but didn't know how to do HDR. As for the lighting, notice that the background isn't just flat blue, but there's a highlight creating a halo gradient behind the boy.
I'm not trying to make the argument that the second image owes anything to the first image. Even if the second image is explicitly copying the first one, nothing should be owed. I'm just saying that the similarities between the images are more than just "a boy crying." What makes the first image distinctive, to me, is the lighting and the use of HDR, which is still a new enough photographic technique that it stands out.
An editorial comment: I found the number of consecutive "apparently"-s in the first paragraph and the number of consecutive "seem"-s in the last paragraph to be distracting. Thought you might like to know.
Your outrage is justified, but I hope you're not actually surprised. The government may not run PSA's written by McDonalds, but who do you think writes the FDA and USDA guidelines and regulations? The food industry, in large part. It's true in every industry, from banking, to health-care, to food, to, yes, entertainment and copyright.
Just to be clear, I don't like bandwidth caps, and I think it's shitty to sell "unlimited" service that is actually capped.
That being said, I don't think you can have it both ways. The article points out how silly it is to force users to police their own network, but of course, if the ISP starts policing (via application blocking or selective throttling), people scream just as loud. If you operate under the premise that the bandwidth is limited, then somebody needs to do the policing. I'd rather see the user be forced to do it, because then at least the ISP is taking a hands off, content-neutral approach.