I don't think techdirt needs to address anything regarding whether they have been compromised financially or w/e regarding Fine Bros. I've been reading techdirt for nearly 10 years, and I've never, ever, seen anything to make me doubt the sincerity of the writers here.
It may be, but does it necessitate gaining a legal monopoly over broad and general sounding terms already in very common use across Youtube and other sites?
To me, those trademarks are not necessary for them to accomplish the goal they set out to do. It could also be done under a Fine Bros Entertainment brand and trademark, not necessarily the generic "Kids React", "Teens React", etc.
The only benefit I can see from them owning trademarks on those, my opinion, very broad terms, is to shut down or claim ad revenue from others.
I've reached a similar point. Using uMatrix you see every single request that's being made to every URL. The sheer volume of third-party scripts and embeds MANY sites use these days is utterly appalling. So many places running so much crap in your browser, pretty much without your knowledge. uMatrix was a big eye-opener for me.
Re: Um, Canada does have something similar to the 1st amendment
"But, in the end, this isn't a free speech issue, it's a harassment issue, and the thought that a conviction “will have a chilling effect on people’s ability to communicate" is what's ludicrous."
No, what's ludicrous here is the fact that this has to happen at all. For one, twitter is a service in which you can actively control who you can and cannot engage in a conversation with. If they no longer wanted to see what he was saying, they could block him. Or mute him. Or log the f-k out. Only, and I mean *ONLY* after such action is take if he attempts to circumvent it am I anywhere CLOSE to considering it actual harassment. If you can walk away and don't, then you are CHOOSING to stay engaged in the conversation.
From a pure irony stand-point, are we now where the Senate needs to complete an investigation and produce a report on unauthorized illegal CIA spying on Senate investigation and report into illegal CIA torturing? Coming up with a suitable acronym for that one might well give someone an aneurism.
This exploit doesn't just allow emulators to be installed, it affects a wide range of apps. Sure, emulators are impacted, but it is also a potential vector for end-running around security on the phone. That is a huge concern, that as far as I'm concerned, Apple is fully justified in dealing with. If someone managed to use this to generate a malware infection spreading throughout the iOS ecosystem, and it was known that Apple hadn't addressed it, they would be raked across the coals. Jailbreaking is still an option and it both accommodates those who want unapproved apps installed, and keeps Apple away from being liable for the activity of apps that aren't approved.
C'mon, this admin has far and away already been the best for the RIAA/MPAA/ASCAP, etc already. Look at what they did with the USTR and the DOJ on behalf of those industries. Frankly, this is small sauce compared to the loads of other IP bullshit they've engaged in.
Being liked and appreciate around the world, is not really a realistic or achievable goal. Treating people ethically, especially our friends and enemies, is. I'd prefer we focus on that instead of hoping that every tinpot dictator and nationalist over the world ever gives a damn about my country.
Actual facts (heh, well) out there in the public domain available for analysis and debate, OR random assumptions and wild ass guesses about what the CIA did or did not do?
Personally, I'm all about get the truth (my definition probably doesn't match the CIA's, but whatever) out there.
Horror movie writers, producers and directors have known for a long time that nothing they can put on screen truly exceeds what the right combination of noise effects, shadows, and other subtle indications can cause to spring up in the imaginations of their audience. Same fucking principle here. Get the actual facts (again, well) out there and let there be a proper debate on it. People everywhere are already pissed off.
Might as well let them be pissed off at things known to be true instead of the worst things they can imagine (well, we'll see). The longer this obfuscation and delay goes on, the longer it takes for us as a people to move on from it (and hopefully learn to reign the CIA's ass in a bit).
Western medicine has cured polio, immunized against a wide-range of diseases and yet in places like Africa (and California, and India, and the U.K., etc) rabid religious nuts and power-mad idiots routinely convince the uneducated and others to not use it (evil western plots to sterilize people for example).
Considering the primary method of transmitting Ebola is through exchange of bodily fluids, I think education is the key to combatting and containing it, not necessarily a cure. Regardless of what ever is discussed here, resources for research and development, regardless of how it's funded, are limited. If there's an alternative to spending, quite literally, billions of dollars to curing something, such as education and hygiene, that's probably where the initial focus should be. Private pharmaceutical companies have issues no doubt, but I don't see vast streams of funding flooding into development of cure in the Public or Charitable sectors either.
As a suggestion, if you really want to get under a politician's skin: If they're a liberal democrat, question their devotion to freedom and liberty If they're a conservative republican, question their support of the economy and jobs
Those categories are broad enough to be able to apply just about anything to them.
I probably wouldn't have been so passionate about sending my Rep a response if he had voted in favor of this. Maybe a thank you or something. However mine was in the group that voted against this. Just sent him a polite nasty-gram. I would encourage anyone else in the same boat as I'm in to do the same.
I sympathize with your having been victimized. However, the thought of erasing a human's existence as a deterrent to others' fairly repugnant. I believe in the death penalty. There simply are some people in this world who's crimes are so appalling they should be ended. That should be the only reason the death penalty is invoked. To expect it to act as a deterrent is naive, at best.
To imply (or outright state as you have) that crimes less than the most unspeakable should be subject to the death penalty, speaks to a lack of using rational faculties, and relying on emotion. Emotion, being so subjective, absolutely cannot be a basis for a system of justice, let alone a foundation for setting punishments for criminal acts.
Add to this the inherent nature of man to err, and you increase the chances of innocents being murdered by the state. If you have a profile on techdirt, then I expect you have been reading it for at least some time. How many articles have you read here, where police officers were caught flat out lying to cover their own asses, resulting in seriously damaging the lives, property, and welfare of their fellow citizens? I've seen literally dozens over the last few years here, and elsewhere.
Capital punishment has it's place, but in a world, a nation, of corrupt judges, police, and prosecutors, I don't know that it can be adequately applied much longer. Giving the state the authority to end the lives of it's citizens is a grave and solemn abdication of power to the state. If we can't trust that it will exercise it with honor and truth, I don't know how much longer we can permit it.
The "vaccinations are western plots" nutjob theories have a long and inglorious history around the world actually. This is nothing new. I agree that while the CIA may have been stupid enough to slightly confirm the paranoia, that paranoia has been around a long long long time. Hell, vaccines, condoms, AIDS medication, it's all western plot to subvert and control pretty every nation not American/European for a large portion of the world.
This is a complete misapplication of logic. If you want to reduce the impact that money can have in politics, politicians need to have less POWER (and this goes across the board, legislative, executive, ESPECIALLY regulatory). The less they can do, the less they are worth.