Extremely belatedly: I'm told that the reason helium is so relatively inexpensive in the US is that the US government has for years, per directive of Congress, been selling off its strategic helium reserve, thus depressing prices.
Of course, this just ends up meaning that the helium gets used for frivolous purposes like party balloons instead of for critical purposes like the one cited here, but that's political football for you...
I don't think the "you" in the part you quoted was a reference to Google; I think he was talking to the people who are wanting to be paid for being indexed.
That is, if they charge Google for being indexed, then maybe Google will decide that they're unworthy of being indexed, and the poster won't have to see their (IHO unworthy) content when he searches Google for something.
That's why he mentions a "domain-based RBL feature" - he wants to be able to blacklist particular domains from the Google search results which he sees, not because he doesn't like Google, but because he doesn't like those sites (and will never follow links to them, so they're useless results to him).
Their counter to this would be James Comey's post-Orlando-shootings comment that "in addition to finding a needle in a haystack, we're called upon to figure out which pieces of hay may later become needles" - that is, to figure out which people who haven't gone the terrorist route yet are going to do it, so that the attack can be prevented before it happens.
I'm not sure I agree that they should be called upon to do this, but I can't really argue that they aren't being so called upon.
Actually, I think the background is that he had been removed from the watchlist(s) for lack of sufficient justification to keep him there, and then he went and did the things which they would have been watching for.
So the rationale would be that he shouldn't have been dropped from the watchlist, and achieving that would require broadening the range of what justifies being on the watchlist.
The argument is that since the second judge granted the warrant, there was probable cause after all, they just didn't have the basis to demonstrate it at the time of applying to the first judge.
The obvious counterargument to that (although not necessarily the one which the court is using) would seem to be that if they didn't have the basis to demonstrate it at the time of the seizure, they did not have probable cause for that seizure itself.
Re: Re: Except in their imaginations, or paychecks, or blackmail
Actually, I can't see where it does say that.
It says that "the right to be secure against unreasonable searches shall not be violated" and that "no warrants shall issue except as described here", but it does not say that "no search for which no warrant has been issued shall be considered reasonable", or indeed draw any other apparent connection between these two statements.
The usual interpretation of what it does say is that a warrant (supported as described) is what substantiates reasonability, but as far as I can see, the text itself does not seem to explicitly indicate any such thing.
It's not even that; Comcast only went up eight points, Time-Warner Cable went up sixteen. It's just that TWC started from so far behind that even that big a jump still leaves it three points behind Comcast.
Re: We commonly complain around here about there being no good presidential candidates.
As you implicitly note in passing, the only way out of this bind is to eliminate first-past-the-post single-choice voting.
And I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the only way the better option (ranked-choice/ranked-preference voting) will ever get implemented, at least in the U. S. of A., is if it's done from the bottom up - in towns and municipalities, then in counties, then in states, then for federal elections one state at a time, and finally on a nationwide level (if only for the electoral college, if that even still exists by the time we get that far).
I'm moving towards activism in that direction myself, for my own area; if you get a chance to push for it in your own local government, you never know what bit of advocacy might make the difference.
Actually, if you look at it in a historical context, the entire US political establishment - including the Democrats - is significantly to the right of what was historically called the center. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a genuine leftist the US national political scene has seen in decades, at least.
(Source: the graphs from The Political Compass, https://politicalcompass.org/. On their charts, both the Democrats and the Republicans are in the right/authoritarian quadrant, although the Republicans are considerably farther in that direction - and, for comparison, every single person I've yet persuaded to take the see-where-you-fall quiz has been in the left/libertarian quadrant. Along with such historical figures as Gandhi.)
Re: Re: Re: Denton should play publisher whack-a-mole
On any grounds which anyone who wants to file a suit against not-Gawker may raise, just the same as he currently does with Gawker.
That's the insidious part of this strategy: your actual reason for going after the target never gets brought into the courts (and in fact you never do either). All that gets brought into court is one proxy after another, until the target no longer has the resources to fight back.
If the target changes its name or other identity, as long as you can still find them, you can still go after them the same way; you know they're the same people, and you're still hostile to those people for the same reasons, and the strategy you're using lets you avoid having those reasons even brought into the picture - much less having them effectively challenged, and still less having you enjoined from continuing to pursue that strategy.
I think his point is that it is Republicans who are doing it: a Republican Congress, the same one which has reflexively opposed anything the Democratic President's administration tries to do. (With the odd exception of the USTR.)
While a Republican Congress might indeed weaken the PCLOB under a Republican President as well, they would be doing it for different reasons from the reason they're doing it under a Democratic President.
This being why I'm increasingly convinced the only way we'll get political reform in this country is if we start by implementing ranked-preference voting (Condorcet-satisfying, if at all possible), from the bottom up - i.e., first in cities and counties, then at the state level, on up until it's being used in federal elections.
Otherwise, the spoiler effect will serve to prevent enough people not beholden to the existing powers from getting into office, and the people in power will have no incentive to try to get things changed - because the changes which are needed, though good in the larger picture, would have the side effect of making it easier for other people to win their seats.
Oh, I agree, at least in general; there may be cases where people have heard of the Pirate Bay but don't know where to find it (especially since, IIRC, it's lived at several different addresses over the course of its history), and won't be able to track it down without a suitable search result, but they're unlikely to make a significant difference in the big picture.
I'm just trying to parse his position, and aid in understanding (for whatever good that may do), as best I can.
Google is 100% aware and knowledgeable of the specific bad activity of the Pirate Bay, etc. Right, and go do a Google search that links to infringing content on the Pirate Bay. It doesn't show up. I just ran a few google searches myself trying to find any infringing content on the Pirate Bay and couldn't find any (at least not on the front page, which is all that matters). So... yeah. Basically they did what you asked. And you're too clueless to realize it.
But if you search for "The Pirate Bay" (quotes not required), Google still gives you a link to the site.
I think that's what he's objecting to; I think he's proposing that "The Pirate Bay is used overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) for infringement, and Google knows that, so Google should not return any results from The Pirate Bay at all, no matter what search term is used".
Sure, it doesn't sound plausible that there was only one copy of the document, at this stage of affairs.
But that only one copy was sent to the IOG, and that that copy was destroyed in the sequence of events described? That does sound entirely plausible to me - and if the deletion of the server copy (in mistaken understanding of the received instructions) happened before a backup would have been taken, it likewise seems plausible that no backup would be available.
Anyone else who had received a copy would still have it, and the OIG should be able to get a new copy from there (as indeed has been requested) - but the OIG itself would not have its copy.
One picayune point for Mike: "Whack" is a perfectly good english verb, and Elsevier is most certainly "Whacking" at sci-hub.
Thank you. While the original game which gave the world the term "whack-a-mole" may have spelled it "whac", A: the popular-culture awareness of the phrase spells it "whack", so invocations of that awareness should do the same, and B: the actual verb "whack" - when used outside of the name of the game - certainly is not spelled the shorter way.
This is copyright and free speech in conflict at its most obvious!
I'm not entirely sure I see how this is true, though. Would you care to clarify?