So, yeah, "meh." That "meh" was not to the secrecy that enveloped it for all those years, but it seems silly to argue that they're trying to pass a secret document now when it hasn't been secret for nearly a year. I *agree* that the negotiations in secret were a problem, but the document has been released now.
I just lost a lot of respect for you sir! This secrecy and the habits of these corrupt people which you falsely claim have hearts in the right place is a farce! When did you get put on the payroll? Congress and the collection of maggots you just talked up are the #2 problem in America just after the mindless electorate that keeps them voted into office.
Wow. Calm down. You made a mistake. You thought it hadn't been released. It has. Don't freak out and make bullshit accusations about me that are false.
These politician are experts in keeping the curtains drawn and constantly wheel and deal behind closed doors. These people sought these positions for power and glory. Very few actually care. Anyone that can stand in the halls of congress for long are not good people because no sane man could feel clean there!
The curtains are now open. Though I will disagree with you: there are some -- a VERY SMALL NUMBER -- of members of Congress (some of whom have been there for a while) who are, indeed, fighting the good fight for good things. It may not be true of the majority, but don't confuse tenure with bad intent.
Do we want a Marxist Internet ala "Net Neutrality," where the rule is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,"
This is not what net neutrality is.
or do we want a competitive internet that allows people to buy the best-fit solution for them, with a price tag that reflects usage?
That's not what the alternative is.
Aggressive "network neutrality," with an inflexible "one size fits all" mandate, which will make the Internet roughly the equivalent of Sprint's 3G network circa 2010 -- congested to hell with no profits (and thus no investment);
This is not one of the options here and certainly not what's happening with the current net neutrality rules.
Today's competitive approach, where people can choose the wireless carrier and plan their want -- and opt for someone other than T-Mobile or Sprint if they don't like those options. (Of course, AT&T and Verizon will charge a LOT of data to the bandwidth hogs who want a socialized internet, which is why the Net Neutrality comrades hate this option);
Except that the carriers all have their plans basically in lock step with each other (notice how Sprint and T-Mobile announced their new, very similar, plans within an hour of one another?). This is not real competition.
And, no, the issues that we're discussing here are not about data caps and bandwidth hogs. But about favoring certain kinds of traffic (and being able to charge for that).
Some magical approach in which scarce and expensive commodities like bandwidth, wireless spectrum and network capacity disappear, and nobody has to pay for access because it's free. (This is the world that the remainder of the "Network Neutrality" people imagine -- the 21st century equivalent of the communist utopia of old).
Yeah, no one is saying that.
You don't look very smart when you make up what you think the other side says. It just makes you look totally clueless.
1. Why does Obama want to ratify it so badly?> 2. Why do some politicians want to ratify it so badly?
Many politicians believe (correctly, fwiw) that good free trade helps boost economies and creates a better global world. So they get focused on that. I had a good conversation with a Congressional Rep who talked about visiting Vietnam and how limited some markets are for small businesses there, and how a more open markets could help raise those people out of poverty. And that's true.
What they miss is how the TPP itself isn't really about free trade. It has some tariff reductions, but it also has a ton of other regulatory things in it, such as intellectual property. And that's where the problem is.
Why is it covered under so much secrecy that many countries don't want their own people knowing it, and have it voted on before anybody reads it?
Meh. At this point the document is and has been public for a while. This was a legitimate point during the negotiations. And the reasoning then, stupidly, was that having public debate without understanding the nuances of negotiations (the give and take parts) would make concluding a deal impossible. I don't think this is true, but that's the official reasoning.
How are they even throttling that video. Aren't the biggest video streaming sites using HTTPS encryption now? If they are throttling those, it must mean those companies agreed to have their videos throttled like this, and have some kind of Man-in-the-Middle cooperation with the ISPs.
Two things: 1. many of the major video sites partnered with T-Mo on this. 2. T-mo claims that even with HTTPS they can figure out what's *likely* to be video traffic based on site (which they can see) and amount of data flow (which makes sense).
The next Republican Presidential candidate is already guaranteed to appear more likable, more sane, more Presidential by virtue of following this fiasco of a cycle. It's funny, but four years ago Ted Cruz was unelectable because of his place on the political spectrum being too extreme. What a Trump candidacy may have done is shift the American public's zero-point on the political spectrum to the right, far more than Bernie Sanders did so to the left. In 2020, Ted Cruz may still be considered extreme, but will likely realize less of a penalty for that extremeness because of this election cycle.
Still no Daily Dirt? I guess it's gone for good...? :(
Still on hiatus. Not definitely gone. Not definitely coming back. We've got some other projects cooking and had to focus attention on those. We'll revisit whether we bring back DailyDirt probably in a couple months...
The government can't hold copyrights, though. So this is a problem that won't become painful to them.
To be clear, the gov't absolutely CAN hold copyrights, if they're assigned to it. They just can't get copyright on works that they themselves create. But a contractor or someone else can get a copyright and assign it to the gov't.
There are good Twitter substitutes now that don't silence or ban anybody.
But, again, if you're forcing people who don't want to hear to listen, then you get overrun by spam and abusive behavior, and that's no good either. I think simply declaring "we let everything through" is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but is an absolute disaster in practice once it has any amount of scale.
I was recently involved in a (non-trolling) discussion with someone on twitter who abruptly ended our conversation by dismissing me as someone with less than a hundred followers (and therefore not worth talking to). People who act that way make me feel like they're there just for the PR and not for productive dialogue.
That was just a random example of a possible filter -- but it is true that using the number of followers someone has is a useful *signal* (not necessarily the only one, but a useful one) in whether or not the person is a legitimate user vs. a troll. That's not to say all users with low follower counts are trolls, but for some users, it might be a useful signalling tool.
The point is, however, that let the filter work however individuals want and let them decide.
Basically, they cannot claim to be "innocent index" when they created and hosted specialized and detail pages for the shows. Since the content they were providing (by curation) was clearly copyright infringing, they can't claim not to know.
You'd have a point if it were a civil case.
But that doesn't apply to a criminal case.
You should learn what the law says.
The "we don't host anything" game is just that, a game. It's a whole pile of tapdancing around responsibility for your site. Having clear knowledge that the most popular files (and almost all the files) on your curated pages were to infringing material makes it pretty hard to avoid knowledge. Selling ads (and charging more for those popular pages) is another issue.
Again, you should learn what the law says before spouting off and showing your ignorance.
I fully support Niantic in their decision to fight back against the hackers. They are ruining the game for everyone else who plays legit and in my opinion if you are cheating then you deserve to have your falsely acquired assets wiped.
You do realize most of this article is not about Niantic, but Pokemon Company which went way beyond what Niantic did?
Mike missed the part where the kid tried to take his own life after the joke made him a laughingstock at his school. A twelve year old kid wanted to die because of that joke. Is that really the kind of speech that shouldn't have some form of punishment?
It has punishment in the form of public reprehension at the person making such a joke.
But to answer your question more specifically: No, actually, I don't think someone trying to commit suicide should impact anyone else's punishment. There are many factors that go into why someone decided to commit suicide. It's why we were against punishment in the Lori Drew case. It's why -- unlike many others -- we've resisted blaming the government for Aaron Swartz's suicide.
When you say that someone else can get in trouble because someone they were mean to committed suicide YOU'RE ENCOURAGING SUICIDE, because that's telling people "if I kill myself, that's a way to really get back at whoever was mean to me."
Don't do that.
No one knows why anyone finally makes a decision to try to kill themselves, but under your rules, if I said that your comment made me so distressed that I tried to kill myself, do you think you should be punished? We should never punish someone for the way someone else *felt* about what they said.