There's a grand total of one whole position, Director of the FBI with a 10 year term.
That's not the only one. The Library of Congress is now also a 10 year appointment. It used to be "until stepped down or fired" but after the last LoC stepped down, it was changed so that it's now 10 year appointments.
I believe that the inclusion here is for the same reasons it was included for the LoC. Just some concerns about effective "lifetime" appointments to head agencies.
Mike's pissed that the copyright office will now not be able to be bought by Google.
What? First off, since when has Google "bought" the Copyright Office? Second, Google FAVORS moving the Copyright Office from what I've seen (they'd like to move it into the PTO, which is also a bad idea). So, uh, no.
Copyright is the only protection artists have. Naturally, he hates copyright.
Everything in those two sentences is wrong. It must be tough angrily yelling at a fake strawman that says stuff I don't actually believe.
What difference will it make? Unless substantial checks are included with the communication, they will just ignore it.
This is bullshit. It's not at all true that it doesn't matter. Constituents reaching out -- actually making phone calls -- makes a MASSIVE difference. That's what won SOPA, and I can assure you that those behind this bill are scared of anything that suggests they're heading for another SOPA situation.
Yes, money works in Congress BUT ONLY WHEN NO ONE'S PAYING ATTENTION. If they get enough calls, the calls will ALWAYS beat out the money. Really. Voters trump everything else. And money only works when the people aren't paying attention.
Your "it won't do any good" attitude LETS THEM WIN. Don't do that. Calls (especially) matter and make a difference. If the office starts receiving calls, and Reps realize this will piss off actual voters, it can and will scare them away.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Is the intention just to disclose that you've got a history with Eichenwald that readers should know about before they evaluate any statements you make about him? If so, then that's a good call, but it's not entirely clear that that's the purpose of bringing it up.
Yes, perhaps I should have been more clear in why we brought that up. It's mainly because I've seen a variety of reactions online to the news of this arrest. Those who like Eichenwald seem thrilled, while those who hate him are going crazy about how this is a miscarriage of justice.
So I wanted to point out that we're not generally in agreement with Eichenwald before pointing out that we think there's a more reasonable case here, lest people claim we only support him because we support his views. We don't support his views but this case appears to have at least some legs.
mr masnick, do an experiment. find list of decent proxies and while hiding behind try same controversial topics. you will see google feeding you whole different results, depending on you ip. try spice searches with altering your os. google gets really funny when they think nobody is watching.
Um. Yes. For many years now, Google has customized search results based on who's doing the searching. That's not new. It's also not secret. Not sure what you're suggesting with your comment.
Re: And yet these names never show up in the comments here.
Um. Not everyone who reads, comments. We've noted that for years. In fact, I'd argue significantly less than 1% of readers comment on the site. But many do interact with us in lots of other ways -- including Twitter (hence the fact that all of the things above are tweets). Didn't realize there was some rule that the only way to be an ardent supporter was to comment.
I'm an ardent supporter of plenty of sites on which I've never commented.
Personally, I would err on the safe side, and by safe side, making sure Americans are not put at risk.
What if the "safe side" is recognizing that letting in refugees and others who want to come to America (1) prevents more people from joining extremist groups and (2) helps grow our economy and create more opportunities for peace?
It's not as simplistic as you make it out to be. Telling anyone not in the US to fuck off is a pretty damn good way to build even greater resentment towards the US. That doesn't make us safer.
The tech companies would not be fighting so hard to keep their immigrant employees if they were not getting their labor for cheap. Otherwise it would be no harm to them to hire locally.
I can tell you that this is 100% bullshit. 1st of all, there aren't enough skilled workers locally for the tech industry. Second, in many of the companies that participated, it was the workers themselves pushing for this, rather than management. Sticking your head above water is not good for business on these things.
And this has nothing to do with "cheap" foreign labor -- quite the opposite.
The government's responsibility is to it's citizens, not to citizens of foreign nations.
Yeah, and one way to best serve the citizens of this nation is to allow more skilled immigrants who help create jobs and boost the economy. The stats on this are overwhelming. Kill off immigration and you hurt the citizens of this country.
@Mike: The defendant in this case, who's an Imam, is stating that Trumps EO is unconstitutional because it discriminates against travelers on the grounds of nationality and religion.
You're not just uninformed, but ridiculously so. The documents are included IN THIS ARTICLE. The defendant in the case is Donald Trump. It is not an Imam.
As a corollary: If tomorrow the Pope stated to the world all good Christians had to kill Gays, Bisexuals, and transsexuals, and we barred Christians from entering the country temporarily, it'd be unconstitutional. And do note, there's plenty of indication, intelligence, and empirical evidence showing Imam's from those countries intend to kill Americans.
What are you even talking about?
Frankly, these are a people with a very different belief system.
Bullshit. That's what bigots have said about every new wave of immigrants, including Catholics, Irish, Italians, Jews and more.
Lets also say he went full retard and told people "Do it, carry a gun, and the problem will take care of itself". It wouldn't be 10 seconds before every courthouse in every state would be inundated with lawsuits to restrict people's right to free speech so they can practice free religion.
What are you even talking about?
Seriously: get off your conspiracy theory sites and maybe join the real world.
Any ideal with a price tag containing a body count that doesn't either eliminate a real threat (E.G. Declaring war) or produce a empirically demonstrable benefit for society, (E.G. nuclear power vs Coal) is a very hard sale to anyone with functioning brain cells and the capability to do basic arithmetic.
Again, no one from any of these countries has been involved in a terrorist attack against the US. Tons of people have been vetted before they were given visas, and those people are still blocked under this order. You are spouting conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with this case whatsoever.
You're so afraid of Muslim people you apparently can't even be bothered to read the case you're screaming about. Incredible. Ignorant, but incredible.
Hilighting exceptional cases seems designed to ignore the larger issues of overwhelming immigration and non integrating communities. It ignores the thousands overstaying visas.
Um. I'd argue that the administration and those fighting against immigration are the ones guilty of highlighting "exceptional cases" while ignoring the larger issues of all the benefits immigration brings.
I think this kind of thing is super interesting, but I disagree with the "future of online publishing" claim. This is little more than a traditional paywall. It works in this scenario for a few reasons -- one being that WeChat is basically where Chinese users spend nearly all of their "online" time and it's integrated basically everything (payments, services, and more). For folks who think that Facebook is dominant in the US or elsewhere, it's nothing compared to WeChat's dominance and deep integrations.
In short, the only way this kind of thing takes over elsewhere is a scenario in which Facebook (or something new beyond that) becomes much more dominant, and has built in an even stronger level of integration, and there's little else to compete with).
Because otherwise you run into all the usual paywall problems: the mental transaction costs of whether or not the content is worth it, the competition from lots of free content and more...
Anyway, many years ago, I wrote that many of the claims about "paid content" misstate what people are really paying for. They tend to usually actually be paying for something else in the form of content: things like convenience or a service or the ability to make money. I still think that holds. That means some kinds of content can work in a paywall, if it's really accomplishing those other things. But traditional content doesn't usually cut it, without special circumstances.
No, it should have what the people of that country say it should. The UK is a democracy and it should determine for itself what it will and will not accept as acceptable conduct as a society.
Sure. But I will argue, strongly, that they should, as a democracy, choose to have strong support for freedom of expression. I'm not saying it just because it's an "American" value. I'm saying it because of the human rights issues involved. If you do not support free speech, and allow governments to censor, you eventually end up supporting tyranny by that very government. For they will define free speech in a manner that will stifle important voices.
Free speech is also important for innovation and progress.
The idea that someone should be punished for tweeting something stupid creates a massive chilling effect. Yes, the people of Great Britain have a right to decide for themselves, but that does not change that I can advocate and explain why they should support very strongly a free speech regime that does not stamp out a person's rights to speak their mind.
- The toll booths would say $5, but when you got there they'd take $5 for the toll, $3.30 as a "compliance fee," $2.93 as a "road maintenance fee," $1.94 as a "in person billing fee" and $0.35 as a "toll fee."
I do think it's really interesting though! I'll be curious to watch how it works and if other sites adopt it. But I fear that it also adds a level of friction to comments that may frustrate and annoy many otherwise useful and insightful commenters.
USA needs to worry about the USA, Canada needs to worry about Canada, and the EU needs to worry about the EU.
Yes, you know how they do that? By establishing strong trading relationships, and enabling easy travel for people, goods and services back and forth, that helps improve the lives and economies of all of those places.
In other words, that "globalism" you hate IS the USA looking after the USA.
It's astounding that you don't understand that. I mean, it displays a level of basic ignorance that shocks me.