"All this really screams for is a provision in the law that would allow someone to use their birth-name so long as there was no other attempt to create confusion with another entity holding a similar mark."
No, your honor, naming our child Amazon Google Smith had nothing to do with our future plans to create an SEO marketing firm in his name. Total coincidence.
"So even while the program as executed did not reduce the number of accidents, it might have reduced the average or even accumulated severity."
Given that they could have reduced collisions with a longer yellow and a delayed red/green timing, there is no excuse for using the red light camera at all.
" Like a teenaged heterosexual boy, it appears that Facebook has no clue how to deal with naked female breasts."
You can't blame that entirely on Facebook. Rather, it is society that is erratic on the display of breasts, where male nipples are ok to display in public, but female nipples, even if they look exactly like male nipples, are not. It's not that moderation doesn't scale it's that our societies rules about nipples are ridiculous.
"People are't getting more choices, they're seeing what they already have being split up and silo'd away into numerous exclusive services,"
The market is fragmented, not filled with "choices". The headline is a bit off.
That is a thoughtful reply, however it ignores two things, one of which is the headline (which, to the best of my knowledge, are written by the authors at the collective blog rather than a copy editor), which declares the scooters illegal and the linked article cited byt Doctrow, which he is IMO endorsing, that is specifically about stealing the scooters in the two weeks remaining before the city's grace period expires and the scooters are subject to city impound. It's a pretty tall order to justify the scooters as legally "abandoned" before that deadline.
Another non-reply by you. And unlike you, I have a history on this page that can be looked up.
Here's the thing you can't get around: Doctorow's link to JWZ's post about stealing Bird scooters for the parts was explicitly about stealing them in the remaining two weeks before San Francisco's grace period expired and the city impounded them, when, presumably, they would no longer be available to steal off the streets.
You can't plausibly deny that. Which it seems is why you didn't and just made unfounded accusations about me instead.
"Doctorow talks about the scooters “after they become illegal litter”. The implication is that the scooters will eventually be considered “litter”, but are not at the moment."
He's equivocating, as are you.
Even if the city of San Francisco declares a "scooter sharing" company's scooter distribution to be against city law, that doesn't make the company's scooters legal for private citizens to steal. The scooters remain the wholly owned private property of the company. The city can impound them, but there is no private right of action for people to steal them for parts.
Bird is wrong on copyright regardless of Doctorow's actions. They are free to call him out for what he did, but not free to make what I consider fraudulent claims of copyright violation. Doctorow did not violate the copyright law with his posts. But neither should he be praised for his posts that, IMO, suggest stealing Bird scooters because of his dislike for "scooter sharing" companies.
Right, because providing relevant direct quotes and links to two supporting articles by Doctrow himself is "unsupported". You might want to look into the definitions of those words you are using. I don't think they mean what you think they do.
"likely flagged because they aren't 'backed up with quotes and citations', and instead are you asserting that someone is advocating illegal action based upon a stretch so severe that you can see light through it."
Yeah, you don't seem to be getting that there have been a number of posts about re-purposing Bird scooters by Doctorow on BB, including the one that suggests that if the scooter company's distribution is not allowed by the city that people are free to take the scooters because they are "illegal", when, in fact, no such right of private action exists and the scooters remain the private property of the scooter company.
Here is article by Doctorow suggesting that people steal Bird scooters if they are "illegal" (which he declares they are in the headline): A guide to the valuable electronics inside Bird's illegal-in-San Francisco scooters - https://boingboing.net/2018/05/25/drinkbot-anyone.html.
Now, to be clear, Doctorow is endorsing the suggestion of JWZ, who declared "You only have two weeks to gather up all those free microcontrollers, servos and batteries that are littering the sidewalks of San Francisco!". The two weeks in which to steal scooters JWZ is referring to is actually the grace period **before** the city of San Francisco's deadline after which the scooters would be impounded "Scooter Companies Have Two Weeks to Get Off the Streets" - https://www.jwz.org/blog/2018/05/landfill-capitalism-you-only-have-two-weeks-to-gather-up-all-those-free-microcontrollers-servos-and-batteries-that-are-littering-the-sidewalks-of-san-francisco/
So, yes, IMO Cory was suggesting that people steal scooters based on JWZs suggestion to do the same before Bird was forced to remove the scooters by the City under threat of impound.
Think of it this way: if someone parks illegally in on a city street in a red zone, do you get to take their car and keep it for yourself? No, you don't. Nor do you get to take Bird scooters, even if the city regulations say they are not allowed to be left on city sidewalks.
Now, none of that excuses the overbroad copyright claims by Bird over Doctorow's article. However, as much as I support opposing copyfraud, I also oppose the attempts of people here to pretend Doctorow wasn't suggesting stealing Bird scooters.
Interesting to see that my posts have been "flagged by the community". Generally speaking, most of my comments over the years are consistent with typical comments, so nobody can dismiss me as an AC. But it seems that any contrary opinions, even when backed up with quotes and citations, are subject to being flagged for being contrary to the dog pile. The modding has in effect been outsourced to the mob. It's an understandable technique for Techdirt to employ given how much work good modding is to do by hand and how hard it is to do in a timely fashion without spending a crapload of money, but clearly it also has the potential to turn Techdirt into an echo chamber.
Doctrow leans pretty heavily in his posts about Bird to get people to steal the scooters in my opinion, as he did here, emphasizing his characterization of the scooters as illegal to in what I'd say is his attempt justify people stealing them and re-using them:
" On the occasion of Bird being ordered to remove its scooters from the streets of San Francisco, JWZ has published the beginnings of a costed teardown of the key components of any you find lying around after they become illegal litter "
- "A guide to the valuable electronics inside Bird's illegal-in-San Francisco scooters"
It's pretty clear in the above that he's suggesting that any Bird Scooter on a side walk is "illegal litter" and you should steal it because it has valuable parts, only you shouldn't think of it as stealing because the scooter is "illegal".
Then he goes one further in a subsequent post, telling you how you can do something easier than stripping it for parts, you can convert the scooter to your own use for $30. In this post Doctrow
$30 plug-and-play kit converts a Bird scooter into a "personal scooter". In this post, Doctrow continues his Bird scooters are "illegal" trope, but this time adds some plausible deniability suggesting that you can source the scooters from impound auctions rather than just stealing them off the streets.
-$30 plug-and-play kit converts a Bird scooter into a "personal scooter""
Bird's copyright accusation is wrong on the law and is unjustified. But Doctorow isn't an innocent in this, even if he may not have violated copyright law. He was being a jerk and, IMO, deliberately aiding and abetting the theft and subsequent re-use of Bird scooters by implicitly suggesting that people should steal scooters and re-used them, either for valuable parts or to re-use as electric scooters by changing out the controller. That doesn't make Bird right to misuse copyright law, though, but Doctorow needs to be called out on his BS just as Bird needs to be called out on theirs.
The Libre Office suite is a great value, and a vital alternative to the Microsoft virtual monopoly. However, it is not, to my mind, superior to office, rather it works pretty well for a program that has to deal with undocumented Microsoft formats, but it lacks some basic features.
Impress, for instance, lacks the ability to copy slide master pages from one presentation to another, making it difficult to format extant slides to a common slide master, which is a common task in slide creation.
The more you use Libre Office, the more you can appreciate what a tremendous task making it and maintaining it is, and what basic features are missing when you need them.
"Those two statements are contradictory. You can't reliably score psychological metrics outside of clinical parameters."
Yeah, that's true of more complicated diagnosis based on subtle indicators. Not really true in the case of Trump, who may be the most clearly documented case of NPD the world has ever seen. Not to be too flippant about it, but he literally puts his name in giant gold letters the things he owns and talks about himself in the 3d person.
Again, back to the broken bone diagnosis when it is sticking outside of someone's leg. You don't get say that "you can't reliably diagnose that as a broken outside of clinical parameters". Bone sticking outside of someone's leg is definitive. The rest of the check list is irrelevant to the fundamental diagnosis of "compound fracture". Same goes for Trump's extraordinary NPD.
Indeed it is. And Trump's increasingly divorced from reality narcissism is a clear danger to others. It's actually appropriate for medical professionals to call attention to such a danger rather than hide under a rock. This isn't something subtle. It's not a mental illness that only affects Trump. It doesn't require lab tests. Trump scores max on all the indicators for clinical narcissism.