I question your premise. The Library of congress is not a "failed" instiution. And, in fact, the current Librarian of Congress is a good way to fix the private industry revolving door. By hiring an actual Librarian with proven history modernizing Libraries, the stage has been set for a more functional Library of Congress. And, very quickly, the librarian, understanding the needs of the copyright office, found the industry insider unsuitable to the task.
Retaining the copyright office as an arm of the Library of congress makes sense. The 'fix' is to put actual librarians in charge of the library, like we put actual judges on the supreme court. This would allow the Librarian of congress to choose heads of the copyright office that maximize the synergies of the two departments, and improve the whole process.
Anti-Trust is not anti regulatory control. Its a huge government power move, in which companies abusing a monopolistic position are forced by the government into not abusing their position. Historically, this has meant breaking up large monolithic corporations into smaller organizations that in theory compete, allowing free market principles to restore a healthy market that is beneficial to consumers. The federal government has refused to address market distortions caused by territorial monopolies using the Sherman act, likely because of the concerns of Wall Street. So the second approach to Anti-Trust is regulation. Establish rules of engagement that are designed to prevent consumer harm. ignoring for now the question of whether established rules achieve their goal, one of the goals of regulation is Anti-Trust. Regulation of the early broadcast industry meant different channels had different owners. Deregulation lead directly to the current market where disputes with a single network leads to the loss of a large group of channels, sometimes numbering in the hundreds. This, combined with a lack of Anti-trust in the broadcast market, is the direct cause of skyrocketing cable fees.
Well, I think the problem is that while you've correctly identified that Demand outstrips Supply, you frame the solution in terms of shifting the damnd curve. The real solution, as indetified in the article, is to adjust they Supply curve. Tour schedules are designed to maximise demand and limit supply via 'One Night Only' scheduling, with no space for additional shows. This isnt entirely the band/promoter's fault, as venues dont want to keep themselves open for potential shows. But expanding the supply is the best of both worlds - you get to tap into the large demand pools, but by opening up concerts you lower the benefit of scalpers. The real problems are that because of the way tickets are sold, most of them dont get sold to the general public. by opeing up more concerts in high demand areas, you potentially make more tickets availible to the general public. It might not work for everything, but scalper bots are actualy only a symptom of the supply problem.
exactly, i read the email. i responded with the assertionn that the evidence, the email, does not back the conclusions. In all cases the videos author is taking statements out of context, or making background assumptions about the context of the emails that we don't know. you then told me to read the emails, which i already stated i did. you are asking me to find the smoking gun in thousands of emails, when every example of a smoking gun you come up with fails to say what you want it to say!
So does Donald Trump. At least he did in 2013. He said it was critical. And if fact, variations on the statements made by Hilary I think would be good things.
2)The Iran deal was awful and even Democrats know it.
That email was clearly lacking in context, And could actually mean many things, perhaps referencing a private conversation where one of the individuals 'called' that response. We don't actually know what was said here as the "Yup" comment from Podesta does not answer any query from the original email.
3)Bernie Sanders was bribed into supporting Hillary. But he did it for the people! Aaand his lakefront vacation home.
The wording in the email does not suggest an actual exchange of cash (a point the source of this analysis now admits). In fact it discusses a solid standard political tactic. The Republicans sign a pledge to support the nominee, this is no different. The Clinton campaign just suggested they produce goodwill between candidates and not produce ads that undermine the eventual nominee. Politicians working together? What scandal!
4) The DNC created fake, sexist ads under the alias of Trump organizations.
i see no evidence they were posted. And, these posts are clear hyperbole. I don't see how this is more serious then Republicans creating propeganda sites masquerading as local news, or creating fake websites from democratic candidates, or creating fake democratic fundraising sites to steal Democrats money.
5) Hillary believed Obama committed voter fraud
-Both wrong and misleading. Some people of unknown position and authority in Colorado (sound like they might just be private citizens) thought that Obama was bringing ineligible voters to Caucuses in 2008.
6)Clinton staffers wished the San Bernardino shooter was white.
Misleading. John Podesta made that claim. No email was released that agreed with him. I am unsure what this has to do with "their tactics".
7)The Clinton campaign is HUGE on media collusion.
Not sure how this email proves media collusion. It was a mass email from someone in the Sanders team about a Sanders Twitterstorm sent to political consultant Donna Brazile, who forwarded it to the Clinton campaign. I see no signs of a media organization colluding with Clinton.
8) Speaking of media collusion, Ezra Klein is big on helping to make that happen.
Ezra Klein was mentioned as someone how would hold a journalist 'accountable'. From context, that would appear to mean accountable for discussing excerpts from emails devoid of context and claiming a different meaning than what was intended. Kinda like this entire chain of accusations.
9)Hillary knowingly, criminally deleted her emails.
The emails in this case neither reveal anything new, nor prove Clinton knew anything more then she claimed. The staffers claim no conversations with Clinton about the subject, just reservations about the information everyone at that point had.
10)Obama and Hillary communicated via private email, and it was kept hidden.
The only thing in the wikileaks emails that they cite is a short email. It asked if they should withhold emails to from [reasonably assumed] Clinton to Obama. And ponder if Executive Privilege should be declared. Since everyone communicated with Clinton via private email, I don't know why it would be surprising the President did. there is no evidence that Obama was using an unknown private email, nor was there evidence that his copies of the emails aren't archived on a government server. In fact we don't even have a response, so we don't know that Clinton copies of these emails were even withheld.
Honestly, I'm not even gonna get into the second Video. If you need to blatantly misattribute and sensationalize the information to 'prove' misconduct, you are on a witch hunt.
As a note, the democratic party is not my party. I'm Pirate party. i just don't like partisan mudslinging.
your kinda missing the point. we have a poll which seems to significantly disagree with other polls from both sides of the aisle. and we find that the reason of the poll is that, an isolated individual's opinion is being used to establish the opinion of an entire specifc voting block. voting blocks are normally not that specific, because the sample size is normally too small to draw accurate conclusions. This single individual changed polling numbers by 4-5% in favor of trump, and no single opinion should shift a scientifically run poll that much. every other poll suggests that he is not representive of his demographic.
he is not being singled out because he votes for trump. The poll is being singled out for overweighting his opinion such that the poll result drastically changes when he isn't included. The LA poll suggests that there has been a massive shift in opinion towards Clinton, when in fact the biggest change is a single trump supporter not answering his phone.
Trump supporters should be angry about this. This past week has been full of stories about trump's falling poll numbers. And that meta analysis comes to a far more dire conclusion because of this poll.
Except Stein and Johnson are terrible at most technology issues. Johnson's policy is basically, If we just stop all government regulation in the broadband space, including all funding to encourage spending on low value areas, somehow the monopolistic practices of the last decade will just fade away and we will just be awash in a broadband utopia. In fact, that sums up gary Johnson's entire plan.
And Jill stein has almost zero stated policy positions surrounding technology.
I useed to support Jill Stein, but as ive looked into policy platforms, I have found her policies on many issues that matter to me to be problematic. Shes got no directives on copyrights or patents, her website lists no position on the encryption debate, she recommends sweeping military cuts, her stance on common core is populist-it addresses the perception of why the standards are wrong rather then the reality, wants to enact scare labels on our food, and overall, makes broad, simple statements about complex goals. most of her proposals are about as specific as Trump.
Her website has a disturbing tendancy to repeat itself, like it felt the need to pad out her policies.
If I vote purely on surveilance, Clinton is not a good choice. But There are many other issues, and taken as a whole Clinton provides me with a better policy platform the either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Go ahead and be a single issue voter if you wish, but I see a lot of issues that need handling.
Except, passively scannig email and assigning ads to it, while similar, would require different software from the type yahoo is described as using. Funny thing, software can only do what its designed to do, and Google's ad matching algorithim likely doesn't include include the kind of frontend needed to produce emails for the government based on keyword selection. While yes, the could modify the software to do it, it would require google to build such a system for that purpose. Google's adwords software doesn't require it, so the build would be for the government.
You ever connect to a friends WiFi using your phone or Laptop? Ever connect to free wifi at your local coffee shop? There are plenty of places where you could connect to Wifi that MIGHT have a brother printer on it, and therefore put you at risk. That's before considering the Botnet problems Thad pointed out.
Is this an active malware vector? Do they have examples of it in the wild? Why haven't news networks jumped at the fear-mongering that would entail? Why didn't HP SUPPORT that fear-mongering by pushing news networks to release warnings about the 'dangers' of third paty ink use?
Perhaps because that would start a series of questions like "Why can your ink cartridge send commands over my LAN?" and "Why does an ink cartridge need a computer chip?".
As Radix said, If the ink cartridge can access your LAN, you have a huge security problem.
ngi claims a 99% accuracy rate on automated finger print analysis. the fbi refuses to provide the evidence of that claim. moreover no real data exists proving uniqueness of fingerprints. most local law enforcement continues to rely on human sight based analysis.
commentary on the applicability of your anecdote and anecdotal evidence and your ignorance of it harming your point aside,
cops found a fingerprint, and with traditional sight based analysis you need a suspect to compare to, so fingerprint analysis was useless in finding the culprit. you introduced ngi and were able to search a database with your proprietary, unproven algorithim and found a match.
With a suspect in hand they were able to find video of his car in the area, that they didn't consider relevant at any time in the last few years. probably because the video didn't actually show the driver clearly? because location proximity wasn't as clear as you represent?
That was the case? kinda proved this article's point i think. and i wonder why i never get selected for jury duty.
You didn't read that right. eric lander is part of the innocence project, a non profit whose goal is to overturn false convictions that had shoddy evidense. he campaigns for re evaluating our current forensic evidence. he very much supports justice.
I'm not sure why a discussion of media bias is appearing in an article about google autocomplete. They are a search engine. They don't even publish anything....oh i get it. you DO think google is "publishing" autocomplete results don't you. its making little headlines just for you. Well a bunch of people have thought that. They even sued google over auto correct search results. So google changed auto correct in its search. Now they remove negative autocomplete statements for EVERYONE. No more defamatory google autocomplete results. Now everyone will be happy.
What do you mean someone created some highly baised "journalism" "showing" that we were editing search results about Clinton and nobody but clinton?
"used the death of American's to promote a false agenda". really weird grammar there. you could have an agenda with false motives, or a hidden agenda, but an agenda is a list of goals. How do you advance a false list of goals? what does that even MEAN?
Anyway, do you perhaps mean like the politician using 9/11 and a few other, random, scattered, rare, terror attacks, overstating the threat and falsely assigning the largest threat to bar an entire religion from entering the United States? Because that's not Hillary.
Why do I find Trump lies worse? Trump doesn't just lie. he lies about lying. He lies, about lying about his lies. ect. Trump appears to change the truth to fit his mood. Like his net worth. its a mathmatical value based on actual physical holdings. But trump adds a value supported by no accounting system - a highly variable intangible that represents his "brand". Like even without all the stuff that makes up the Trump brand, it would still have this ethereal value. and it changes at his whim. And he then says other people are lying if they don't include this "brand value" in his net worth, even though there is no evidence to support its value. And it grows from there. He'll make a policy position and after he abandons that policy position He never made that previous policy decision. Clinton admits when she changes a position. she might not explain herself, but she admits the previous statement. Trump edits, in real time, the past. We have always been at war with Eastasia.