The Wanderer’s Techdirt Profile

wanderer

About The Wanderer




The Wanderer’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 19th, 2018 @ 6:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In some contexts, "sell" can be a synonym for "pitch", as in "pitch the sale of", as in "advertise". I'm guessing that this usage was intended to be in that sense.

  • Apr 19th, 2018 @ 6:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That doesn't make any sense.

    The movie business is the business of making, marketing, etc., movies. How the movie gets to the audience is an implementation detail; there may be good business reasons to do it one way, but just because someone else decides to do it a different way, that doesn't mean that that someone is not in the movie business.

  • Apr 19th, 2018 @ 5:09am

    Re: Learn something new every day

    Do we even have any indication that this particular AC is a "sovereign citizen" type, beyond Stephen T. Stone's inferring that from the use of the term "natural person"?

    I've always been a little uncomfortable with that inference (and subsequent labelling) based on that use, exactly because the term *does* have this legitimate legal meaning, but it never seemed worth trying to raise the point.

  • Apr 18th, 2018 @ 9:12am

    Re: In-My-... Sarcasticly-Named-"Humble"-Opinion?

    Hey, the original words for those initials work, too. You just have to add a bit of punctuation: "In My So-Not-Humble Opinion".

  • Apr 18th, 2018 @ 6:01am

    Re:

    Psst: That's the joke.

    This is an intentional poke at the "TRADE LIABLE" misusage pointed out immediately afterwards.

  • Apr 18th, 2018 @ 5:54am

    Re: Re: Re: chutzpah

    At a guess, maybe this is a comment on the blog linked to in the hyperlink represented by the name "Jigsy" in the comment to which he(?) was replying?

    I haven't bothered following that link, so I have no idea whether the blog says anything like what is quoted or is anything like what is described, but the only other alternatives I can think of are that that reply was entirely misplaced or is pure "insert an entirely unrelated subject" trolling...

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: Amazing

    A high-roller database falls under "business", naturally; the high rollers are cutomers, and the service offered to them is one of the casino's products.

    The "security" network would be for things like security cameras, door locks, alarm systems, et cetera.

    There might need to be some overlap, or rather some data synced between the two networks, for example in the realm of user and/or customer authentication (for example, if the casino's hotel operation issues high-value frequent customers personal ID cards which unlock their hotel-room doors, rather than handing out generic cards which have to be returned on departure) - but I see no reason why a database with enough customer information to be worth exfiltrating would ever need to be on the security network.

    (That just means that the security protecting access to the business network needs to be even better, of course.)

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 4:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's about the cinema-exhibition business? I thought it was about the movie business.

  • Apr 16th, 2018 @ 8:08pm

    Re: Moot

    If I understand matters correctly, all such have already been submitted and argued, and no further input from the parties is needed; the only thing left is for the court to rule.

    Trying to withdraw at that point, even if both parties agree, seems a bit... questionable; at best, it would seem to represent a waste of the court system's resources.

  • Apr 16th, 2018 @ 7:59am

    Re: Re:

    I'm guessing he read "seek out the opposing viewpoint" as being the second part, and "the truth will be somewhere in the middle" as being the third part.

  • Apr 15th, 2018 @ 7:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The INTENT of Congress with CDA was NOT to empower corporations!

    I think the bit about "neutral public forum" is probably (thought of as being) akin to the concept of the "public square".

    Something like:

    * Because of its dominance and near-universality, Facebook has become the modern equivalent of the public square.

    * Therefore, to exclude someone or something from Facebook is to exclude the same from the public square.

    * To exclude someone from the public square - whether done by the government or by a private citizen - is a violation of that someone's rights.

    * Therefore, to exclude someone from Facebook is to violate that someone's rights.

    With an expansion from just "Facebook" into "any part of the Internet where members of the public can post comments" (which fails for, among possibly other things, the reason you address in your last paragraph).

    If one accepts the idea in the very first point - that a privately-owned platform can be the de-facto public square - the logic would even seem to potentially hold.

    You present what looks to me like a counter to that idea in your last paragraph, but I'm fairly sure that he rejects that counter, on the grounds that the consequences for freedom of discourse would be entirely intolerable.

    Thing is, although his presentation and argumentation and overall tone (and possibly a few other things) are abhorrent, I'm not completely positive he's entirely wrong about the basic underlying point. It may, in fact, be possible for a privately-owned platform to supplant the public square - and if (with that having happened) the privately-owned platform can then institute unrestricted controls on speech on that platform, the consequences for freedom of discourse would indeed be intolerable.

    I am not at all convinced that this has happened yet, myself, or that it's likely to soon - but I can see room for it to happen at some future point, and in the event that it does, I'd prefer not to have already outright ruled out the possibility of correcting it by declaring that the rules of the public square must apply to the private platform.

  • Apr 14th, 2018 @ 3:46pm

    Re: Re:

    I read his question as being "Does the ex-post-facto prohibition apply to civil claims, rather than only to criminal offenses?" - either implying that it doesn't (and it's a big oversight for Mike to miss that), or genuinely asking whether it does (and stating that it's a big oversight for Mike to not address the question in the article).

  • Apr 13th, 2018 @ 8:29am

    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2018 @ 4:12pm

    Actually, I think there's a slight seed of legitimate objection underlying the point.

    Back during the Obama administration, when Wheeler was attempting to impose vaguely-meaningful network-neutrality rules, ISTR the campaign against them frequently attempting to claim that Obama was trying to impose government control of the Internet - either ignoring the middleman, or alleging that Wheeler was doing it because Obama had told him to.

    IIRC, there were articles posted on Techdirt which objected to that spin of the story, pointing out both that "it's not government control of the Internet" and that the FCC can act - and was acting - on its own authority without direction from the White House. (Also IIRC, the Obama White House eventually put out a statement explicitly stating that it had provided no such directions to the FCC.)

    To my eye, referring to Pai's actions with the name of the Trump administration does indeed look like a lesser form of that same sort of offense.

    It's not as severe as claiming that he's doing it because Trump told him to would be - the Pai FCC is indeed part of the Trump administration, and it's legitimate in principle to refer to it as such - but it does serve as a way to link the two in readers' minds, and thus to tar one with the same brush as the other, irrespective of whether that's actually deserved.

  • Apr 13th, 2018 @ 8:04am

    Re:

    Hey, I have an idea! Movie creators: Why not release movies in the cinema and streaming services at the same time?

    Per discussion on this very page: under French law, that's apparently illegal. You're not allowed to release to streaming services for 36 months after the theatrical release, unless you have an exception under the law - and the only entity with an exception just has a 12-month lockout period instead.

    Exactly why that is the law is another question; if it's only in the law because the "movie creators" you're addressing asked for it to be, then your point may indeed be well-directed.

  • Apr 13th, 2018 @ 5:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tossing convictions is one thing.

    I think the idea is not that the comment section is full of nothing but sockpuppeting Techdirt staff, but that these accounts with the "zombie" posting patterns (which, by the nature of those posting patterns, are a small minority of all commenters) are sockpuppeting Techdirt staff.

    Still an unreasonable conclusion given the plausibility of the available alternatives (the main two of which you cite), but at least doesn't lead to the "if you're right, you're raising the alarm to nobody but yourself" fork-twist.

  • Apr 12th, 2018 @ 8:16am

    Re: Re: He is just as absurd as de vos

    Surname overlap.

  • Apr 12th, 2018 @ 6:16am

    Re: Have your cake and eat it too?

    I read "I'm not familiar with the text of the law that you're talking about" not as meaning "I don't know of any text in that law which says what you're talking about", but as meaning "I'm not familiar with what that law says, so I don't know whether it says what you're talking about".

    I can see room for the interpretation you mention, now that you've pointed it out and if I squint, but it's not at all obvious either that that is the correct interpretation (the one that Zuckerberg intended) or the one that e.g. Ted Cruz would take away from hearing it.

    As to what he should have said instead, "I don't know of any text in that law which says what you're talking about" would seem sufficient. Now, it's possible that there's no way he could have expressed that sentiment clearly without it being clear that he's saying "you're wrong", because that's exactly what that is saying - and that's exactly why I disagree that "you're wrong" is not an option. When a member of Congress says something that is blatantly untrue, it's just as legitimate to tell them that as it would be to do so with anyone else.

    (Alternatively, a request for clarification - "could you point me to the text in that statute which contains the language which imposes that requirement?", or something like that - might have gotten the job done, but would be at risk of seeming like just a passive-aggressive or condescending way of saying "you're wrong", and that's likely to result in a worse impression than just saying "you're wrong" up-front.)

  • Apr 12th, 2018 @ 5:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What was the tweet?

    I'm reasonably sure that the people who are reporting problems with such images not loading (properly) are using NoScript or similar, are being passive-aggressive about the fact that Websites which don't have an inherent need to be dynamic should work properly (at a basic level) without JavaScript, and are attempting to hint that giving sites which don't respect that principle a benefit by linking to them is something which should perhaps be avoided.

    I use NoScript myself, and wouldn't allow scripting from such a site just for the purpose of loading images (although I might manually edit page source in Firebug, or potentially do it less-manually with Greasemonkey, to enable myself to view a particular image) - but I haven't followed the links in question, and would have been unlikely to speak up here about the matter anyway. (Although knowing that the linked-to site does have that problem is something that's useful to me.)

  • Apr 10th, 2018 @ 8:20pm

    Re: This author has 'no earthly idea' what a natural monopoly is.

    Where do you get the idea that the author (of the article, I'm presuming, so Karl Bode) thinks that either of those things is a "natural monopoly"?

    Re your last line: a natural monopoly cannot be created, it can only be brought from irrelevance into relevance (by the advent of new technology that makes a previously-irrelevant bottleneck valuable), worked around (while it's relevant), or made obsolete (by the advent of new technology which renders the previous bottleneck irrelevant).

    If it was created, it's not a natural monopoly.

  • Apr 10th, 2018 @ 8:12pm

    (untitled comment)

    The best way to express that is to vote for a write-in candidate, even (possibly especially) a joke or otherwise nonexistent candidate. Just not voting at all means you aren't counted towards the total which defines "majority", so both of the candidates have an easier time winning, and it looks as if they both have more support (as a fraction of the electorate) than they actually do.

    (My brother refuses to vote not because he doesn't want to support any of the candidates in the race - although he often may not - but because he refuses to legitimize the system, which he considers to be so badly broken as to be irreparable from within, by participating in it.)

More comments from The Wanderer >>