James Burkhardt’s Techdirt Profile

deadspatula

About James Burkhardt




James Burkhardt’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 17th, 2018 @ 3:30pm

    Re: Re: A great day of reckoning is coming.

    Except, in other contexts those words are predictions of non-violent outcomes. In a legal conflict, that can be claim that the court will hold them accountable. In politics, its basically saying 'elections are coming'.

    When in response to a call for a boycott you reply "I say, 'F– em,' they will be shown better than told. I will just leave it at that. A great reckoning is coming." You are supporting the call for the boycott and are predicting failure of the business as the owners are shown that their actions were bad for business, not violence. Its not a vary ominous statement in context.

  • Oct 17th, 2018 @ 3:25pm

    Re: Re:

    The context, that his words were in responce to a call for a boycott, seems to be lost on both you and the person who 'said something'. Because in context, it doesn't look bad. But when all you have is an email with a name and a threat, it very much does.

  • Oct 17th, 2018 @ 3:23pm

    Re:

    A great reckoning is coming can mean many things. Said to a political opponent, it can reasonable be read as a belief that the opponents political stances/statements in office will come back to bite them. In a legal dispute, it reads as a prediction of judgement in court. In a church said by a pastor, it sounds like god is going to call down a meteor and 9 people lead by a guy with a six foot long broad bladed sword and spiky hair will need to intervene to save us all. Context.

    In the context of a Facebook post by a journalist in support of a rant about the owners of a nightclub to its patrons calling for a boycott? I don't read a violent context. I read a boycott context. He is predicting the club going out of business for the actions of its owner. If he had suggested more specific times or days to not attend I would read violence, but contextually, it was agreeing to a Boycott, not violence.

    That said, I think the issue was the person who reported it removed the context of the commentary by emailing it to the police. I dont think he provided a link, he just emailed the comment without the context of the post he was responding to.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 11:21am

    Re:

    >I had an idea for such a portal myself but abandoned it when I realized I could not compete at the search engines who had every advantage with Section 230 and the DMCA.

    Except you had Section 230 and the DMCA. Everyone did. Everyone does. That is kinda the point. Im interested to know what google has that SEC 230 protects that you couldn't have as well.

    >Why is gossip now immunized against defamation? "I heard it on the internet" should not be sufficient to defeat a defamation lawsuit, and Section 230 should only be used as a shield,not a sword.

    Well, its always been, largely. SEC 230 has nothing to do with it. Defemation standards have nothing to do with SEC 230, SEC 230 only defines who holds the liability for defemation, not what constitutes Defemation. The idea, which I don't entirely agree with, that people take statements on the internet less seriously, and therefore are more likely opinions and hyperbole than facts does not come from SEC 230 but from the courts.

    Since you seem to be conflating defamation standards with SEC 230 liability standards, I believe you dont quite understand the issues you are discussing.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 11:07am

    Re: Chicago has long had corrupt police and administration.

    I mean, they had ruthless force for decades - but crime in chicago has generally been high.

    the 2016 spike is noted to have many causes - including a fracturing of the factions within gangs leading to a lots of territory disputes. Cops used to respond to gang fights. Now, between community distrust and a quicker tendency to resort to gun violence, cops respond to shots fired. But I mean they couldn't have learned that response from police who ever more readily jump to gun violence themselves.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 10:46am

    Re: Re: If you Want to Stop a Stop and Frisk Program

    And amazingly, over the last 20 years, budgets have slowly eroded the resources available to enforcement, making high level tax evasion impossible to investigate.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 9:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Agreed. But we had shootings under the old system, so the old system isn't panacea. And the police can't fix that - Law enforcement in the US is trained to escalate and intimidate. Their purpose is to enforce the law, but are relatively powerless before a crime. Nothing in the old way of doing things changes that.

    Experts studying policing methods in areas with less violent crime note differences in policing methods that are not obvious but have long reaching effects. When a community trusts law enforcement, they work with law enforcement. That results in easier, more rapid, more substantial investigations leading to better legal convictions when crime happens. That produces a deterrent effect on future crime, and makes repeat crimes less likely, further fostering trust in Law Enforcement.

    The consent decree is designed by experts to help foster the base trust necessary for this kind of community policing to bear fruit.

    By contrast, you suggest the police keep on keeping on and hope eventually the brutality eventually makes up for all the extra work they have to do, because aint no one snitchin if it means getting shot in the back.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 9:43am

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

    Still a liar, "could be worse" is still not a quote, and your taking of that bait rather than address the substantive arguments continues to prove my point. I was not mistaken.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Would only worsen" =/= "Could be worse". You used quotes, said "your own words". But you didn't quote, and didn't use his own words. You LIED.

    "Would only worsen" notes the situation is bad, and the proposed solution would make things worse. It condemns the proposed action while simultaneously not giving the current situation a pass.

    "Could be worse" excuses the horrible current situation as ok because it isn't some hypothetically worse situation, leading to your general claims that those condemning the DOJ action are calling for 'inaction', ignoring that we are calling for a change to police policy, while the DOJ action calls for status quo, AKA doing more of the same.

    Your intentional change in verbiage changes the tone and creates a straw man you then fight against, rather than engage in the actual substansive arguments.

    So try again. Where does the would "could" appear in Stephen's comment? You Lied, numbnuts.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: States Rights?

    I mean, id think maintaining the status quo as requested by the DOJ (refusing the consent decree and returning to the practices in place when murder rates were high) would best be described as 'doing nothing', by definition.

    Whereas establishing a consent decree based in community policing standards to increase trust and community involvement in anti-crime efforts of the police seems like trying to do something different.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 8:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Cure?

    Well, yes, rereading the article for context on your quote makes the article authors intent clear, it does not make your intent clear. It was unclear if you were joking, a troll, or both. I feel the clarifying response to be entirely justified.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 8:02am

    Re: Re:

    The phrase "could be worse" does not appear in the comment you replied to. The word "could" does not appear. You Lie.

    Your choice to strawman a reasonable argument born of an understanding of the role trust plays in police work expresses a lack of understanding of the topic, and an unwillingness to engage the arguement.

    Good day sir.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 7:47am

    Re: But what if...

    Well, looking at the methodology in the study, the dataset was derived from a machine learning algorithm, which identified various form letter 'campaigns' by near identical verbiage. This process identified ~150 different campaigns, and was left with ~800,000 comments that were 'semantic outliers', that is the comments were not similar to any identified campaign, nor did they appear as a new unidentified campaign.

    These are labeled as unique comments.

    I suppose in the end it depends on how much of your commentary was original and the tolerances of the algorithm.

  • Oct 15th, 2018 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It ain't simple

    I actually think the inverse ratio explanation as presented here is a solid way to examine copying in general, though I feel too little effort is put into explaining the concept where we have duplication we can explain, even in the face of heavy access.

    I think copyright, as it stands now, handles works that derive from iterative innovation, like music, poorly. That is where this has the biggest potential to fail. A jury with no music education will not understand the necessary nuance of music copyrights and the derivative bedrock on which they are based. I do not think once they see 'copying' they will be able to distinguish unlawful appropriation, especially if they have to listen to several similar works in a day and age where nuances of pitch and tone are being erased in pursuit of volume.

  • Oct 15th, 2018 @ 2:54pm

    Re: What I still don't get...

    Its one of the common arguments against prohibition. And I will address that in a moment. First I note a distinction: consuming opiates with a prescription: legal. Consuming opiates without a prescription: illegal. That leads to the positive forms of prohibition: recognizing medicinal value in debilitative compounds and providing them at need.

    That said, the allowance of compounds like alcohol, that show lower rates of addiction and have a higher threshold for overdose, is known to be positive to worker morale and helps to placate the masses.

    That said, if they had a choice, alcohol prohibition would likely still be a thing. One of the few means of legal slavery is imprisonment. It is no coincidence that the first compounds made illegal in the wake of the lifting of prohibition were used primarily by Blacks and Latinos.

    Opiates have reasons for being on the lists. It is highly addictive even in the short term, and highly debilatative as the addiction develops. Our current Opiate crisis is driven in part by failures of Doctors to heed those reasons and the deliberate disregard by pharmaceutical companies.

    But not all Prohibition is about safety. Jeff Sessions comments about the dangers of Marijuana are proof of that. Despite significant individual claims of medical benefit, the DOJ still prevents any significant study. Scientists who backed the initial MJ ban did so with the caveat that the ban was intended to be short term while studies were done. They were not.

    If the goal were actually to reduce the use of recreational compounds, free treatment and counseling have shown marked reductions in drug related casualties. They want slaves to shove into for profit prisons.

  • Oct 15th, 2018 @ 1:51pm

    Re: Re: It ain't simple

    For clarity, I meant to say the framework of copyright law. it doesn't understand how much of music history is the borrowing of technique and sounds and remixing them into new and different things. Soul for instance is a combination of techniques and sounds found in Gospel, Jazz, and Blues genres. Everything is a derivative work, and copyright law doesn't handle that well.

  • Oct 15th, 2018 @ 1:37pm

    Re: It ain't simple

    As a musician, The issue is the copyright framework ignores the history of music as a whole, and how the feel of a piece is often repeated throughout a whole genre. The Pop/Rock chord progression (as featured in the "4 Chords Song") is generally copyright infringement, as all songs using it are derivatives of the first use, designed to create the same feel. But the totality of the work becomes very different.

    (Note: music today all sounds the same for other reasons - primarily based in the loudness wars, formulaic composition, and the perfect, computer corrected sound.)

  • Oct 15th, 2018 @ 10:27am

    Re: Re:

    Because telco aren't sleek tech brands like Apple and so still think that the consumer wants easy to understand numbering schemes.

  • Oct 15th, 2018 @ 9:43am

    (untitled comment)

    They might want to remember the class action Sony faced when it patched out the OtherOS feature of the PS3 - by depriving expected functionality of the Playstation after purchase it opened itself up to actual tort claims as well.

  • Oct 12th, 2018 @ 2:46pm

    Re: Re:

    I fully agree, thank you for your additions :)

More comments from James Burkhardt >>