I don't see the logic here. If non-aligned marks are an indication that the car has moved, isn't that a good thing?
Surely you wouldn't want to get the car back into the same position, since then it would look like it hadn't moved and was therefore subject to a fine.
Driving away and returning doesn't usually help. Most ordinances specify that you can't park in the same zone for more than the specified time. They don't say anything about being in exactly the same space.
Who cares? Even if the asserted facts are as clearly wrong as you seem to think, the guy got his piece published as an opinion, as an attempt to sway others to a point of view. The proper recourse is to refute, not to deny him a platform.
The question is why the NY Times, a paper that prides itself on accuracy, would allow a piece so blatantly false to be published.
You make it sound as if this was in their news hole, but of course it wasn't. It was an op-ed piece, which is clearly opinion. Your title acknowledges that but the body of your essay seems to ignore it.
This site is known for championing the free exchange of ideas: the answer to bad speech is more speech, etc. So now both you and Taplin have had an opportunity to express yourselves on this topic.
Have you composed a concise, coherent rebuttal to his piece and offered it to the NYT for inclusion on their op-ed page? Seems like a plan.
I'm not a T-Mobile customer so I have no dog in this fight, but it seems to me that rather than repeat (and repeat) that the opt-out process is 'convoluted' you could just publish or link to the steps / method to accomplish this. Eh?
>> If so, that could cause the text to no longer be visible even if they're not literally obscured by the popup.
No, there's no way a pop-up can affect the position or visibility of the closed captions. Open captions (like in-program subtitles) of course can be obscured like any other program material.
I know what the OP is saying, but at worst a pop-up is a distraction from the captions. It cannot cover them up.
This all started in the mid-1970s with the invention of the Harmonizer (Eventide Clockworks), a black box that could restore normal pitch to a sped-up videotape (which was itself made possible by the introduction of Type-C 1" VTRs). Almost all programs in syndication used this. It's far easier and cleaner now in digital, but it's still an abomination IMO.
Back then a big problem was that the speedup garbled any closed captions. But there was no Disabilities Act then in the US. If that still happens, there's now a legal route (ADA suit) to fight it, or at least make it less profitable.
'Vagaries' doesn't mean what you seem to think. You might as well have said 'vaginas' for all the relevance the chosen word has. You probably mean 'vagueness' or 'handwaving'.
"That means that (a) Apple is storing those messages in the cloud and (b) it can decrypt them if it needs to."
Sure, I can see (a), but how does that imply (b)? Could not messages be stored in the cloud and passed to you fully encrypted? Why would Apple have any more ability to decrypt them just because they're storing them?
I dunno, seems like it has its arm around the shoulder of the community it serves
Re: Bad to Worse
I don't see the logic here. If non-aligned marks are an indication that the car has moved, isn't that a good thing? Surely you wouldn't want to get the car back into the same position, since then it would look like it hadn't moved and was therefore subject to a fine.
Re: Bad to Worse
Driving away and returning doesn't usually help. Most ordinances specify that you can't park in the same zone for more than the specified time. They don't say anything about being in exactly the same space.
Unsponsored
What a shame. One of my favorite Sesame Street episodes was brought to us by the letter "N". And, um, the number 4.
Re: Bad speech, more speech
Who cares? Even if the asserted facts are as clearly wrong as you seem to think, the guy got his piece published as an opinion, as an attempt to sway others to a point of view. The proper recourse is to refute, not to deny him a platform.
Bad speech, more speech
You make it sound as if this was in their news hole, but of course it wasn't. It was an op-ed piece, which is clearly opinion. Your title acknowledges that but the body of your essay seems to ignore it.
This site is known for championing the free exchange of ideas: the answer to bad speech is more speech, etc. So now both you and Taplin have had an opportunity to express yourselves on this topic.
Have you composed a concise, coherent rebuttal to his piece and offered it to the NYT for inclusion on their op-ed page? Seems like a plan.
Convolution
I'm not a T-Mobile customer so I have no dog in this fight, but it seems to me that rather than repeat (and repeat) that the opt-out process is 'convoluted' you could just publish or link to the steps / method to accomplish this. Eh?
Hair are us? C'mon...
Meh. "Hair We Are" would be a much better name.
Re: Re: Re: Re: closed captions
No, there's no way a pop-up can affect the position or visibility of the closed captions. Open captions (like in-program subtitles) of course can be obscured like any other program material.
I know what the OP is saying, but at worst a pop-up is a distraction from the captions. It cannot cover them up.
Re: Re:
I don't disagree with your premise, but...
Closed captions are generated and overlaid locally -- in the TV, STB, DVR etc. There's no way they can be obscured by an in-program popup.
Not exactly new
This all started in the mid-1970s with the invention of the Harmonizer (Eventide Clockworks), a black box that could restore normal pitch to a sped-up videotape (which was itself made possible by the introduction of Type-C 1" VTRs). Almost all programs in syndication used this. It's far easier and cleaner now in digital, but it's still an abomination IMO.
Back then a big problem was that the speedup garbled any closed captions. But there was no Disabilities Act then in the US. If that still happens, there's now a legal route (ADA suit) to fight it, or at least make it less profitable.
Too vague
Not to go all grammar nerd on ya, but:
"Every concern is brushed off by vagaries."
'Vagaries' doesn't mean what you seem to think. You might as well have said 'vaginas' for all the relevance the chosen word has. You probably mean 'vagueness' or 'handwaving'.
Re: Re:
Yes, but if you are released without charge, no bail is involved. This report is confused, or just wrong.
"Takeda?s belongings were bequeathed to him"
Really? Who died?
How does (a) imply (b)?
"That means that (a) Apple is storing those messages in the cloud and (b) it can decrypt them if it needs to."
Sure, I can see (a), but how does that imply (b)? Could not messages be stored in the cloud and passed to you fully encrypted? Why would Apple have any more ability to decrypt them just because they're storing them?
Re:
Re: Porn copyright
There's no special thing called a 'pornography copyright', but certainly anything legal with an identifiable author is entitled to copyright.
You know, when detailing oral arguments at the SC, you really ought to throw in an occasional line like:
JUSTICE THOMAS: ?...?