judging by the extent to which university administrators are reacting to speech, social behavior, indecent thoughts, and such, one would think they are operating a middle school. I have children who are not far off from university and I really don't want them attending a school that treats them like children, or in the case of young men as predetermined sexual predators not worthy of due process rights. Who needs to fork over $60k a year to be told how to think and act?
The EU has a history of ignoring the democratic process in order to achieve the goals of the ruling class. At first they viewed direct democracy as unnecessary and ugly, an outdated convention that should be discarded in favor of technocrat intervention, now the bureaucrats in Brussels are admitting that they do not think much of politicians either...
My favorite quote in the attached article was:
"A brawl ensued which at its height involved artists, vendors and police, who reportedly beat up the artists? supporters. The protesters then moved on and had another brawl with more pirates at another location."
you have provided a lot of data and quite honestly I'm too tired to attempt to rebut the excellent argument you are making. However, as I read that original source material it did seem to indicate that casualty rates did increase, it was that the correlation to camera enforcement, etc. could not be attributed as the cause of that, which I suspect is precisely what you are point out with your second to last paragraph.
Similarly, the decline in fatalities with the number of accidents increasing could be attributed to new automobiles, with better safety devices, entering the fleet. I don't think Mike would, and I certainly would not, suggest that government mandated safety devices like seat belts and airbags don't save lives, the question is do traffic law enforcement devices. If they are sold on public safety grounds and they do not fulfill that goal then they should be discontinued, I believe.
Lastly, while we know, statistically, that seat belts save lives, we also know from hard data that lengthening yellow light timing saves lives yet we don't see a rush to legislate increased yellow light times. Traffic cameras, on the other hand, do not reduce accidents, according to every piece of research I have been able to find, yet they do increase revenue and accordingly we see proliferation of these devices, and in some cases accompanied by a shortening of yellow light times.
it's exceptionally disingenuous to suggest that traffic violations are equivalent to violent crime laws.
Considering that many traffic laws are passed on the basis of proposed public safety improvements, when one of these laws is demonstrated to not achieve its intended goal (or make the condition worse in this case!) then yeah it should be repealed.
No No Six Pack, this isn't about voting machines, it's about the integrity of our elections system. Voting machines exist for just one purpose and the concern about fraud in elections rises above the technology tools. We deal with inherently insecure technology every day, even in our banking system, yet no other application of technology represents stakes that are so high.
And no, ACORN didn't flag all fraudulent registrations. ACORN is under formal investigation in 11 states and in 3 other states they are merely suspected of illegal activities. Your response is nothing more than partisan "nothing to see here, move on" and it discredits you because you trivialize by suggesting a few registrations were found to be ineligible and turned over. Please, that's like suggesting the problems on wall street are because a few mortgages in south florida are in default.
If you are genuinely interested in going beyond your provided talking points on ACORN, read this:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/ACORN
Ask yourself, if it were just the GOP raising the voting machine issue, would you care?
Fraud is fraud, whether it be on a voting machine, in a voting booth with a paper ballot or on a registration form.
ACORN is not a distraction, it's a window into a real problem that spans multiple states and involves a staggering number of voter registrations, 13 Obama campaign workers in Ohio (including the spokeswoman for Obama Ohio) just cut a deal with prosecutors to avoid prosecution by formally requesting to have their mail in ballots pulled, and the owner of a firm the GOP here in California hired to register voters was just arrested for vote registration fraud.
Defenders say voter registration fraud is not a problem, it's vote fraud and it is regularly caught but that argument is an attempt to prove a negative. If I catch one person committing income tax evasion, can I then assume that no one else is successfully doing so? You simply can't prove voter fraud doesn't happen because you successfully catch select instances of it.
Voter registration fraud is the precursor to vote fraud and by definition inflating voter rolls is a form of social engineering that in itself is voter fraud.
I hope more instances of these fractures in the integrity of our voting system come to light so that it gets taken seriously and reforms are implemented. We need secure electronic voting, voter identification systems, and standards for cross checking databases and systems across states and the feds.
If voters don't have confidence that their votes are being counted and not altered or stolen by the presence of illegal votes, then we all lose. This isn't a partisan issue, it cuts to the core of what it means to be an American. Citizenship has but one requirement, to vote, and it should be a sacred obligation of our elected and civil service officials to provide the most accessible and most secure voting system in the world.
disputed and disproven are distinct outcomes, the former yes, the latter no. As for your attempts, they pretty much ran out of gas with the first sentence in your first reply, devolving into ad hominem attack that high school debate teams learn is cause for immediate loss... but we've already determined you haven't made it that far in your academic career and like all anonymous cowards you will no doubt attempt to have the last word.
Mike,
It would not be an issue if not for the do-nothing Congress' penchant for hearings to trot out company executives for not putting down the toilet seat and liberal groups who don't want a legal decision, they want a show trial. The ACLU has already tried to sue once and had that thrown out because they didn't have standing, I think there is a legitimate concern that the pursuit of a civil trial would only be for the purpose of embarrassing the government. I don't take legal rights lightly but I also recognize that in a time of war we are obligated to take extraordinary measures to ensure national safety and the pursuit of those who wish us harm. This has been the case in every conflict the U.S. has been involved with and it's reasonable when taken in totality. I also recognize that the laws that are passed by Congress, such as the 1978 FISA law and the AUMF, have specific exceptions that are created by Congress and are just as much a part of law as the restrictive parts.
You say that just being asked to do something is not a defense, but being asked to do something that you believe is legal is certainly affirmative. Certain members of Congress and a range of liberal groups want to hold telcos accountable for something that the government authorized them to do, whether it be the executive branch or the legislature. If we were talking about wiretapping Mike Masnick's cell phone last wednesday while you were talking with your wife, well I'd be right there with you, but we are talking about foreign agents residing in the U.S. under the powers of a war authorization and actions taken by a government regulated business that were authorized by the government. This is not, despite your assertion to the contrary, black letter law.
The reason there is not "truth" in this issue is that the truth to be subscribed to hinges on contingent issues that simply don't fall neatly into the Fourth Amendment. It would be like saying the First Amendment is absolute when in fact legal professionals know full well that there are legislative limits on the First Amendment that have been affirmed up to the SCOTUS (e.g. you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre).
@sonofdot, that's rich... now you are personally offended. I'm offended that your best effort to mock me was so lame. Certainly I deserve better than what you could give, you resorted to "asshole" almost immediately and now that you are out of your league to beat a tactical retreat while mumbling about how I insulted you. OMG I can't believe how lame you are. Why don't you go off and finish high school before stepping up to the grown up table.
wrt to the AUMF exlusion and Nixon... I'm somewhat at a loss to answer you because 1) FISA was enacted in 1978, well after Nixon was in office, and 2) AUMF was similarly enacted well after Nixon. I think your argument pivots on the ability of Congress to establish an exclusion but even there I don't think there is much debate about the fact that they do have an authorized role.
I suggest you reread the Hamdi decision. It affirmed the right of the government to detain enemy combatants who are U.S. citizens and that authority was granted by the AUMF, but also affirmed their right to challenge their detention in front of a judge, in other words the detention, as you said, can't be indefinite.
Hamdan found that the exclusion Congress set up via AUMF was illegal.
btw, I suggest you revisit the definition for social constructivism, the fact that you say you want "the truth, period" puts your ignorance on full display. There is no absolute truth to be found here, just interpretations of the law. I'll explain constructivism truth to you because there are a lot of big words; it asserts that all truth is constructed based on historical and social factors, human perception, and ultimately a struggle within a community where dominant and submissive positions are determined.
actually I do understand the issue is whether the 1978 FISA law was actually broken or whether the law inadvertently set up a conflict that was only to be resolved by Congress.
The 1978 FISA law creates an ambiguity arising from 4 words, "unless authorized by statute", which the administration contends as the exclusion which AUMF allows for the NSA program to operate outside of FISA.
The Hamdi case that went to the Supreme Court addressed this issue of AUMF having powers granted to the executive branch by statute, and then the Hamden case went the other way, so there is a legitimate conflict here that renders the notion that this NSA program is "almost certainly illegal". Based on what legal precedent?
Furthermore, as I stated above, the issue of domestic agents of foreign powers comes into play and even legal critics who see a Fourth Amendment issue acknowledge that FISA may in fact address this, yet the issue has not been tested beyond the circuit court level.
What you are engaging in is constructivism truth, attempting to use a community consensus to bully your way to resolution. That is not how the law works and anyone who cares about liberties and a society ruled by law should condemn you.
BTW, what is pathetic is when people like you throw ad hominem attacks while hiding behind a pseudonym. I use my real name on all my comments, grow a pair and do the same when you calling me pathetic.
Mike,
I'd like to hear your evidence to suggest that the program was "almost certainly illegal". The 1978 FISA law is less than certain on the definition of "foreign surveillance" when it comes to foreign agents residing in the U.S. (interestingly, the Aldrich Ames case involved the same issue).
More on point is the fact that these telcos were asked to do something that provided them no commercial or competitive advantage, if anything it imposed a burden on them, and now a chattering class is calling for them to be drawn and quartered because they cooperated.
Maybe a solution here is a Mad Max "break a deal, face the wheel" credo.
It's somewhat pathetic that you point to Sen. Dodd as the moral crusader considering the events of recent weeks... perhaps if Verizon gave Dodd a VIP cell phone plan he would be flip flopping on this too.
@Greg @Lojiko, it depends on the crime. Violent crimes as well as drug crimes have strictly proscribed sentencing guidelines that give the presiding judge less discretion. For simple assault, drug possession (small amounts), thefts, etc. the judge does have a lot of leeway with regard to the sentence, which is why you see things like therapy, yoga class, public service, and now youtube apologies in lieu of jail time.
Lastly, I was really impressed by the detective work the victim in this crime did, were it not for her efforts these wayward teens would have not been caught. It appears she could teach the local police a few things on using the web to track down perps.
Good one Mike. I have been in this mini-bubble around comment systems for a while now and it just didn't even phase me when I read the blog post about the acquisition. I sometimes sit back and think about whether anyone beyond the 5,000 or so people who are in the serious blogging space (just guessing on that number but it feels right) really gives a shit about things like this. If they don't it is a reflection on our inability to tell most people why they should care using a vocabulary they can identify with.
There is a big difference between making a $200m great film like Lord of the Rings and a $200m shitty film like all the new Star Wars episodes.
Yes the market is changing, but Lucas' version of the franchise film with all the respective merchandising and whatever wasn't working either and that should inform his decision more than anything else.
While I agree with you that the formula is changing, this story is really more about Lucas' formula.
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that "liquidity event" could just as easily mean sell the company as it could mean IPO. I really don't think any investment bank, even with Kleiner's long reach, would sign up to sell this offering considering the condition the company is in and the high level of disillusionment against the early hype.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jeff Nolan.
helicopter nanny'ism
judging by the extent to which university administrators are reacting to speech, social behavior, indecent thoughts, and such, one would think they are operating a middle school. I have children who are not far off from university and I really don't want them attending a school that treats them like children, or in the case of young men as predetermined sexual predators not worthy of due process rights. Who needs to fork over $60k a year to be told how to think and act?
Why is this surprising?
The EU has a history of ignoring the democratic process in order to achieve the goals of the ruling class. At first they viewed direct democracy as unnecessary and ugly, an outdated convention that should be discarded in favor of technocrat intervention, now the bureaucrats in Brussels are admitting that they do not think much of politicians either...
My favorite quote in the attached article was:
"A brawl ensued which at its height involved artists, vendors and police, who reportedly beat up the artists? supporters. The protesters then moved on and had another brawl with more pirates at another location."
It's right out of a Mel Brooks movie...
Re: Deeper analysis
you have provided a lot of data and quite honestly I'm too tired to attempt to rebut the excellent argument you are making. However, as I read that original source material it did seem to indicate that casualty rates did increase, it was that the correlation to camera enforcement, etc. could not be attributed as the cause of that, which I suspect is precisely what you are point out with your second to last paragraph.
Similarly, the decline in fatalities with the number of accidents increasing could be attributed to new automobiles, with better safety devices, entering the fleet. I don't think Mike would, and I certainly would not, suggest that government mandated safety devices like seat belts and airbags don't save lives, the question is do traffic law enforcement devices. If they are sold on public safety grounds and they do not fulfill that goal then they should be discontinued, I believe.
Lastly, while we know, statistically, that seat belts save lives, we also know from hard data that lengthening yellow light timing saves lives yet we don't see a rush to legislate increased yellow light times. Traffic cameras, on the other hand, do not reduce accidents, according to every piece of research I have been able to find, yet they do increase revenue and accordingly we see proliferation of these devices, and in some cases accompanied by a shortening of yellow light times.
Re:
it's exceptionally disingenuous to suggest that traffic violations are equivalent to violent crime laws.
Considering that many traffic laws are passed on the basis of proposed public safety improvements, when one of these laws is demonstrated to not achieve its intended goal (or make the condition worse in this case!) then yeah it should be repealed.
Re: Re: online or offline, fraud is fraud
No No Six Pack, this isn't about voting machines, it's about the integrity of our elections system. Voting machines exist for just one purpose and the concern about fraud in elections rises above the technology tools. We deal with inherently insecure technology every day, even in our banking system, yet no other application of technology represents stakes that are so high.
And no, ACORN didn't flag all fraudulent registrations. ACORN is under formal investigation in 11 states and in 3 other states they are merely suspected of illegal activities. Your response is nothing more than partisan "nothing to see here, move on" and it discredits you because you trivialize by suggesting a few registrations were found to be ineligible and turned over. Please, that's like suggesting the problems on wall street are because a few mortgages in south florida are in default.
If you are genuinely interested in going beyond your provided talking points on ACORN, read this:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/ACORN
Ask yourself, if it were just the GOP raising the voting machine issue, would you care?
online or offline, fraud is fraud
Fraud is fraud, whether it be on a voting machine, in a voting booth with a paper ballot or on a registration form.
ACORN is not a distraction, it's a window into a real problem that spans multiple states and involves a staggering number of voter registrations, 13 Obama campaign workers in Ohio (including the spokeswoman for Obama Ohio) just cut a deal with prosecutors to avoid prosecution by formally requesting to have their mail in ballots pulled, and the owner of a firm the GOP here in California hired to register voters was just arrested for vote registration fraud.
Defenders say voter registration fraud is not a problem, it's vote fraud and it is regularly caught but that argument is an attempt to prove a negative. If I catch one person committing income tax evasion, can I then assume that no one else is successfully doing so? You simply can't prove voter fraud doesn't happen because you successfully catch select instances of it.
Voter registration fraud is the precursor to vote fraud and by definition inflating voter rolls is a form of social engineering that in itself is voter fraud.
I hope more instances of these fractures in the integrity of our voting system come to light so that it gets taken seriously and reforms are implemented. We need secure electronic voting, voter identification systems, and standards for cross checking databases and systems across states and the feds.
If voters don't have confidence that their votes are being counted and not altered or stolen by the presence of illegal votes, then we all lose. This isn't a partisan issue, it cuts to the core of what it means to be an American. Citizenship has but one requirement, to vote, and it should be a sacred obligation of our elected and civil service officials to provide the most accessible and most secure voting system in the world.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: splitting legal hairs
disputed and disproven are distinct outcomes, the former yes, the latter no. As for your attempts, they pretty much ran out of gas with the first sentence in your first reply, devolving into ad hominem attack that high school debate teams learn is cause for immediate loss... but we've already determined you haven't made it that far in your academic career and like all anonymous cowards you will no doubt attempt to have the last word.
Re: Re: splitting legal hairs
Mike,
It would not be an issue if not for the do-nothing Congress' penchant for hearings to trot out company executives for not putting down the toilet seat and liberal groups who don't want a legal decision, they want a show trial. The ACLU has already tried to sue once and had that thrown out because they didn't have standing, I think there is a legitimate concern that the pursuit of a civil trial would only be for the purpose of embarrassing the government. I don't take legal rights lightly but I also recognize that in a time of war we are obligated to take extraordinary measures to ensure national safety and the pursuit of those who wish us harm. This has been the case in every conflict the U.S. has been involved with and it's reasonable when taken in totality. I also recognize that the laws that are passed by Congress, such as the 1978 FISA law and the AUMF, have specific exceptions that are created by Congress and are just as much a part of law as the restrictive parts.
You say that just being asked to do something is not a defense, but being asked to do something that you believe is legal is certainly affirmative. Certain members of Congress and a range of liberal groups want to hold telcos accountable for something that the government authorized them to do, whether it be the executive branch or the legislature. If we were talking about wiretapping Mike Masnick's cell phone last wednesday while you were talking with your wife, well I'd be right there with you, but we are talking about foreign agents residing in the U.S. under the powers of a war authorization and actions taken by a government regulated business that were authorized by the government. This is not, despite your assertion to the contrary, black letter law.
The reason there is not "truth" in this issue is that the truth to be subscribed to hinges on contingent issues that simply don't fall neatly into the Fourth Amendment. It would be like saying the First Amendment is absolute when in fact legal professionals know full well that there are legislative limits on the First Amendment that have been affirmed up to the SCOTUS (e.g. you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: splitting legal hairs
@sonofdot, that's rich... now you are personally offended. I'm offended that your best effort to mock me was so lame. Certainly I deserve better than what you could give, you resorted to "asshole" almost immediately and now that you are out of your league to beat a tactical retreat while mumbling about how I insulted you. OMG I can't believe how lame you are. Why don't you go off and finish high school before stepping up to the grown up table.
Re: Re: Re: Re: splitting legal hairs
wrt to the AUMF exlusion and Nixon... I'm somewhat at a loss to answer you because 1) FISA was enacted in 1978, well after Nixon was in office, and 2) AUMF was similarly enacted well after Nixon. I think your argument pivots on the ability of Congress to establish an exclusion but even there I don't think there is much debate about the fact that they do have an authorized role.
Re: Re: Re: Re: splitting legal hairs
I suggest you reread the Hamdi decision. It affirmed the right of the government to detain enemy combatants who are U.S. citizens and that authority was granted by the AUMF, but also affirmed their right to challenge their detention in front of a judge, in other words the detention, as you said, can't be indefinite.
Hamdan found that the exclusion Congress set up via AUMF was illegal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: splitting legal hairs
btw, I suggest you revisit the definition for social constructivism, the fact that you say you want "the truth, period" puts your ignorance on full display. There is no absolute truth to be found here, just interpretations of the law. I'll explain constructivism truth to you because there are a lot of big words; it asserts that all truth is constructed based on historical and social factors, human perception, and ultimately a struggle within a community where dominant and submissive positions are determined.
Re: Re: Re: Re: splitting legal hairs
how is the law not a relevant subject to the "matter at hand"?
Simply put, your myopia is astounding... and you are still a coward.
Re: Re: splitting legal hairs
actually I do understand the issue is whether the 1978 FISA law was actually broken or whether the law inadvertently set up a conflict that was only to be resolved by Congress.
The 1978 FISA law creates an ambiguity arising from 4 words, "unless authorized by statute", which the administration contends as the exclusion which AUMF allows for the NSA program to operate outside of FISA.
The Hamdi case that went to the Supreme Court addressed this issue of AUMF having powers granted to the executive branch by statute, and then the Hamden case went the other way, so there is a legitimate conflict here that renders the notion that this NSA program is "almost certainly illegal". Based on what legal precedent?
Furthermore, as I stated above, the issue of domestic agents of foreign powers comes into play and even legal critics who see a Fourth Amendment issue acknowledge that FISA may in fact address this, yet the issue has not been tested beyond the circuit court level.
What you are engaging in is constructivism truth, attempting to use a community consensus to bully your way to resolution. That is not how the law works and anyone who cares about liberties and a society ruled by law should condemn you.
BTW, what is pathetic is when people like you throw ad hominem attacks while hiding behind a pseudonym. I use my real name on all my comments, grow a pair and do the same when you calling me pathetic.
splitting legal hairs
Mike,
I'd like to hear your evidence to suggest that the program was "almost certainly illegal". The 1978 FISA law is less than certain on the definition of "foreign surveillance" when it comes to foreign agents residing in the U.S. (interestingly, the Aldrich Ames case involved the same issue).
More on point is the fact that these telcos were asked to do something that provided them no commercial or competitive advantage, if anything it imposed a burden on them, and now a chattering class is calling for them to be drawn and quartered because they cooperated.
Maybe a solution here is a Mad Max "break a deal, face the wheel" credo.
It's somewhat pathetic that you point to Sen. Dodd as the moral crusader considering the events of recent weeks... perhaps if Verizon gave Dodd a VIP cell phone plan he would be flip flopping on this too.
sentencing guidelines
@Greg @Lojiko, it depends on the crime. Violent crimes as well as drug crimes have strictly proscribed sentencing guidelines that give the presiding judge less discretion. For simple assault, drug possession (small amounts), thefts, etc. the judge does have a lot of leeway with regard to the sentence, which is why you see things like therapy, yoga class, public service, and now youtube apologies in lieu of jail time.
Lastly, I was really impressed by the detective work the victim in this crime did, were it not for her efforts these wayward teens would have not been caught. It appears she could teach the local police a few things on using the web to track down perps.
Bingo!
Good one Mike. I have been in this mini-bubble around comment systems for a while now and it just didn't even phase me when I read the blog post about the acquisition. I sometimes sit back and think about whether anyone beyond the 5,000 or so people who are in the serious blogging space (just guessing on that number but it feels right) really gives a shit about things like this. If they don't it is a reflection on our inability to tell most people why they should care using a vocabulary they can identify with.
$200m crappy films
There is a big difference between making a $200m great film like Lord of the Rings and a $200m shitty film like all the new Star Wars episodes.
Yes the market is changing, but Lucas' version of the franchise film with all the respective merchandising and whatever wasn't working either and that should inform his decision more than anything else.
While I agree with you that the formula is changing, this story is really more about Lucas' formula.
Liquidity
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that "liquidity event" could just as easily mean sell the company as it could mean IPO. I really don't think any investment bank, even with Kleiner's long reach, would sign up to sell this offering considering the condition the company is in and the high level of disillusionment against the early hype.