"Which seems way more arbitrary and stupid than the old system."
This is absolutely true. More artibrary and more stupid. And more proof of geniusness in action.
However, perhaps there's a deeper, more subtle point being made. I could argue that the current Twitter offers at least as much, if not more, entertainment value as the old Twitter. For the same low cost.
That's what not paying $8 can get you.
“… you have to wonder how much merger logistics distracted the company from competent revisions to its privacy and security standards …”
Perhaps it's just me, but I'm not wondering at all. I have seen nothing to indicate that privacy and security were in Dish Network's wheelhouse before the merger. I'm going to speculate that the merger did nothing to improve their lack of competency. I'm not imagining the following conversation taking place:
"Hey, boss, Casey is incredible at working out security issues, not to mention having an in-depth understanding of privacy. Let's put them on the merger."
Just wondered if I'd missed the news that Musk took over Netflix. Charging for password sharing after years of promoting it feels suspiciously similar to charging for using an API after years of benefiting from others using it. And the decision was made without foreseeing obviously negative consequences, another Mwitter trademark.
If cameras on the street show me entering my house and not leaving until after the crime, the police have the same knowledge, just achieved using a different technique. One that's not unconstitutional.
It feels to me that the source of the knowledge (phone vs camera) is the difference. And that doesn't seem sufficient to be the distinguishing criterium.
And please know I'm not trying to be difficult with this. I've heard many experienced people say the same thing. I'm just trying to understand the legal principle at work here.
Forgive my naivete, but I have a question about why requesting location data for the area around a crime at the time of the crime is so unconstitutional.
In my mind, I see this as equivalent to collecting all of the videos from cameras that are at or near the scene of a crime, then watching the hours before and after the time the crime was committed. I'm pretty certain that doesn't fall into the category of unconstitutional.
What makes location data different?
"Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest"
I'm confused. You're suggesting that Islamic Jihadist propaganda is the strongest because GETTR is censoring it?
Am I the only one expecting that Hannity tonight will include a 10-minute rant on this fake news? And it has to be fake since Fox isn't on the list 'of the world’s most prestigious media organisations'?
"...their[governments] job is to deliver water, patch streets, things like that, not be in a capital-intensive technology business that requires constant refresh and constant management."
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't delivering water and patching streets a capital-intensive business that requires constant refresh and constant management? In other words, other than the word 'technology', it's exactly what governments are supposed to do.
Maybe the DOJ should issue a memo saying that they can't target journalists? I've heard someplace that memos are considered to be roughly the same level as the actual Consitution when it comes to its impact on the behavior of DOJ prosecutors.
Perhaps, given the hour, I'm at a low ebb mentally, but I was over the moon with all the puns. And that's even taking the gravity of the lawsuit into consideration. I understand why trademarks might tug at you. I feel the pull of the topic as well. But that's probably just the syzygy of complex legal concepts with infantile humor.
Have to give credit where credit is due. Wikipedia Brown! Beautiful retro reference. I did a spit take with my coffee when I read that.
I just hope that doesn't become evidence in "The Case of the Misidentified Malcontent"
Have to give credit where credit is due. Wikipedia Brown! Beautiful retro reference. I did a spit take with my coffee when I read that.
I just hope that doesn't become evidence in "The Case of the Misidentified Malcontent"
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by LACanuck.
Such a deal!
"Which seems way more arbitrary and stupid than the old system." This is absolutely true. More artibrary and more stupid. And more proof of geniusness in action. However, perhaps there's a deeper, more subtle point being made. I could argue that the current Twitter offers at least as much, if not more, entertainment value as the old Twitter. For the same low cost. That's what not paying $8 can get you.
Basic competency
“… you have to wonder how much merger logistics distracted the company from competent revisions to its privacy and security standards …” Perhaps it's just me, but I'm not wondering at all. I have seen nothing to indicate that privacy and security were in Dish Network's wheelhouse before the merger. I'm going to speculate that the merger did nothing to improve their lack of competency. I'm not imagining the following conversation taking place: "Hey, boss, Casey is incredible at working out security issues, not to mention having an in-depth understanding of privacy. Let's put them on the merger."
Musk buys Netflix?
Just wondered if I'd missed the news that Musk took over Netflix. Charging for password sharing after years of promoting it feels suspiciously similar to charging for using an API after years of benefiting from others using it. And the decision was made without foreseeing obviously negative consequences, another Mwitter trademark.
If cameras on the street show me entering my house and not leaving until after the crime, the police have the same knowledge, just achieved using a different technique. One that's not unconstitutional. It feels to me that the source of the knowledge (phone vs camera) is the difference. And that doesn't seem sufficient to be the distinguishing criterium. And please know I'm not trying to be difficult with this. I've heard many experienced people say the same thing. I'm just trying to understand the legal principle at work here.
Honest question
Forgive my naivete, but I have a question about why requesting location data for the area around a crime at the time of the crime is so unconstitutional. In my mind, I see this as equivalent to collecting all of the videos from cameras that are at or near the scene of a crime, then watching the hours before and after the time the crime was committed. I'm pretty certain that doesn't fall into the category of unconstitutional. What makes location data different?
"It took EIGHT lawyers to be this wrong."
You know that old saying. Too many kooks spoil the broth.
"...begging OAN viewers to “blow up” AT&T’s phone lines..."
In related news, AT&T announced that there were three additional calls in yesterday's log. That made up 0.000001% of AT&T's daily complaints.
Re: Let's Check The Details
"Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest" I'm confused. You're suggesting that Islamic Jihadist propaganda is the strongest because GETTR is censoring it?
Am I the only one expecting that Hannity tonight will include a 10-minute rant on this fake news? And it has to be fake since Fox isn't on the list 'of the world’s most prestigious media organisations'?
"...their[governments] job is to deliver water, patch streets, things like that, not be in a capital-intensive technology business that requires constant refresh and constant management."
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't delivering water and patching streets a capital-intensive business that requires constant refresh and constant management? In other words, other than the word 'technology', it's exactly what governments are supposed to do.
Maybe the DOJ should issue a memo saying that they can't target journalists? I've heard someplace that memos are considered to be roughly the same level as the actual Consitution when it comes to its impact on the behavior of DOJ prosecutors.
Crap. I should get to writing some tests for this application I'm developing.
So Rubio wants to create the SMePA? The Social Media Protection Agency?
So Rubio wants to create the SMePA? The Social Media Protection Agency?
Perhaps, given the hour, I'm at a low ebb mentally, but I was over the moon with all the puns. And that's even taking the gravity of the lawsuit into consideration. I understand why trademarks might tug at you. I feel the pull of the topic as well. But that's probably just the syzygy of complex legal concepts with infantile humor.
Four words?
I would have thought the four banned words would be 'We lost the election"
Have to give credit where credit is due. Wikipedia Brown! Beautiful retro reference. I did a spit take with my coffee when I read that. I just hope that doesn't become evidence in "The Case of the Misidentified Malcontent"
Have to give credit where credit is due. Wikipedia Brown! Beautiful retro reference. I did a spit take with my coffee when I read that. I just hope that doesn't become evidence in "The Case of the Misidentified Malcontent"