Okay, we all agree it was good advice so what "benefit of the doubt" should I give the guy?
He's a high paid lawyer that gives good legal advice. Kind of what you expect from your lawyer, good advice. If I need advice about private e-mail accounts used for sensitive government business I know I can go to him. Now, how does that make any of this better and/or worse?
"This will result in a few big fish that gobble the smaller fish."
Not necessarily. For sure there will be big fish but there will also be a space for niche players. Seeing current prices and what cable costs you could say that people would be able to subscribe to 3 or 4 services without increasing cost. So for example 1 or 2 big fish, a sci-fy service and a Marvel service, something like that.
I agree it sucks to have to subscribe to 15 different streaming services to keep up to date with popular culture and I also agree it will likely increase piracy.
I can't help thinking there is also a good side here though. CBS signed up a big crowd with their new Star Trek. What they will find out is that if they don't follow up on that offering (or offer a tepid series) the trekkies will leave very fast too. That's is the great new freedom of the streaming services, you can end them every month usually.
So, it could start a fierce competition for the streaming dollars which, by nature, are limited. So if the streaming service doesn't offer good value for money they are destined for ignominy. It could be a new golden era of creativity and competition.
Of course I could be too optimistic but the potential is there.
If I compare current systems the US version looks much more like the French that also selects its president separately.Also historically it seems much more likely (to me) they looked at France than England to set up a system since they seemed to like each other a lot (see statue of liberty). So I'm not sure they were thinking of a king when creating the position of president.
I also find it a bit hard to believe they tried to make a system with dysfunction in mind. They were extremely smart people and they could and did put limitations on what the federal government was supposed to do and not do. If you set up a government you want it to govern and you're not going to set it up to fail.
Failure of the central government was way too big a risk to take, especially in those times. Now I think of it, it would be a thing in any time...
Fair point but I feel it would be much stronger if the presidential candidates would be independents. Right now they're party members too, meaning that the group think is still an issue and possibly worse.
The fact that the US has only 2 parties doesn't make things better in that respect.Right now the 2 parties have a very big incentive to make the candidate for "the other side" fail.
I think most heads of state have veto powers by the way. They're rarely used (as should be) but they exist.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if it came out that the leaks from the White House were actually coming from hacked private e-mail accounts used by The Donald & fils to discuss government issues?
Can somebody explain me what they think is the advantage of electing the president separately? I'd also be interested if somebody can explain to me what the founding fathers thought was the advantage.
In many countries representatives are elected and the biggest party supplies the prime minister who forms the government, if needed together with other parties. In this system the president or, as the case may be, the king or queen, is only a figure head. The one that cuts ribbons on grand openings.
To me that seems more logic because you're sure that parliament supports the government so they can get shit done. I'd be interested if somebody could at least explain the reasoning behind electing the president separately.
I think those other major sports don't have that option. Most sports coverage is very focused on popular sports.There's is probably hundreds of hours of TV a week about Football during the season. How often do you see women's gymnastics?
Most major sports (basketball, baseball, football, soccer etc.) are mostly irrelevant during the event-that-shall-not-be-infringed-upon. It's about the small sports for whom this is their whole raison d'etre.
If I was in e-sports in any capacity I'd want to stay away from the event-whose-name-can't-be-mentioned-without-a-licence like it was a mobster in a cheap suit.
Many sports, especially less popular ones, are dependent on this event for promotion. Many of those are only seen on TV once every 4 years when they're jammed between the semi-final 100m dash and the swimming series. That way they can recruit new blood and stay relevant.
I'm kind of confused why Facebook would be responsible for what appears on my feed, except for the ads obviously.
I am the one that agrees to follow people and I can always unfriend or unfollow them. If somebody is posting stuff I find offensive I unfollow them, it's 2 seconds work.
I guess they could make an more obvious way to flag stuff and for me it would be enough if they just hid flagged stuff behind a link (like TD does). I also think some kind of algorithm could be made that if it clears a certain number of flags in a short time it should be put in review since it seems something serious is going on.
For the rest I can manage just fine on my own thank you.
It would be so nice if policies were actually based on facts instead of symbolism (or grandstanding).
Let's disregard the collateral damage of SESTA for the internet for a minute and ask ourselves what would have more impact: Increasing the funding of police investigations connected to human trafficking or SESTA? I don't really need to commission a report to guess the answer.
Perhaps we should divert some funds from the War On Drugs and put it towards those investigations. That way we might arrest more human traffickers and less black people having a joint.
A compass rose would indicate 8 directions usually, not 4. Do a Google image search on compass rose. At the very least if they meant to put a compass rose there they went out of their way to find the most crosshair-like compass they could find and therefore, considering the language used, any misinterpretation is on them.
Calling a cow a unicorn does not magically make it so.
Seems to me the solution is simple: - Set up a company seeded with money from the (whole) news industry. - Build a new search engine, possibly buy news.com from Cnet. - Ask all news outlets to put no-index for Google in their robot.txt. - Make sure all news websites are indexed in the new search engine - grab all the Google moneyz
If they're so convinced Google is only turning a profit because of them it seems fairly easy to grab that sweet dough. If news is only available on that search engine I'm sure people will go there to find news.
Then they could (gasp) innovate as well. Make personalized newsfeeds, create algorithms to determine what is fake news and what is real, set up Patreon-like crowdfunding for special news stories etc. etc.
The fact that this does not yet exist is proof that they also know there is not much money in it. So, just waiting for a handout is much easier.
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm.
Okay, we all agree it was good advice so what "benefit of the doubt" should I give the guy?
He's a high paid lawyer that gives good legal advice. Kind of what you expect from your lawyer, good advice. If I need advice about private e-mail accounts used for sensitive government business I know I can go to him. Now, how does that make any of this better and/or worse?
Re: Re: Is it a bad thing?
"This will result in a few big fish that gobble the smaller fish."
Not necessarily. For sure there will be big fish but there will also be a space for niche players. Seeing current prices and what cable costs you could say that people would be able to subscribe to 3 or 4 services without increasing cost. So for example 1 or 2 big fish, a sci-fy service and a Marvel service, something like that.
Is it a bad thing?
I agree it sucks to have to subscribe to 15 different streaming services to keep up to date with popular culture and I also agree it will likely increase piracy.
I can't help thinking there is also a good side here though. CBS signed up a big crowd with their new Star Trek. What they will find out is that if they don't follow up on that offering (or offer a tepid series) the trekkies will leave very fast too. That's is the great new freedom of the streaming services, you can end them every month usually.
So, it could start a fierce competition for the streaming dollars which, by nature, are limited. So if the streaming service doesn't offer good value for money they are destined for ignominy. It could be a new golden era of creativity and competition.
Of course I could be too optimistic but the potential is there.
Re: Re: What is the point?
If I compare current systems the US version looks much more like the French that also selects its president separately.Also historically it seems much more likely (to me) they looked at France than England to set up a system since they seemed to like each other a lot (see statue of liberty). So I'm not sure they were thinking of a king when creating the position of president.
I also find it a bit hard to believe they tried to make a system with dysfunction in mind. They were extremely smart people and they could and did put limitations on what the federal government was supposed to do and not do. If you set up a government you want it to govern and you're not going to set it up to fail.
Failure of the central government was way too big a risk to take, especially in those times. Now I think of it, it would be a thing in any time...
Re: Re: What is the point?
The checks and balances are inherent in the Trias Politica itself aren't they? Legislative controls Executive and both are controlled by the Judicial.
Re: Re: What is the point?
Fair point but I feel it would be much stronger if the presidential candidates would be independents. Right now they're party members too, meaning that the group think is still an issue and possibly worse.
The fact that the US has only 2 parties doesn't make things better in that respect.Right now the 2 parties have a very big incentive to make the candidate for "the other side" fail.
I think most heads of state have veto powers by the way. They're rarely used (as should be) but they exist.
Re: Re: What is the point?
Thanks for those deep insights!
Hacked?
Wouldn't it be hilarious if it came out that the leaks from the White House were actually coming from hacked private e-mail accounts used by The Donald & fils to discuss government issues?
Just thinking about that outcome makes me giggle.
What is the point?
Can somebody explain me what they think is the advantage of electing the president separately? I'd also be interested if somebody can explain to me what the founding fathers thought was the advantage.
In many countries representatives are elected and the biggest party supplies the prime minister who forms the government, if needed together with other parties. In this system the president or, as the case may be, the king or queen, is only a figure head. The one that cuts ribbons on grand openings.
To me that seems more logic because you're sure that parliament supports the government so they can get shit done. I'd be interested if somebody could at least explain the reasoning behind electing the president separately.
Of course...
Ms. Page wrote: “I hate to bring this up, --- Brewvies is showing Deadpool. --- I know some people who have seen it.
Yes, and I'm asking for a friend...
Congrats!
I just wanted to give my heartfelt congratulations!
A world without Techdirt would be a bleaker place so I'm happy we're not venturing into that alternative timeline.
Re:
I think those other major sports don't have that option. Most sports coverage is very focused on popular sports.There's is probably hundreds of hours of TV a week about Football during the season. How often do you see women's gymnastics?
Most major sports (basketball, baseball, football, soccer etc.) are mostly irrelevant during the event-that-shall-not-be-infringed-upon. It's about the small sports for whom this is their whole raison d'etre.
Who cares?
If I was in e-sports in any capacity I'd want to stay away from the event-whose-name-can't-be-mentioned-without-a-licence like it was a mobster in a cheap suit.
Many sports, especially less popular ones, are dependent on this event for promotion. Many of those are only seen on TV once every 4 years when they're jammed between the semi-final 100m dash and the swimming series. That way they can recruit new blood and stay relevant.
E-sports is doing pretty well on their own.
Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
I also heard that Trump won the popular vote... So more than half definitely qualifies as vast majority for them.
Re:
Not so sure:
"Their patent was for a firewall that's not user-configurable," Kniser said in an interview with Ars. "They knew ours was configurable."
So it seems they were confident the patent didn't apply to them but they were not confident it was actually an invalid patent.
Anyway, I'm sure a company that calls itself after bridge dwelling creatures has some more patents stockpiled somewhere.
Selfgovernance
I'm kind of confused why Facebook would be responsible for what appears on my feed, except for the ads obviously.
I am the one that agrees to follow people and I can always unfriend or unfollow them. If somebody is posting stuff I find offensive I unfollow them, it's 2 seconds work.
I guess they could make an more obvious way to flag stuff and for me it would be enough if they just hid flagged stuff behind a link (like TD does). I also think some kind of algorithm could be made that if it clears a certain number of flags in a short time it should be put in review since it seems something serious is going on.
For the rest I can manage just fine on my own thank you.
Shocked
I am shocked!
People paid 99 US$ for watching one single boxing match? Between a boxer and a not so much a boxer?
Facts?
It would be so nice if policies were actually based on facts instead of symbolism (or grandstanding).
Let's disregard the collateral damage of SESTA for the internet for a minute and ask ourselves what would have more impact: Increasing the funding of police investigations connected to human trafficking or SESTA? I don't really need to commission a report to guess the answer.
Perhaps we should divert some funds from the War On Drugs and put it towards those investigations. That way we might arrest more human traffickers and less black people having a joint.
Re: Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
No, those are crosshairs, not a compass.
A compass rose would indicate 8 directions usually, not 4. Do a Google image search on compass rose. At the very least if they meant to put a compass rose there they went out of their way to find the most crosshair-like compass they could find and therefore, considering the language used, any misinterpretation is on them.
Calling a cow a unicorn does not magically make it so.
Innovate?
Seems to me the solution is simple:
- Set up a company seeded with money from the (whole) news industry.
- Build a new search engine, possibly buy news.com from Cnet.
- Ask all news outlets to put no-index for Google in their robot.txt.
- Make sure all news websites are indexed in the new search engine
- grab all the Google moneyz
If they're so convinced Google is only turning a profit because of them it seems fairly easy to grab that sweet dough. If news is only available on that search engine I'm sure people will go there to find news.
Then they could (gasp) innovate as well. Make personalized newsfeeds, create algorithms to determine what is fake news and what is real, set up Patreon-like crowdfunding for special news stories etc. etc.
The fact that this does not yet exist is proof that they also know there is not much money in it. So, just waiting for a handout is much easier.