OA’s Techdirt Profile

ooa

About OA




OA’s Comments comment rss

  • May 18th, 2017 @ 11:17am

    Re: That is what you get for having a Department of Justice

    Justice is malleable in the same way shoes are malleable. Work has to be done to make it fit properly.

  • May 11th, 2017 @ 9:51am

    A Broader Issue

    Incidents like this are broader, more connected and more serious than they appear:

    1. Increasingly, our nation as a society, seems to comfortably believe that to speak or be heard can only be done in narrow ways and with narrow timing if at all.

    2. We have large numbers of people who are mostly not heard and whose concerns are largely unrepresented. The responsibilities of both politicians and media are supposed to fall heavily in this area.

    3. Much of our popular culture effectively, when not willfully, "celebrates" the absence of invisible people.

    4. Membership in the invisible people club is accelerating, diversifying and pressuring in different "domains".

    5. Notice that some of the reaction to this incident is similar to popular attitudes on protests. We suppress the opportunities to speak, inquire and be heard. We create frustration and desperation. Then try to suppress and vilify the natural and inevitable responses.

    6. Problems like this are part of the spectrum of a single type of issue that I will refrain from labeling. Many of us "arbitrarily" object only at certain levels*. Due, in part, to this nation's "original sin" (which still has never been addressed) and that other manifestations of the issue are "useful". The Media helped grow the invisible class and are now being pressured to join it.

    OA

    *Whenever there is talk of another cop shooting of an unarmed black male there are plenty on the INTERNET who aggressively insist that being black is completely unimportant. Abuse against blacks by police is a very old issue. It was GUARANTEED to eventually spread outside of vulnerable minorities (for reasons that are outside the scope of this comment). ONLY after it spread did this "invisible issue" become outrageous. This spread also came with foolish and disingenuous comments like: "it's about class not race". Too many, in a wide variety of scenarios, think they can "solve" problems without correctly identifying them.

  • Apr 26th, 2017 @ 10:55am

    Redirection

    Facebook, Google and Amazon have earned a number of real and highly relevant criticisms. The "why's" and "what's" of those critiques have to be worked out. Some critics imply that they completed that work (unasked, on behalf to the masses and/or elites), skip the explanation phase and jump straight to "corrective measures". However, these types of critics are actually using real angst, felt in connection to poorly understood conditions to push on-lookers towards unreasonable and non-rational beliefs and reactions. AKA, Prejudicing the reader... {oops, no more time for now}...

  • Apr 20th, 2017 @ 9:30am

    Re: So what's your solution?

    This article bothers me because even while it acknowledges the "real threat" of poorly-secured devices, it offers no solution while pointing out all the problems (real or imagined) with the proposal that's being offered.

    If you agree that security of connected devices is a real problem that needs to be addressed, then what's your solution? If not this idea, then what?

    First off, I have no opinion on the article...

    I'm not fond of this type of "reasoning". Commentary towards the assessment of a problem is perfectly valid. Furthermore, many solutions should be derived communally.

    If one waits for action plans like the following: 1) Solve problem,

    then you tend to get narrowly considered, cliché-like "solutions".

    This sort of commentary is very close to straight-up obstructionism.

    Obstructionism (or "very close" to it) is usual about insincerity and/or malice. You reply as if the author's insincerity is a given.

    It's very easy to find problems with any specific proposal.

    It is very easy to make proposals that are careless, thoughtless, destructive or irresponsible. The author offers related discussion and arguments. You offer nothing!

    It's much harder to come up with better solutions. But nothing will ever get done if nobody ever offers better ideas.

    Meaningless cliché. This whole comment reads like an attempt to prejudice the susceptible reader and as a blind defense of the criticized legislation. There are no actual arguments!

  • Mar 27th, 2017 @ 12:56pm

    Re:

    If the annotations are used in an official manner to interpret and use the law then the annotations are reasonably indistinguishable from law. At second look it appears copyright law and public works(?) law are in conflict. However, how often is copyright used improperly?*

    *Answer: often.

  • Mar 27th, 2017 @ 12:00pm

    (untitled comment)

    Lots of people in power express a belief in censorship and control. Sounds like an ideology.

  • Mar 27th, 2017 @ 8:22am

    Re: Same old same old

    In order to prevent "social mechanisms" from properly and popularly connecting higher class to rampant unethical behavior scapegoats have to be created. Using marketing like techniques, unethical behavior was misdirected as attributes towards minorities and the poor.

  • Mar 27th, 2017 @ 8:02am

    Re:

    Interesting what people think they need but really don't. When they stop getting it they just do without. It reminds me of that Star Trek TNG episode about one planet profiting off the addiction of the neighboring planet.

  • Mar 24th, 2017 @ 1:18pm

    (untitled comment)

    Companies "increase efficiency" and it results in lost jobs. Those workers are told to retrain for jobs in other fields. When cash cows mostly benefiting relatively few people are threatened we get protectionism.

  • Mar 24th, 2017 @ 1:12pm

    (untitled comment)

    "Ha Ha!" - Nelson

  • Mar 24th, 2017 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re:

    When I was a wee lass my least favorite subject was history (social studies). I've long since realized its importance. If you don't understand the past you don't really understand the present. That void will be replaced with applied ignorance masquerading as simplicity.

  • Mar 24th, 2017 @ 10:09am

    (untitled comment)

    I've been reading electronics books and docs perhaps for as long as there have been portable devices capable of reading them. Among other things, I especially liked the convenience (like being able to search them) and space saving (no bookshelf needed) of digital books. I've used pres, palm pilots, Sony clie, various eink readers, desktops, laptops, the scrolling displays on those old Casio (and radio shack) calculators and devices I've forgotten already. Some people would scan books, use (terrible) OCR on it, then read the books and make edits over time. This meant that books could have many errors even after multiple revisions. Books would have version numbers like LOTR: Fellowship v1.3. Depending on format, source and skill of the converter there may have been no images, special characters might have been screwed up, chapters not properly delineated, and so on. The early to mid formats I recall were txt, pdb, lrf, mobi, lit, prc, rtf, pdf, htm, djvu, chm, doc (usually not MS Word). This is all from momentary recollection, I'm sure I must have forgotten some.

    If you like you can interpret that paragraph as "I was doing it before it was cool" (or before Google), though that was not the intent... All of this passion and forward thinking (I'm not talking about myself) ends up as just another situation waiting for the big players to come along and pick it up. Conditions were not conducive to small organic "disruption". Instead conditions restrain innovation until certain big players are forced to eventually pay attention and rake in the big bucks (poor guys). It was obvious they would screw it up or abuse it. Like with children, "you can't have nice things". I, for instance, will not use any electronic book store, connect any e-reader to the internet or purchase any kindle device (no open epub format).

    I wonder about the purpose of corporations. Recently, I recall some calling themselves things like "providers" or "they-built-this" or whatever marketing they use to project their self-images into people's heads. Instead of earning money for useful, beneficial services it seems they crowd various domains in order to try to alter services and the need for services, monetizing them by manufacturing the necessity for their existence. This allows them to EXTRACT money; treating and thinking of the populous as existing to provide money or provide cheap labor. The historical purpose of corporations was not ambiguous. Broadly speaking their current, apparent, purpose is part cancer, part gibberish and part tradition (momentum). It's like a cross-section of greed, aggression and weaponized ignorance.

    - OA

  • Mar 23rd, 2017 @ 6:56am

    (untitled comment)

    I think I've seen that tactic on TV somewhere. Brilliant detective so special that rules and ethics don't apply. Don't worry, though, he gets results and that's all that ever matters. Simple. Myopic. Results.

  • Mar 22nd, 2017 @ 2:04pm

    (untitled comment)

    If one were to analyze the behavior of "security enthusiasts", what motives could be found?

    Assuming complete sincerity, it seems they want 100% perfect security which is impossible. If it were possible the side effects would be undesirable.

    However, the attempts at security seem less than competent. It could be that the intent is just to collect the power to be able to do these things for some later purposes.

    A push for "extreme security" might be preferable to fixing or addressing the conditions that create the need for this security. This is a basic redirection: commit acts that have some negative consequence (often predictable) - instead of stopping the acts or dealing with the consequence, translate the blow-back into a form someone else suffers for.

    It's probably a combination of all three. None of three motives or any combination has any real chance of any positive ultimate outcome, for the populace or the "security enthusiasts".

    -OA

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 10:19am

    (untitled comment)

    In other words millennials are less vulnerable to the manipulation often represented by the word "patriots".

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 8:27am

    Re:

    I thought Google auto-complete was based on popularity of actual user searches.

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 8:27am

    Re:

    I thought Google auto-complete was based on popularity of actual user searches.

  • Mar 17th, 2017 @ 7:30pm

    Re:

    Responsiveness to a specific individual is not a good basis for an assessment. Too often responsiveness to one comes at the expense of others.

    Agreed,

    You don’t seem to agree. The most important word in the quoted sentences is ASSESSMENT. One cannot conclude, “This gov’t is good because it does what I say”.

    but quite a bit of regulations are tailored to the individual or small groups, and one could say that a lot of environmental law favors very small groups. The rights of fish can outweigh the rights of the people of California in their water needs. Where is the federal governments say in that?

    This isn’t relevant or coherent. I do notice you’ve added regulations and environmental law to the naughty list, though. Seems familiar…

    Regulations and environmental law are broad gov’t outputs mostly stemming from responsibilities and calculations of best interests. Regulations cannot broadly “favor” “small groups”. Specific regulation are championed by small groups. Environmental law cannot be “tailored” to individuals. Specific laws often use the expertise of individuals. Small groups do the job usually because most everyone else is indifferent, a bad actor or unqualified. Fish don’t have rights and don’t petition gov’t. Protecting fish may be a result of a calculation of best interests.

    The main issue with the use of ideology as a way to grapple with the world is that it always seems like the answer. It is worse than absolute because it creates an illusion of simplicity by forcing all of life’s circumstances into an image like itself (so to speak). Having a belief does not obviate the need to struggle with decision making or assessments. Note: a belief or a belief system is NOT the same as an ideology.

    The more that the federal government does, the less the state can do. That is not what the Constitution wanted.

    Gibberish. This is a broad Zero-Sum statement that seems like it might mean something if you squint. I think I can interpret: “The state wants to do certain specific things (probably bad) and the federal gov’t is preventing it”.

  • Mar 17th, 2017 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: Good ending, not so good background reasons

    Grrrrrrrr!

  • Mar 17th, 2017 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good ending, not so good background reasons

    Hey! Techdirt logged me out again.

More comments from OA >>