OA’s Techdirt Profile

ooa

About OA




OA’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 27th, 2017 @ 3:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ahem... having government around is no change to that. Or did you just forget all of the people still being murdered, raped, stolen from, lied to, cheated on, or taken advantage of.

    Do you believe this? That's like saying games should have no rules because people still cheat.

    You don't need a government to build roads, run an economy, exchange idea's, have trade, or be a peaceful society with the rule of law and benevolence.

    Completely senseless. Is it just the word government you hate? Call it something else, then. Call it "Shmizmar" or whatever.

    But you do when you need to take things from others, control them, and decide how society needs to live.

    Government is a complex class of tool. If a particular manifestation of this tool is "off" it can be remolded through criticism, assessment, iterative progress or even revolution. This type of change usual considers real details of some kind, not broad ideology.

    Your last paragraph is gibberish and misdirection.

  • Jun 27th, 2017 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Re:

    I'd say morality and panic give birth to other things like religion but not governments.

    Huh? Religion is short for organized religion and forms from pressures to organize. The original comment IS self-serving nonsense, though.

  • Jun 27th, 2017 @ 9:39am

    Re: Now let's just think about this

    I was very bothered by this story at first, but then began thinking more about it. If ISPs are permitted to mine your internet activity for profit, then would you prefer that they gave you a way to opt out of that mining, or would you prefer that they do it without giving you any recourse?

    AT BEST, that would mean AT&T's idea would be less bad than some other action that could be taken. This is an unreasonable defense of extortion.

    Example: I avoid Facebook and Google because they are so hostile to privacy. I've always told people I'd be willing to pay them an annual fee to use their services if they would just respect my privacy along the way. Here, AT&T is offering that sort of bargain, and in that sense, it's a good thing.

    How much is privacy worth? I would reasonably call it priceless. AT&T (and many other entities) treats Contempt-of-Customer™ as profitable.

    And it would have better optics if AT&T marketed this as a discount if you permitted them to invade your privacy, rather than a surcharge for you to opt out. Further, the surcharge they chose seems rather high.

    The normal and/or reasonable pricing should be the privacy positive one. Otherwise, those with less wealth become fodder for voyeurs. How much is the presumption of privacy worth? Whatever the answer it is probably measured in one's soul.

    But before you all decide that AT&T is doing something wholly objectionable, think about the fact that other ISPs might just quietly mine their customer's data without providing any opt-out whatsoever.

    Moral and ethical reasoning graded on the curve. Perhaps the ISPs can collude amongst themselves to up the ante, then anything would be acceptable. Maybe an ISP's relationship with investors should overwhelm its relationship with those it serves. Just chase dollars in the absence or meaningful restraint.

  • Jun 26th, 2017 @ 1:36pm

    Extortion

    This feels like extortion.

    "That's some nice privacy you've got there. It would be unfortunate if something were to happen to it".

    Well, at least you can pay for "protection" on that privacy.

  • Jun 26th, 2017 @ 1:27pm

    Re: Re: Flintstones, meet the Flintstones...

    Science states facts, but is movable as new information becomes available. Faith doesn't seem to have the same kind of flexibility, and a much stronger proclivity to deny any possibility not explicitly explained by their 'faith'. Science is wrong because a faith was established before all this science stuff was learned.

    I mean no offense or hostility towards this commenter, however this is at best careless wording. Careful and knowledgable analysis would compare science and RELIGION (not faith). Science and religion both have a significant human factor and thus inherit very similar attributes, even if you consider them opposites (by definition and concept, opposites have plenty in common).

    Both history and current events tells us that science does NOT always state facts because people don't always state facts. Religion has a somewhat narrower scope and purpose than science, but scientists seem to believe that science's scope is all encompassing which is incorrect and a little "faithy". The religious too often behave as if the purpose of religion is to confer authority and power to its adherents, a self-corrupting idea routinely contradicted by their own faith's true teachings.

    ...Anyway, that comment has multiple layers of wrong on it.

  • Jun 9th, 2017 @ 12:27pm

    Re: PETA: Silly Is What We Do

    I know little about PETA. Something about throwing red paint on people, I think, and some stunts in the nude. But,

    Maybe, just maybe, we should stop giving them the headlines they crave.

    Should they be artificially ignored? Are they devoid of any important or relevant message? That description of the Media's appetites is accurate enough, isn't it?

  • Jun 9th, 2017 @ 12:10pm

    Strange

    This article simultaneously supports the arguments that "good" cops exist and there are no "good" cops (those are kicked out).

  • Jun 9th, 2017 @ 12:01pm

    Mafia

    Fraud based economy.

    This kind of thing reminds me of the way mafias are portrayed in movies, but using lawyers. Which then reminds of "rent seeking" type capitalist abuses, but using government.

  • Jun 9th, 2017 @ 11:54am

    Re: An architect who didn't sue....

    Interesting.

    From what I hear it is common for bigger entities to flat out steal from (and effectively bully) smaller ones. This seems to happen a lot in Hollywood, publishing and the music industry.

  • Jun 9th, 2017 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re: Ahhh, Judges.

    I don't understand what this means.

  • Jun 9th, 2017 @ 11:27am

    Ahhh, Judges.

    On 9/11 the word terrorist took on a high level of importance. It didn't take long for some to notice its meaning was poorly defined or flat out arbitrary. Plenty also began using it like a weapon, to manipulate and control. Especially when a word gains this level of social and emotional power it becomes important to use it more thoughtfully and receive it more carefully.

    "Terrorist", by word or concept, is not nearly precise enough and does not have a popular, sufficiently coherent or vaild meaning that allows it to be used to parse difficult issues like this.

    Judges certainly know the law (far better than me, at least), but I sometimes question their capacity for cohesive reasoning.

  • Jun 5th, 2017 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ooohhhhh

    Neither you nor the anonymous coward you are supporting (if you are not the same person) realized I was critiquing the implied analysis not the etiquette. If you are making broad social commentary, passing judgment on people is counter-productive and analytically incompetent.

  • Jun 5th, 2017 @ 9:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ooohhhhh

    That whole comment was strange. It's not clear to me that this anonymous coward knows what he/she is talking about. It could be just cliches and rhetorical flourishes.

    Some advice. Avoid, if you can, "poking" or judging people directly. Instead focus on actions, behavior, condition, etc.

    Until you learn the lesson that citizens cannot avoid responsibility you are not capable of any additional lessons.

    Hmm. OK? If being an "adult" has any meaning then adulthood has responsibilities. One can say: as adults we are, at best, not particularly guilty when considering a specific situation. Very few, if any, of us are truly innocent in any scenario. The ideas we adopt and disseminate, the conformity we accept, the evils we tolerate, the powers we use or misuse all mark us and mold us in various ways. I've suspected since I was a teenager that responsibility is complicated and popular understanding of it is willfully poor.

    Like an addict, you must first recognize that you have a problem before we can begin to resolve it.

    Shhhh! Just don't.

    I have been telling you folks that every nation gets the government it deserves and recent even Obama said much the same.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/09/obama-you-get-the-politicians-you-deserve-238150

    When the weight of government is crushing you... the first person to blame is the one in the mirror.

    Despite your appeal to authority, I see no reason to believe you understand anything... I will only say that even when government is abusive to its people government is not as separate from the governed as it appears.

    My current and only job is to get you to understand that.

    So, your unemployed?

    I cannot fight the masses of ignorants, I have to attempt to educate them first.

    Everyone is ignorant. It is necessary that we do not build our world view directly out of ignorance. The first step is to sincerely care about "the masses" and their true condition instead of trying to set one's self up as their "superior".

    Trump got elected for a reason, and you are part of that reason!

    Probably true enough, but it seems unlikely that you know why.

  • Jun 5th, 2017 @ 7:51am

    Re: ooohhhhh

    I get it.
    "I don't like X. Find, conjure or amplify bad example of X. Invalidate all of X".

    This is a type of Lying Logic™. The internet is full of people using dishonest arguments like this.

  • Jun 1st, 2017 @ 9:39am

    Good intentions?

    I don't think this is careless or well-intentioned law making.

    My guess is that this bill was crafted to satisfy three separate but overlapping motivations:

    1. Aggressive imprisonment through "law and order" zealotry.
    2. The desire to intertwine religious motivated ideology with US law making. The absurd and unnecessary fear of Sharia Law was obvious foreboding.
    3. Power siphoning. Convert strong popular revulsion for pedophilia into a way to attack other freedoms (especially speech). It is almost certainly designed to be a slippery slope.

    OA

  • 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.

More comments from OA >>