He's not a DINO. Let's not forget Bloomberg himself ran in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. Biden's immigration policies have barely changed from Trump's and the party's push for police reforms amounts to little more than boosting training budgets. Pete Buttigieg fired a black police chief on behalf of racist cops back when he was a mayor, and still got promoted to Transportation Secretary with no more expertise than that he likes the boardgame Ticket to Ride.
Eric Adams is a Democrat. This behavior is what voters tolerate to prevent worse Republicans from winning and also because it's what a significant percentage of them actually want.
This is horrifying and enraging. It's fortunate no one was killed in this incident, but it wouldn't surprise me if these monsters had killed their victims before.
The consequences can't be limited to just punishing these monsters, because the terror extends far beyond the two men who were brutally tortured. Such "goon squads" have existed for over a century, and without systemic changes they'll continue.
I hope the DOJ extends their investigation far beyond this incident.
In a post-NYT v. Sullivan world the right expects to be able to bend defamation law to attack their critics without facing the same consequences for themselves. Perhaps they'll try to establish a free speech version of qualified immunity, which would hold certain parties acting in "good faith" (ie themselves) blameless unless a specific falsehood of theirs had previously been ruled to be defamation.
Not sure they've thought all of this through, but I'm sure SCOTUS will fill in the blanks when they overturn Sullivan
Including the broadcast networks in the debates is part of the system of trading beneficial coverage in exchange for access to candidates and advertising dollars. Candidates (not voters) benefit from sensationalism, and laundering their messaging through the national media is an effective way to set the terms of national conversation.
For either national party to run its own debates and license the broadcast rights would be a thumb in the eye of the media companies they rely on, and an open invitation for the networks to tilt coverage toward the other party. It's a prisoner's dilemma that reflects one of the most dangerous forms of regulatory capture: that of media companies over the apparatus of public accountability.
If our media landscape were competitive, as it once was, the debates would likely be run by the national parties or by neutral third parties, as they once were.
We may start to see attacks on websites exploit this by mass posting vaguely illegal content. Given the thousands (millions?) of fake social media accounts being used, it wouldn't be a stretch.
"The measure would allow felony prosecution of those who intentionally break the law"
"Intentionally" is the key word that will be used to distinguish good speech from bad. No supporters of Ericksen would be prosecuted under this law, because *they* would never intentionally disrupt commerce.
The details of what HRC did are damning and indicative of a profound lack of competence with technology. Keep in mind, it's not as if Hillary's term at State was marked by huge successes in other areas. The decisions she made were largely counterproductive and damaging to US credibility. The reasons for them were largely self-serving and silly.
She broke no laws regarding her e-mail server, but her time at State leaves much to be answered for.
Anything about investment in new public transportation tech? Drafting legislation to better regulate autonomous vehicles? Encouraging innovation by reforming the broken USTPO? Lowering copyright terms to a sane level? Protecting fair use rights? Establishing a federal agency to inform congress and POTUS about technology? Tech approaches to global warming? Investment in commercial space travel? Asteroid mitigation?
Adding 2% broadband coverage and breaking private encryption is doing less than nothing. This sucks.
I wouldn't be surprised if a Climton staffer used the same glitch, and the DNC is taking this convenient opportunity to throw up a smokescreen and attempt to undermine the Sanders campaign at the same time.
Sanders is calling their bluff, and my guess is they'll back down quietly.
Try to understand, Hillary has never had any personal use for encryption in her own life, and so doesn't realize how important it is. She's never, for instance, set up a private email server, or held a security clearance.
To expect her to have a clear understanding of cyber security is absurd. /s
"After unanticipated press coverage sufficiently raised community awareness about this issue, NHPD plans for this initiative have been shelved… "
With these kinds of idiots in charge, you can imagine how quickly things could get out of hand if law enforcement programs, policies, and interpretations of the law were kept secret, especially on the national level.
Critics of these bombings are saying exactly what you are: that the concept of precision bombings is a cruel joke. It's proponents who make fantastical claims of "surgical strikes," and then label innocent victims as enemies to cover their asses.
I grok that you feel these bombings are a necessary evil, but there's no factual basis for that position, and you're ignoring the deception which has been used to justify them.
Why did ABC News think that this "senior official" should be granted anonymity to threaten people with drone strikes for tweets?
Come on, ABC. Do you think this guy would think twice about bombing whistleblowers and journalists too? They too have been described as a threat--one far worse than tweets.
Pro-DRM Game CEO: "Yes, The Witcher 3 has sold very well...but imagine how many more sales it would have had if they had slathered it in DRM!"
Of course, wasting money on DRM can only last so long before competitors take their lunch by using every available resource to serve the customer instead of punishing them for buying their games!
I thought back to Orwell's 1984, and I think this section (adjusted for gender) captures my thoughts on this: "Obedience is not enough. Unless she is suffering, how can you be sure that she is obeying your will and not her own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing."
Remember: cops need civilians to put their lives in danger to protect the safety of the public. If we don't protect cops using our own bodies as meat shields, we'll all be in danger of seeing someone smoking marijuana, or even selling loose cigarettes! I trust the police when they say they'll generously reward our selflessness by not throwing us in prison.
But aren't the hypothetical medicines we're talking about already being sold and marketed? If the original trials weren't enough to establish safety, why approve the drug in the first place?
That's what the "more data is necessary" argument boils down to, isn't it?
There are other, much better ways to get more data than adding more IP restrictions to an industry already overloaded with them.
A pillow could be used to asphyxiate somebody. Shoes could help a criminal run away. Underwear could conceal explosives. Sunglasses can help a suspect hide from police. Even something as innocuous as yogurt can be used to deliver deadly poison, or to hide narcotics.
Can these fools get it through their heads that things are often useful to criminals simply because they're USEFUL??
Just a Democrat
He's not a DINO. Let's not forget Bloomberg himself ran in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. Biden's immigration policies have barely changed from Trump's and the party's push for police reforms amounts to little more than boosting training budgets. Pete Buttigieg fired a black police chief on behalf of racist cops back when he was a mayor, and still got promoted to Transportation Secretary with no more expertise than that he likes the boardgame Ticket to Ride. Eric Adams is a Democrat. This behavior is what voters tolerate to prevent worse Republicans from winning and also because it's what a significant percentage of them actually want.
A long history of lynch mobs
This is horrifying and enraging. It's fortunate no one was killed in this incident, but it wouldn't surprise me if these monsters had killed their victims before. The consequences can't be limited to just punishing these monsters, because the terror extends far beyond the two men who were brutally tortured. Such "goon squads" have existed for over a century, and without systemic changes they'll continue. I hope the DOJ extends their investigation far beyond this incident.
In a post-NYT v. Sullivan world the right expects to be able to bend defamation law to attack their critics without facing the same consequences for themselves. Perhaps they'll try to establish a free speech version of qualified immunity, which would hold certain parties acting in "good faith" (ie themselves) blameless unless a specific falsehood of theirs had previously been ruled to be defamation. Not sure they've thought all of this through, but I'm sure SCOTUS will fill in the blanks when they overturn Sullivan
Missing the point
Including the broadcast networks in the debates is part of the system of trading beneficial coverage in exchange for access to candidates and advertising dollars. Candidates (not voters) benefit from sensationalism, and laundering their messaging through the national media is an effective way to set the terms of national conversation.
For either national party to run its own debates and license the broadcast rights would be a thumb in the eye of the media companies they rely on, and an open invitation for the networks to tilt coverage toward the other party. It's a prisoner's dilemma that reflects one of the most dangerous forms of regulatory capture: that of media companies over the apparatus of public accountability.
If our media landscape were competitive, as it once was, the debates would likely be run by the national parties or by neutral third parties, as they once were.
New forms
We may start to see attacks on websites exploit this by mass posting vaguely illegal content. Given the thousands (millions?) of fake social media accounts being used, it wouldn't be a stretch.
Intentionally pedantic
"The measure would allow felony prosecution of those who intentionally break the law"
"Intentionally" is the key word that will be used to distinguish good speech from bad. No supporters of Ericksen would be prosecuted under this law, because *they* would never intentionally disrupt commerce.
Just ask the Bundy brothers
Not criminal, but very guilty
The details of what HRC did are damning and indicative of a profound lack of competence with technology. Keep in mind, it's not as if Hillary's term at State was marked by huge successes in other areas. The decisions she made were largely counterproductive and damaging to US credibility. The reasons for them were largely self-serving and silly.
She broke no laws regarding her e-mail server, but her time at State leaves much to be answered for.
Anything about investment in new public transportation tech? Drafting legislation to better regulate autonomous vehicles? Encouraging innovation by reforming the broken USTPO? Lowering copyright terms to a sane level? Protecting fair use rights? Establishing a federal agency to inform congress and POTUS about technology? Tech approaches to global warming? Investment in commercial space travel? Asteroid mitigation?
Adding 2% broadband coverage and breaking private encryption is doing less than nothing. This sucks.
I wouldn't be surprised if a Climton staffer used the same glitch, and the DNC is taking this convenient opportunity to throw up a smokescreen and attempt to undermine the Sanders campaign at the same time.
Sanders is calling their bluff, and my guess is they'll back down quietly.
Try to understand, Hillary has never had any personal use for encryption in her own life, and so doesn't realize how important it is. She's never, for instance, set up a private email server, or held a security clearance.
To expect her to have a clear understanding of cyber security is absurd. /s
"After unanticipated press coverage sufficiently raised community awareness about this issue, NHPD plans for this initiative have been shelved… "
With these kinds of idiots in charge, you can imagine how quickly things could get out of hand if law enforcement programs, policies, and interpretations of the law were kept secret, especially on the national level.
Oh, wait...
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 16th, 2015 @ 5:40am
Critics of these bombings are saying exactly what you are: that the concept of precision bombings is a cruel joke. It's proponents who make fantastical claims of "surgical strikes," and then label innocent victims as enemies to cover their asses.
I grok that you feel these bombings are a necessary evil, but there's no factual basis for that position, and you're ignoring the deception which has been used to justify them.
Why did ABC News think that this "senior official" should be granted anonymity to threaten people with drone strikes for tweets?
Come on, ABC. Do you think this guy would think twice about bombing whistleblowers and journalists too? They too have been described as a threat--one far worse than tweets.
Pro-DRM Game CEO: "Yes, The Witcher 3 has sold very well...but imagine how many more sales it would have had if they had slathered it in DRM!"
Of course, wasting money on DRM can only last so long before competitors take their lunch by using every available resource to serve the customer instead of punishing them for buying their games!
Orwell strikes again
I thought back to Orwell's 1984, and I think this section (adjusted for gender) captures my thoughts on this: "Obedience is not enough. Unless she is suffering, how can you be sure that she is obeying your will and not her own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing."
It's necessary!
Remember: cops need civilians to put their lives in danger to protect the safety of the public. If we don't protect cops using our own bodies as meat shields, we'll all be in danger of seeing someone smoking marijuana, or even selling loose cigarettes! I trust the police when they say they'll generously reward our selflessness by not throwing us in prison.
/s
Re: Re: David #6 - Re: Well, there is a point to data exclusivity
But aren't the hypothetical medicines we're talking about already being sold and marketed? If the original trials weren't enough to establish safety, why approve the drug in the first place?
That's what the "more data is necessary" argument boils down to, isn't it?
There are other, much better ways to get more data than adding more IP restrictions to an industry already overloaded with them.
This is kind of horrifying
Yes, this guy is a colossal dumbass...
...but he was smart enough to fool the DoD into giving him access to the materials, or else acquire them without permission.
Think about that.
The only way this can get dumber is if they claimed they acted in self-defense.
I'm tired of this stupidity
A pillow could be used to asphyxiate somebody. Shoes could help a criminal run away. Underwear could conceal explosives. Sunglasses can help a suspect hide from police. Even something as innocuous as yogurt can be used to deliver deadly poison, or to hide narcotics.
Can these fools get it through their heads that things are often useful to criminals simply because they're USEFUL??