The Wanderer’s Techdirt Profile

wanderer

About The WandererTechdirt Insider




The Wanderer’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: YAY!

    That quote could be paraphrased as "For the purpose of securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, we establish these rules."

    That doesn't restrict the rules from applying to people other than "ourselves and our posterity"; it only states the purpose behind the rules.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 6:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Marketplace making choice beats bureaucrats doing it for us

    It's easier to influence the government to change something than to influence a private monopoly to do so.

    If the government is doing the wrong thing, the solution is to push to change what the government does, not to hand the domain over to a private monopoly instead.

    (Handing it over to a private non-monopoly might be even better, except that the tendency in some markets is for that to devolve into monopoly over time anyway unless some outside force - such as government - acts to prevent it.)

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 6:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Profitability changes as the market does

    No, I think he's saying that he went away for a while, then came back, and is now still present.

    I do think I remember a period where there were posts from My_Name_Here, then one where there weren't, and now again one where there are - which would seem to fit with that.

  • Jun 20th, 2017 @ 11:05am

    Re: "not some mechanical process like a photocopier"

    The position from which the photograph is taken, and the angle at which it is taken, combine into what is termed the "composition" of the photograph; that composition is considered to be a creative element (including I think in US law, although other factors may override there in some cases), and it is that creativity which differentiates the photograph from the output of a photocopier.

    Now, if you really wanted to, you could try putting the original on the photocopier glass at odd angles and arguing that this choice on your part of how to pose the model constitutes creative input and that you should get a copyright on the resulting photocopies because of that creativity. I'm not sure whether that would hold up in court, but if you happen to get the same courts that issued the decision in this article, you might have a chance.

  • Jun 20th, 2017 @ 5:40am

    Re:

    Because the fact that he asks the question serves as a signal that there is something going on behind the scenes, even if he doesn't explicitly reveal what that something is.

    (Also, flagged for blatant anti-Semitism. If it's somehow supposed to be some kind of metaphor, you're being too subtle about it.)

  • Jun 20th, 2017 @ 4:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'

    The problem with the "parallel creation"/"both of them are the originators" line of argument is that, from what I read, Shiva is explicitly arguing that everything else/earlier(/independent, possibly?) which people call E-mail is not E-mail, and that what he created is the first thing which qualifies.

    He's claiming exclusivity in the role, in other words, which is exactly the reverse of what parallel creation is about.

    If he claimed that he independently devised something which reflects more of the features of a modern E-mail system than the widely established electronic mail systems of the time, that would be one thing; it might be a more reasonable position, and (particularly the "independently" part) might very well be deserving of respect on its own.

    But that does not appear to be even close to what he is actually claiming in practice.

  • Jun 19th, 2017 @ 7:16pm

    Re: Too Much Time on Sports, Not Enough Classes

    In the context, the term "likeness" refers to the image of him which appears in the recorded video. Every time you record a video of something, or for that matter take a picture of it, you are creating a likeness of that thing.

  • Jun 15th, 2017 @ 8:04am

    Re:

    Why? None of those things require paying the cable company, so what do they have to do with cord-cutting?

  • Jun 15th, 2017 @ 8:03am

    Re:

    We still have pay-TV service (although we're about to switch from Comcast to Verizon, apparently) for one reason and one reason only: cable news. My father watches it semi-compulsively, and if there's an alternative that doesn't require a pay-TV subscription, I don't know about it.

  • Jun 12th, 2017 @ 8:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Actually, I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one article where both of them (distinguished by snowflake-image) were calling the other one out as fake.

    I'm starting to wonder whether they're really just one person posting from two separate places in order to create plausible deniability and add to the confusion. I'm not at all convinced of that, you understand, but the possibility has raised itself in my mind.

  • Jun 11th, 2017 @ 4:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulating the Internet will stop terrorism!

    I can fight a monopoly much easier than I can the government.

    For one thing, how?

    The normal non-government way to influence a company is by "voting with your wallet": taking your business elsewhere. With a monopoly, that's not an option.

    The only other way I can see to influence a company, aside from things like threatening or using physical violence against its decision-makers (which is problematic for other reasons, not least that if it's legal then so are similar threats or use of violence against you), is through the medium of government.

    By contrast, you can change (the direction and/or policies of) government much more easily than you can a monopoly: by voting, by protesting, by swaying other people to do similarly. None of those tactics work on a monopoly, except through the medium of government; if you rule out government from the picture, that seems to leave you with no way to influence the monopoly at all, as far as I can see.

    What alternative ways of fighting the monopoly do you have in mind, which the monopoly would not be able to easily shut down by use of its market power?

  • Jun 11th, 2017 @ 4:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    FYI: any post in which you address an anonymous or clearly-a-known-person-not-by-that-name as "Leigh", I flag as trolling.

  • Jun 11th, 2017 @ 6:03am

    Re: 'Use your DNA' is a bit broad...

    If the technology to do so based on DNA sample (or even just DNA sequence) becomes available, then yes, the quoted statement from the TOS does seem to permit doing exactly that.

  • Jun 10th, 2017 @ 5:35pm

    Re: Re: WE'RE THE REALITY WINNER

    The way whistleblowing works, when done legitimately, is that you report the wrongdoing to the lowest level of authority which is not complicit in the wrongdoing; that way, the authorities at that level can intervene in the lower levels, and use their authority to override the wrongdoing and penalize the wrongdoers.

    When the chain of those in government who are complicit in the wrongdoing goes all the way up to the highest official oversight, the only higher authority left to report it to is the public - and the most effective way to do that is to give it to the press.

    Now, whether that chain really does go all the way up - or whether there is even wrongdoing to be reported on - in this particular case is another question. However, there are plenty of examples of cases where it does appear to so do, including most prominently Edward Snowden.

  • Jun 9th, 2017 @ 12:33pm

    Re: Position Appointments

    And also they don't demand a declaration of absolute personal loyalty before being willing to nominate a candidate for a post.

    (To be fair, we don't know for a fact that Trump does either, but it would seem to fit the facts we do know and it would explain a few things.)

  • Jun 9th, 2017 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If I'm understanding things right, the reason your posts are being held for moderation is because the system is detecting them as coming from someone who has been flagged (and hidden) disproportionately often in the past.

    I.e., this would be the sequence of events:

    • You make a number of posts.
    • Many or all of them get flagged and hidden.
    • You make another post.
    • The system recognizes "Hey, this guy tends to get flagged a lot, maybe we should check this post before letting it through", and your post gets sent to the moderation queue.
    • Someone on the TD staff checks the moderation queue (maybe immediately, maybe hours later, maybe days later, depending on the timing and the circumstances), sees that your post isn't spam, and lets it through.

    That would seem to result in the scenario we see without anyone specifically filtering your posts; it's just the system working as designed, and in fact the people you rail against (the TD staff) are the ones letting your posts out of moderation.

    And the root cause of it would be the fact that your previous posts have inspired the community to flag them as trolling on too many occasions. Whether you want to place the blame for that on the community or yourself, you certainly can't really blame it on the TD staff.

  • Jun 9th, 2017 @ 12:36am

    Re: Its all going down as planned.

    Actually, that's not where the third-party doctrine comes from.

    A business would have a full Fourth Amendment privacy interest in its own data, about the business itself, just as a private individual would.

    Where the Third Party Doctrine comes from is that the business does not have a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in someone else's data.

    If the data were still in the hands of the "someone else" (the first party), then the government (the second party) could not search or seize it without a warrant.

    But as soon as the first party hands it over to a business (the third party), or indeed to another private individual, the first party can no longer claim that privacy interest - because the first party no longer controls access to the data.

    The third party can also not claim the privacy interest, because revealing the data doesn't violate the third party's privacy; it only violates the first party's privacy.

    So the second party can demand access to the data without need of a warrant, because the first party gave up privacy in the data when the data was handed over to the third party, and the third party does not have a privacy interest in the data.

    This is not a pretty result, and I'm not happy about the consequences, but I find it hard to find a hole in the logic.

  • Jun 7th, 2017 @ 6:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If you're using their messaging service (presumably through a Web form), you're not sending E-mail. If you're contacting them by E-mail, you're doing it by sending mail from an independent, pre-existing E-mail account to a known (and publicly annouce-able) E-mail address.

    They wouldn't be the first people to try to define "fill out a Web form that goes into our systems and may show up in a shared mailbox as an E-mail eventually" as "send an E-mail to us", or vice versa, but they're just as wrong as all the other people who've done that are.

  • Jun 7th, 2017 @ 4:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: If it's this fast when the options are DRM-encumbered...

    One of the meanings of "deprecate" is "belittle" or "put down". The example from the relevant WordNet definition is "The teacher should not deprecate his student's efforts".

    This meaning is relatively obscure nowadays, except in the context of the stock adjective "self-deprecating", in favor of the (software-derived?) sense "label as obsolete and due to be removed later" - but is nonetheless still in valid use.

  • Jun 6th, 2017 @ 5:56am

    Re: Wait, What?

    It doesn't. Where did you get the idea that it does?

    The first sentence is establishing background, which has been discussed here (and elsewhere) for a long time; the second sentence is introducing new developments, set against that background.

More comments from The Wanderer >>