The Wanderer’s Techdirt Profile

wanderer

About The WandererTechdirt Insider




The Wanderer’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 26th, 2017 @ 9:22am

    Re: Re: Reasonability

    The constitution clearly states that the ONLY reasonable way to search or seize people or their belongings is via Warrant.

    Someone (I think probably you) has said that here before, and as before, I have to ask: where does it say this?

    The Fourth Amendment doesn't say this, at least not clearly.

    The Fourth Amendment says clearly and explicitly that unreasonable searches and seizures are forbidden.

    The Fourth Amendment also clearly and explicitly defines the conditions under which warrants may be issued.

    However, it does not make any clear or explicit connection between these two. In particular, it does not say that only a search which is authorized by a warrant is reasonable; in fact, it does not appear to clearly or explicitly define "reasonable" at all.

    If you see a clear or explicit statement connecting these two together, or a definition of "reasonable" elsewhere in the Constitution that I've missed, please point it out in exact words - and explain exactly how those words mean what you're saying they mean. Because so far, I'm not seeing it.

  • Jul 26th, 2017 @ 7:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Is Techdirt ever going to grasp what inTRAnet verus inTERnet means in practical terms?

    Just as a note, the original word is actually "rigmarole" - the "rigamarole" spelling appears to be a later spelling-drift modification.

    It is a very good word to have in one's vocabulary, however.

  • Jul 16th, 2017 @ 4:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Par for the course hypocrisy

    Nobody's investigating that because people know exactly how it happened: Trump won small margins in many states, and Clinton won large margins in a few states, and Trump's many states had more combined electoral votes than Clinton's few states.

    It's related to the same way gerrymandering works: pack the people who oppose you into a small number of districts, so that although their candidates in those districts win by huge majorities, their candidates in the majority of districts lose. Electoral-college allocation isn't rigged in quite the same way as the usual gerrymandering process (for one thing, the district boundaries are the state boundaries, which aren't really redraw-able in the same way), but the underlying mechanism still works.

    IIRC, if three particular states with relatively tiny margins had gone for Clinton rather than Trump, that would have shifted enough electoral votes to the opposite column we'd have had another President Clinton this year. I don't remember which states that is, however, and it's possible I'm remembering it wrong.

  • Jul 8th, 2017 @ 4:22am

    Re: Re:

    They'll probably count that as a win, since it means the bad guys don't have the advantages and conveniences (mainly, fast communications) which come from using modern technology, and so are less likely to succeed at committing their crimes.

  • Jul 7th, 2017 @ 5:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about Twitter

    Just one minor point: the principle of "freedom of speech" is not exclusively about government restrictions on speech. That's all the First Amendment covers, true, and for the most part all the law addresses - but on a philosophical (and perhaps also a practical) level, it extends to anything which restrains people from speaking freely.

    That's not to say that CNN is in the wrong here; if you want to say things that are frowned upon by (as you put it) polite society, you have to be willing to live with the consequences that society may impose upon you. It's just that if those consequences include preventing you from saying those things (as distinct from ignoring you or refusing to give you a platform), that society has thereby departed from "freedom of speech".

  • Jul 6th, 2017 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re:

    I'm fairly sure their logic is something like:

    * We can't report how many of the communications which we have collected are from Americans unless we know which ones are and which ones aren't.

    * We can't know which communications are from Americans unless we examine the communications in ways which would violate the privacy of whoever they belong to.

    * If we don't examine the communications, there is less violation of privacy than if we do.

    * Therefore, requiring us to figure out which communications are from Americans amounts to requiring us to violate Americans' privacy.

  • Jul 1st, 2017 @ 3:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair use doesn't mean that

    Well, some people have argued (and I think still do argue) that putting up a "terms of service" page on your Website stating the terms under which you are offering the site's contents, and also stating that "by using/browsing/etc. this Website, you are indicating your acceptance of the terms of this agreement; if you do not accept this agreement, do not use/browse/etc. this Website", creates a valid and enforceable "do not cross" line. The proposition seems dubious to me (except perhaps under the CFAA...), but if they've ever been proven wrong in court, I don't recall the incident.

    That said, you're very likely right, all in all.

  • Jun 30th, 2017 @ 5:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair use doesn't mean that

    I think what's being suggested is that Zillow only serves up the images to people who have signed in via a Zillow account, rather than to any member of the anonymous Web-browsing public who asks for them.

    It's also possible that in that case the terms of the agreement you have to accept in creating such an account would state that you aren't allowed to take the images to use elsewhere - in which case Zillow might have a breach-of-contract case, and would certainly be entitled to close the account.

    As I've never had any real interaction with Zillow myself, I can't speak to the accuracy of either of those suggestions.

  • Jun 30th, 2017 @ 5:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Monster in the Mirror

    Proportional representation has its advantages, but I'm fairly sure it also has downsides - and I'm more sure that even with a proportional-representation system, as long as we still use single-choice voting there will still be incentive for strategic voting rather than expressing your actual preferences.

    IMO, a switch to ranked-preference voting (preferably Condorcet-satisfying) is still an essential step, regardless; the possibility of proportional representation strikes me as an orthogonal change.

  • Jun 29th, 2017 @ 4:48am

    Re:

    Because if your girlfriend didn't have your Spotify password, she would have to pay Spotify herself in order to listen to the stream, and that would be more money going to Spotify which the rightsholders could then demand their share of.

  • Jun 29th, 2017 @ 4:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone left because of Chippy?

    It sounds to me like he has a problem with the idea that the defacement of a Website not directly related to the FOX 40 rewards program - at least not in the public mind - would lead people to leave that program.

    I'm not familiar with either the site or the program themselves, so I can't be sure that makes sense with the underlying facts, but that's how I interpret his comments.

  • Jun 29th, 2017 @ 4:31am

    Re: Re: Re: I think you misunderstand

    In order for something to be a hate crime, it first needs to be a crime.

    What part of what you described is a crime?

  • Jun 28th, 2017 @ 4:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    ...how does recognizing that a market is naturally structured in such a way that running it in any way which is not a monopoly will be impractically inefficient, and regulating that market to limit the negative impacts of that monopoly, constitute "starting [a] monopoly affair"?

    The monopoly would have existed with or without the regulation, or the FCC. All the FCC did was attempt to keep the negative aspects of the monopoly in check, using the power it has under Title II.

    And it mostly seemed to work, until the companies convinced the FCC that the fact that they also provided some non-Title-II-compatible services meant that none of their services should be classified under Title II. At which point the regulation went away, and the monopoly effect was still there.

    And the result is where the market now stands: little or no competition in most regions, horrible customer service ratings, high prices, arguably-abusive terms of service, et cetera.

  • Jun 28th, 2017 @ 4:48am

    Re: Re:

    ...why did you feel the need to make an oblique, passive-aggressive post indicating that you aren't American?

  • Jun 28th, 2017 @ 4:45am

    Re: Seeking correction

    Speaking purely as a pseudonymous commenter, and not affiliated with Techdirt or Mike Masnick in any other way:

    If the way the WC3 decides such things is by voting on proposals, and this proposal was voted down (multiple times!), then how is it not correct to say that the WC3 rejected the proposal?


    If your objection is that saying that the WC3 rejected it makes it look as if the decision was unanimous, and all members of the WC3 agreed with that decision:

    Saying that the WC3 rejected it is not saying that every member of the WC3 rejected it, only that the organization as an entity did so. As far as I can see, the only ways to demonstrate that the WC3 did not reject a proposal would be to either show that the WC3 actually accepted that proposal, to show that the proposal was never presented to the WC3, or to show that the WC3 never came to a decision on the presented versions of that proposal (and even that last might be argued to constitute rejection).


    If your objection is that saying that the WC3 rejected it makes it look as if the decision was unilateral, and made without regard to the opinions of the WC3's members:

    The fact that (an apparent majority of?) the members of the WC3 agreed with the rejection does not make it any less a rejection, and in fact would reflect negatively on those members rather than just on the WC3 as a unit.


    If your objection is something else, please clarify what it is that you find objectionable about this.

  • Jun 27th, 2017 @ 5:15am

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

    One big reason why it gets such a negative reaction is that there's considerable difficulty in defining "homicidal maniac" in a sufficiently non-arbitrary way that whoever is charged with making the determination couldn't apply the label to - and thus impose that deprivation of access to weaponry on - any desired person.

    Until after the person has already gone on a rampage, at least, at which point it's too late to do much (if any) good.

  • Jun 26th, 2017 @ 2:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: democracy is sad

    Are you free to offer other people rides on your private aircraft, and fly them to their destinations?

    What about if you charge them for it - just enough to cover your costs, of course?

    What about if you start charging more, to make a profit?

    What about if you use some of those profits to buy more aircraft, and hire other people to pilot those aircraft on your behalf, to fly other people to their destinations?

    At what point do you cease to be permitted to ignore the security-theater requirements that the TSA has in place?

    And if you can't ignore them at that point, why can you ignore them before that point?

  • Jun 26th, 2017 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re: "Lesbian separatists"?

    This is apparently a (mostly past?) political movement, sufficiently well-known to be documented on Wikipedia without [citation needed] tags.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism#Lesbian_separatism

  • Jun 25th, 2017 @ 5:18am

    Re: Re: This would have been reasonable years ago

    I'd agree that "Comic Con" shouldn't be, but I think there's room to argue that "ComicCon" should be...

  • Jun 24th, 2017 @ 8:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIP George Carlin

    When considered in light of later events in the series, the reason seems clear enough to me; the whale and the bowl of petunias must both be previous incarnations of Agrajag, and the bowl of petunias remembers having fallen to its death from orbit around that same planet.

More comments from The Wanderer >>