The Wanderer’s Techdirt Profile

wanderer

About The Wanderer




The Wanderer’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 18th, 2018 @ 6:52am

    Re:

    You might want to be careful with you phrase that. Although on a few moments' consideration I see why there's enough of a difference to warrant distinguishing the two, my immediate reaction to that argument stated that way was to think of your own recurring remarks about otherwording - and not everyone is going to bother taking those few moments' consideration.

  • Oct 17th, 2018 @ 6:29am

    Re: Re: This should be really easy?

    That sounds to me like exactly what his interpretation is. I'm not sure how you see that as supporting the position you seem to have been arguing.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 5:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bode -- "Gary" fell for fanboy trolling as "Richard Bennet".

    Oh, the FCC may very well have claimed that, and if they did they're wrong.

    But as far as I remember noticing, Richard Bennett did not claim that.

    I was attempting to address only the specific claim that he had stated something (a broad generalization) which I do not remember him stating (in that broad form).

    I have no problem with people arguing against him, or even achieving epic smackdown; based on what I've seen of his behavior here, I think he's a toxic and moderately horrible person. I just prefer it to happen on the basis of what his actual positions and arguments appear to be (particularly when those positions and arguments are assertions of things which do appear to be actual facts), rather than on what seem to me to be distortions of those things.

  • Oct 15th, 2018 @ 8:02pm

    Re: Re:

    Is there any reason why you keep capitalizing "bail" in your comments? AFAIK there's no convention to refer to it with that form, but you seem to be fairly consistent about it.

  • Oct 14th, 2018 @ 5:43pm

    Re: Re:

    "I made a mistake once. I thought I was wrong, but I wasn't."

    I heard that version from my father (repeatedly, over the course of my life), but ISTR also having heard the sentiment applied to Einstein's concession WRT the cosmological constant.

  • Oct 14th, 2018 @ 10:01am

    Re: 2+2 = ALWAYS MAKES 4

    Careful with those absolute statements, now.

    Although 2+2 does usually make 4, there are two exceptions:

    In base 3 (the lowest in which '2' is even a thing), 2+2 makes 11.

    And in base 4, 2+2 makes 10.

    (...no, I have no idea what this would mean by analogy in the things your comment actually talks about; why would you think that? I'm just being pedantic, because absolute statements tend to bother me.)

  • Oct 14th, 2018 @ 9:09am

    "the full three Pinocchios" is wrong

    A minor detail: the Pinocchio scale used by the Washington Post's Fact Checker doesn't top out at three Pinocchios, but rather goes up to four.

    As I write this, the front page of the Fact Checker blog - listing only the most recent ten fact checks - shows no fewer than six four-Pinocchio claims.

  • Oct 14th, 2018 @ 4:13am

    Re: Re: The usual anti-corporate double-standard?

    To play devil's advocate a bit: how would that work with things like online ordering (where they at least shouldn't know your location, and thus have any ability to calculate your local sales tax, before checkout time), or for that matter mail-order catalogs?

    The only sane outcome of that which I can see would be for such tax-rate-unknown sales channels to be permitted to advertise the pre-tax price - and that would put the brick-and-mortar stores which do know the sales-tax rate at an even bigger competitive disadvantage (because their sticker price would then have to be higher by comparison, even though it's no longer comparing apples to apples).

    Since this is (as you say) used so universally in other jurisdictions, I imagine there must be some solution in use, but I can't think of one that doesn't have at least that downside.

  • Oct 13th, 2018 @ 4:34am

    Re: Don't tell me the rate is $100 if 'must haves' make it $150.

    On the other hand (to all of the above, including your own "other hand"), a requirement that advertised prices for products which are subject to a tax rate which the advertiser can reasonably be expected to know at the time of the ad include the amount of the tax in the advertised price would not be unreasonable and might even be a good idea.

    It's irrelevant to the hidden-fees conversation, of course, with only the tangential connection that both of them relate to whether or not the price you pay in the end is the same as the price that was advertised.

  • Oct 13th, 2018 @ 4:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Bode -- "Gary" fell for fanboy trolling as "Richard Bennet".

    Now, be fair.

    The comment you're paraphrasing was referring to the fact that the FCC's comment period is intended to enable members of the public to provide the FCC with information it may not have had or analysis it may not have carried out, and therefore not only is the identity of the commenter irrelevant to the content (except insofar as it may make the content more or less credible), multiple comments providing the same information or analysis are redundant.

    It was not claiming to be a general principle that applies to all comments submitted anywhere.

  • Oct 11th, 2018 @ 8:32pm

    Re: How is it not null and void?

    Where the "border exception" is read into the Fourth Amendment is in the word "reasonable", and in precedent on determining what searches are and are not reasonable (and therefore do not or do require a warrant).

    My understanding is that long-established precedent has determined that searching luggage at border crossings is reasonable, and so is searching vehicles (for stowaways and/or people being smuggled, et cetera) at those same border crossings;

    and then that so is searching those same things *near* a border, but not actually at a crossing, because someone could have crossed without passing through a checkpoint;

    and then that so is searching houses, et cetera, near a border, because someone who crossed withough passing through a checkpoint could have hidden there;

    and then that anywhere someone could have travelled to from the border in a short amount of time (a few hours) is near enough to the border for all those previous things to still be reasonable.

    And of course in the modern day, you can travel a hundred miles in less than two hours by car, so of course anything within a hundred miles is close enough to the border to fall within that last determination.

  • Oct 11th, 2018 @ 9:28am

    Re: This should be really easy

    To be fair, that could just mean that if they'd realized the license meant that, they wouldn't have chosen to offer the content under that license - and they could then argue that they shouldn't required to adhere to license terms they didn't intend to offer.

    Their only recourse in that case, however, should be to relicense the content (and license any future content) under a different license, which does have the terms and meaning they want - even if that means defining their own license, rather than using an existing defined-for-general-usage license such as the ones Creative Commons provides.

  • Oct 11th, 2018 @ 5:38am

    Re: Re:

    Because it's offtopic, troll-baiting, and gets posted into lots and lots of different articles without apparent provocation to do so (and thus could arguably qualify as spam).

  • Oct 11th, 2018 @ 5:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: stockholders

    I think that was the point: because so many lawsuits don't make sense (and yet some of them succeed anyway), the fact that this one wouldn't make sense wouldn't preclude it from going forward (and potentially succeeding anyway).

  • Oct 8th, 2018 @ 7:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm guessing this is the same person who, in comments on another recent article, claimed that only a handful of people - presumably, site regulars - actually flag comments (as any of the three) and characterized the assertion/impression/appearance/etc. that it's done by the community as being a sham.

    Or that's how I parsed those comments, anyway. As to whether that's the intended interpretation, your guess is as good as mine.

  • Oct 7th, 2018 @ 3:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linux Support

    That doesn't explain the lack of a Linux version of GOG Galaxy, though; the same games are available for Linux both with and without the client.

    Also, wouldn't they still need to support the game on Linux under Wine, whether they have a Linux-native version available or not? The support might be more limited, but it seems to me there'd still be a cost there, and quite possibly enough of one for the difference to be relatively minimal.

  • Oct 6th, 2018 @ 4:52pm

    Re: Why Comments ?

    Why do government regulatory agencies solicit public comments ??

    Because even though the regulatory body may be composed of experts, there's no possible way to be sure that the regulator won't miss noticing and/or thinking of something that's relevant enough to be taken into consideration, so it's valuable to make sure that other experts out in the general populace can contribute information the regulator may have missed.

    While the regulator may not be under any obligation to take such input into account, if they don't solicit public comment, they won't be able to take the input into account (because it won't be provided).

    Importantly, mere "I don't like or want this" opinions do not constitute information worth contributing; in theory, a regulator may be not merely permitted but actually required to ignore comments of that nature.

    Also importantly, once a single comment has presented a given piece of information, additional comments presenting the same information (without new insights resulting from a different viewpoint) are of no further use in making sure that the regulator is fully informed.

  • Oct 5th, 2018 @ 11:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: 'If we didn't write them, they don't count.'

    If he's the person who usually expresses such opinions here, his position seems to be "those bitching about this problem also supported the previous rules, and by supporting those supported the FCC having the right to decide to impose them, which means also supporting the FCC having the right to decide not to impose them, so for those people to complain about the FCC doing exactly that is hypocritical".

    The hole in that logic should be obvious.

  • Oct 5th, 2018 @ 7:45am

    Re: 'I'm a politician, we're NEVER wrong.'

    I think the more honest response (and also one they might actually give, in some form) would be along the lines of "Yeah, the women who are already in the profession and aren't getting out are in more danger, but all the women who never get dragged into the profession in the first place (because the law made dragging women into it more dangerous) have been saved!". With the implication that the benefit of the latter far outweighs the detriment of the former.

    It's still specious, of course, especially when put up against real-world statistics about both halves of that divide - but it's at least internally consistent.

  • Oct 5th, 2018 @ 7:38am

    Re: Re: False Premise

    I'm not sure how that addresses the point the AC was trying to make.

    The AC's point, as I read it, seemed to be that if you're going to throttle for anti-congestion purposes at all, you should do it 24/7, even when congestion is not actually occurring - because otherwise the customer's experience will be inconsistent, and the customer will find the unpredictability itself ("what video quality can I get right now? No way to tell except to try!") irritating.

    Under that logic, the overall customer experience is better if the customer is always throttled down to the best quality that can be reliably provided, rather than unpredictably sometimes getting high quality and sometimes getting low quality with no way to be sure which will happen when.

    There's a certain amount of logic to that argument, but I do think the question it leaves unaddressed - of whether the customer aggravation from the inconsistency would really outweigh the customer aggravation from being unable to get the higher qualities at all - is a major one, and worth addressing.

More comments from The Wanderer >>