Right, I was thinking something similar, except less restrictive. For example:
You use software that files an incorrect DMCA notice?
The software part is irrelevant, if any incorrect notice at all gets filed, regardless of how or why, then that's a violation. I think a nice start to the penalty that ultimately gets inflicted would be removal of the requirement that the party who gets the notice needs to take action immediately or risk being sued. If the person filing notices is known to file invalid notices, then the person receiving the notice has a year to take action and remove the content instead of needing to do it now or face court action.
Any attempt to bring sanity to the DMCA would attract a swarm of RIAA/MPAA lobbyists.
That's where Google's $16 billion income comes into play. The laws that get drafted and passed are done so by legislators who got paid, so pay them to pass a more balanced law if that's what it takes.
It doesn't need it and it's YOUR private, personal confidential information that poor software design let Uber steal.
Battery state is now considered private, personal confidential information also? Hey, my battery is at 78% right now, what are you going to do with that information?
This has nothing to do with poor software design. Any application should be notified when the phone is entering a low power state, or a power saving state, so that the application can disable certain high-power features if the programmers decided to add that feature. Maybe Uber doesn't need a constant GPS feed until you're actually ordering, for example, but it's nice to have that position information if your battery is fine.
Secondly, WTF is it with Uber? Just to go to the pool 3x a week would cost me about $450+/- per month - it runs about $20 each way. Add in other places i frequent and it'd be cheaper to buy a Tesla Model S - including insurance and taxes.
Why is that an Uber problem? If you take a taxi to the pool 3x a week, is that going to be much cheaper? Why are you paying for rides to the pool 3x a week anyway?
This just in: if you use Uber to drive you 10 miles to and from work every day, it's going to cut into your budget.
The law should just be structured so that any submission needs to be done with a "good faith" understanding that you own the copyright. It then moves the burden of determining that to the people filing the complaints. Any complaint received will be assumed to be a good faith complaint. If the people filing the complaints are using substandard software to identify content and file complaints without human intervention, then that's their problem and they should get penalized for filing invalid complaints. The burden of due diligence should not be on the people hosting content or the people who own or uploaded the content. Using bad software and then just saying in court that no one reviewed those complaints before they got filed should not be an excuse. If the complaint gets filed then it's treated like any other complaint, the people filing the complaints should have the burden of ensuring the complaints are valid before filing, not after.
The problem is that the DMCA (being written by the copyright industry for the copyright industry) provides no punishment, no discouragement for invalid claims.
That's true, that's the problem. There's a solution, though. Google has a net income of over $16 billion and a market cap of almost $500 billion. I would love for them to put up an 8 figure bounty to a lobbying firm that can get sane copyright laws pushed through Congress.
The current situation is a great example. Any human at Fox, when faced with this case, would admit that they do not own the copyright. But they're using software which doesn't know the difference. The software is sure that they own the copyright, because it was programmed like that, so why shouldn't Fox get hit with a penalty if they're using that software knowingly? If they don't want a penalty, then they need smarter software. They need a way of identifying their own source material with a series of flags which says which sections they do and do not own the copyright on, and smarter software to look at those and skip the sections where they can't enforce copyright. Otherwise, there needs to be a penalty in the DMCA for people or companies submitting repeated false positives. One penalty could be that section about the penalties for not immediately removing the material are waived for all complaints submitted by the party in question, pending a formal review of the submitted complaint. Maybe a year to respond to the initial complaint would be a good starting point.
When I watch "pranks" like this one, inevitably those videos are filmed in a place like Australia or the UK. If someone tried that in the US they would get shot within the first few takes, and the person with the gun would probably not get charged.
Yeah, and if your doctor sends you an email that your prescription for Viagra is ready to be picked up, you probably aren't going to get that either. I'm OK with that.
It literally says in the first sentence of the summary that the FCC rule requires that manufacturers prevent users from changing the RF parameters. There's no claim that the FCC rule says that you have to block OS firmware. It should be obvious to anyone that the easiest way to prevent users from changing the RF parameters is to block OS firmware (that's the second sentence of the summary, by the way), but the story is that Linksys is going to find another way to lock down the RF module without blocking OS firmware.
So are you suggesting that the government should pass laws to regulate what journalists are allowed to say and how they're allowed to say it, or what stories they're allowed to cover? What about organizations like The Blaze, Fox News, or Breitbart, should the government step in to make sure they don't have a conservative bias? How about Free Republic or The Drudge Report, should the government pass some laws to make sure they give equal coverage to all kinds of issues?
The fact is that it is almost impossible to remove bias from news, just due to the fact that people are involved. Any editor or publisher has to make a decision about which stories to cover, and those decisions are inevitably colored by their personal biases. From the people at the top all the way down to the actual journalists, bias is just part of it. It really takes a truly remarkable individual to be able to completely separate facts from their own bias and only report the facts. These days we have a lot of unremarkable journalists.
It's the old saying, "When all you have is a hammer..."
You think Excel abuse is bad? Most of the time when I ask my customers for a screenshot they send me a Word document with a picture in it. A picture which has been resized to a lower resolution than the original, thanks to Word. The ridiculousness is that saving an actual image file is the exact same number of steps:
Press PrtSc to take a screenshot Click the Start button Click on the program (Word or Paint) Press Ctrl-V Press Ctrl-S
But no, I never just get a damn image of what they're looking at, it's always a document with an image in it, and the image doesn't even fit the page of the document.
The "evident" is some professor who THINKS that is a fallow cornfield. Just as the kid THINKS there is a city there.
The person who thinks it is a cornfield is someone who actually has experience working in the Mayan lowlands, who has seen fields like that in both satellite pictures and on the ground. The person who thinks it is a city is a kid in Canada.
Yes, someone needs to visit the area to confirm anything. But I'm not going to be paying those expedition costs. If the kid wants to foot the bill himself, fine, after all if he's claiming there's a city there then the burden of proof is on him.
There's probably a farmer somewhere in Mexico who knows the answer, but he may not be reading those news stories.
No, if a corporation moves its headquarters to the United States and starts doing business here it doesn't automatically become a person. A corporation and a person are two clearly different things, regardless of what Mitt Romney tells you. I'm not talking about some sort of shady legal classification based around money, I'm talking about reality.
What was delivered was a biased curated product instead.
A biased curated reflection of what the users were reading. Did Facebook claim it was ever anything else? Or does the GOP Congress just not like the fact that it's their stories that Facebook employees would rather not spread?
Government is interested due the reach of Facebook. And a feelgoodgoshtheyreallycareboutme byline in the press.
Government isn't interested, Republicans are interested. It feeds very nicely into their narrative that conservatives are under attack or being repressed or whatever.
Hillary is very much disliked among people on the Internet, except for the shills her PACs have hired.
The words "on the Internet" are not necessary in that sentence.
However, the media loves her
No, the establishment loves her. The media loves her insofar as they support the establishment. Many smaller media properties who are not in bed with the establishment and who don't have "insiders" as talking heads who get everything wrong this season do not in fact love her.
The media painting her as some kind of hero isn't working
I haven't seen the "hero" narrative. I've seen the "presumptive nominee" narrative, but not the "hero" one. If she's being painted as a hero at this point in the campaign season the reason for that is because of her presumptive opponent.
...so they're voting for the one guy who's different
I know. It's very similar to the support for Bernie Sanders except the opposite end of the spectrum.
The bottom line is we desperately need a new election system.
The next awakening needs to be centered around the fact that there are more than 2 political parties in this country, but that only 2 of them control the presidential election process.
On a site that is supposed to represent the curation of your interests and friends
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no, Facebook is supposed to represent the accumulation of all of your data, which they sell to anyone offering money. That's all they've ever been. The only reason they care whether you clicked on a story is so that they can add that data point to their database, show the same story to your friends to see if they can get those people to click on it also, and then sell that data to an advertiser. If you think they're doing anything else then you're delusional (yes I know your post history, so that assertion might be redundant).
The reason why Facebook has a market cap of over $340 billion is not because their users pay them. The people who sign on and click on news stories are not their customers, those people are the product that Facebook delivers.
Hillary gets a lot of free press - about how awesome she is, about how she did this or that for the good of mankind.
The "free press" Trump gets is pretty much all "look at the insane thing Trump is doing now" or "this new person thinks Trump is Hitler, don't you agree".
Seriously? That's what the world looks like to you, a bunch of Hillary love? That's what you see happening through your bias filter? You think people share all these stories about how Hillary is our savior? Is that what your gut tells you is going on with the man on the street?
Here's the reality. Clinton and Trump are both historically disliked. A lot of people hate Clinton, and a lot of people hate Trump, and both are disliked by a majority. Neither candidate is universally liked, in fact neither candidate is really even liked beyond their relatively small bases. Shit, a lot of Republicans don't even like Trump, he's right up there with Cruz among dislike. And most people other than Democrat party loyalists don't like Clinton either.
The Sanders campaign is what a love-fest looks like. Hillary's campaign is the same shit we've seen for decades, the only people behind her are people who don't think there's a problem with government. Trump is something completely different, he'll just outright tell you that he didn't say something that he was recorded saying and act like you should believe him. It's bizarre.
The allegation is corruption on the part of a business.
What the hell does that even mean? Does Facebook have some stated legally-binding policy somewhere which says that they will provide completely unbiased news coverage? Where is the corruption?
Since businesses are not actually people, but only run by them, then wouldn't it make sense if the biases of those people were reflected in the way the company does business? Is it illegal to have bias, or only show news stories that are of a particular brand? Because, if so, then virtually every news organization is guilty.
You really think that Trump has some sort of consistent ideology which matches up with one of the 2 major political parties in the country? His strategy is to say whatever it takes to get him through that minute, hour, interview, debate, etc, even if it's in complete opposition to what he said yesterday. He'll also just outright deny saying that he ever said something which he was recorded saying. He doesn't exactly have a consistent ethos which he uses to guide his opinions.
Wave action is what erodes and ultimately destroys islands, and any increase in the water level is going to have an effect on wave action.
That being said, from looking at the pictures in the PDF report it kind of looks like this can be explained by extreme weather events, like a cyclone. One of the islands has completely moved since the 1940s. As in, its current boundaries and its boundaries in the 1940s do not overlap at all. That sounds like "regular" erosion of island land brought on by extreme weather events. Whether those events are related to global warming would be another issue.
The point that AC was making wasn't with the actual numbers, it was the claim that the oil company is making a profit every step of the way. AC even said this:
your numbers are off but they're mostly besides the point
Slashdot Mirror
Right, I was thinking something similar, except less restrictive. For example:
You use software that files an incorrect DMCA notice?
The software part is irrelevant, if any incorrect notice at all gets filed, regardless of how or why, then that's a violation. I think a nice start to the penalty that ultimately gets inflicted would be removal of the requirement that the party who gets the notice needs to take action immediately or risk being sued. If the person filing notices is known to file invalid notices, then the person receiving the notice has a year to take action and remove the content instead of needing to do it now or face court action.
Any attempt to bring sanity to the DMCA would attract a swarm of RIAA/MPAA lobbyists.
That's where Google's $16 billion income comes into play. The laws that get drafted and passed are done so by legislators who got paid, so pay them to pass a more balanced law if that's what it takes.
It doesn't need it and it's YOUR private, personal confidential information that poor software design let Uber steal.
Battery state is now considered private, personal confidential information also? Hey, my battery is at 78% right now, what are you going to do with that information?
This has nothing to do with poor software design. Any application should be notified when the phone is entering a low power state, or a power saving state, so that the application can disable certain high-power features if the programmers decided to add that feature. Maybe Uber doesn't need a constant GPS feed until you're actually ordering, for example, but it's nice to have that position information if your battery is fine.
Secondly, WTF is it with Uber? Just to go to the pool 3x a week would cost me about $450+/- per month - it runs about $20 each way. Add in other places i frequent and it'd be cheaper to buy a Tesla Model S - including insurance and taxes.
Why is that an Uber problem? If you take a taxi to the pool 3x a week, is that going to be much cheaper? Why are you paying for rides to the pool 3x a week anyway?
This just in: if you use Uber to drive you 10 miles to and from work every day, it's going to cut into your budget.
The law should just be structured so that any submission needs to be done with a "good faith" understanding that you own the copyright. It then moves the burden of determining that to the people filing the complaints. Any complaint received will be assumed to be a good faith complaint. If the people filing the complaints are using substandard software to identify content and file complaints without human intervention, then that's their problem and they should get penalized for filing invalid complaints. The burden of due diligence should not be on the people hosting content or the people who own or uploaded the content. Using bad software and then just saying in court that no one reviewed those complaints before they got filed should not be an excuse. If the complaint gets filed then it's treated like any other complaint, the people filing the complaints should have the burden of ensuring the complaints are valid before filing, not after.
The problem is that the DMCA (being written by the copyright industry for the copyright industry) provides no punishment, no discouragement for invalid claims.
That's true, that's the problem. There's a solution, though. Google has a net income of over $16 billion and a market cap of almost $500 billion. I would love for them to put up an 8 figure bounty to a lobbying firm that can get sane copyright laws pushed through Congress.
The current situation is a great example. Any human at Fox, when faced with this case, would admit that they do not own the copyright. But they're using software which doesn't know the difference. The software is sure that they own the copyright, because it was programmed like that, so why shouldn't Fox get hit with a penalty if they're using that software knowingly? If they don't want a penalty, then they need smarter software. They need a way of identifying their own source material with a series of flags which says which sections they do and do not own the copyright on, and smarter software to look at those and skip the sections where they can't enforce copyright. Otherwise, there needs to be a penalty in the DMCA for people or companies submitting repeated false positives. One penalty could be that section about the penalties for not immediately removing the material are waived for all complaints submitted by the party in question, pending a formal review of the submitted complaint. Maybe a year to respond to the initial complaint would be a good starting point.
When I watch "pranks" like this one, inevitably those videos are filmed in a place like Australia or the UK. If someone tried that in the US they would get shot within the first few takes, and the person with the gun would probably not get charged.
Yeah, and if your doctor sends you an email that your prescription for Viagra is ready to be picked up, you probably aren't going to get that either. I'm OK with that.
It literally says in the first sentence of the summary that the FCC rule requires that manufacturers prevent users from changing the RF parameters. There's no claim that the FCC rule says that you have to block OS firmware. It should be obvious to anyone that the easiest way to prevent users from changing the RF parameters is to block OS firmware (that's the second sentence of the summary, by the way), but the story is that Linksys is going to find another way to lock down the RF module without blocking OS firmware.
It wasn't in Summon mode at all, he left it in Loiter mode and then it switched to Intimidate.
So are you suggesting that the government should pass laws to regulate what journalists are allowed to say and how they're allowed to say it, or what stories they're allowed to cover? What about organizations like The Blaze, Fox News, or Breitbart, should the government step in to make sure they don't have a conservative bias? How about Free Republic or The Drudge Report, should the government pass some laws to make sure they give equal coverage to all kinds of issues?
The fact is that it is almost impossible to remove bias from news, just due to the fact that people are involved. Any editor or publisher has to make a decision about which stories to cover, and those decisions are inevitably colored by their personal biases. From the people at the top all the way down to the actual journalists, bias is just part of it. It really takes a truly remarkable individual to be able to completely separate facts from their own bias and only report the facts. These days we have a lot of unremarkable journalists.
That's pretty handy, I didn't realize they added that. Because, you see, the only thing I know how to use is Paint.
It's the old saying, "When all you have is a hammer..."
You think Excel abuse is bad? Most of the time when I ask my customers for a screenshot they send me a Word document with a picture in it. A picture which has been resized to a lower resolution than the original, thanks to Word. The ridiculousness is that saving an actual image file is the exact same number of steps:
Press PrtSc to take a screenshot
Click the Start button
Click on the program (Word or Paint)
Press Ctrl-V
Press Ctrl-S
But no, I never just get a damn image of what they're looking at, it's always a document with an image in it, and the image doesn't even fit the page of the document.
The "evident" is some professor who THINKS that is a fallow cornfield. Just as the kid THINKS there is a city there.
The person who thinks it is a cornfield is someone who actually has experience working in the Mayan lowlands, who has seen fields like that in both satellite pictures and on the ground. The person who thinks it is a city is a kid in Canada.
Yes, someone needs to visit the area to confirm anything. But I'm not going to be paying those expedition costs. If the kid wants to foot the bill himself, fine, after all if he's claiming there's a city there then the burden of proof is on him.
There's probably a farmer somewhere in Mexico who knows the answer, but he may not be reading those news stories.
That's a pretty good assessment. He's efficient, really. He just cut out the middle man.
No, if a corporation moves its headquarters to the United States and starts doing business here it doesn't automatically become a person. A corporation and a person are two clearly different things, regardless of what Mitt Romney tells you. I'm not talking about some sort of shady legal classification based around money, I'm talking about reality.
What was delivered was a biased curated product instead.
A biased curated reflection of what the users were reading. Did Facebook claim it was ever anything else? Or does the GOP Congress just not like the fact that it's their stories that Facebook employees would rather not spread?
Government is interested due the reach of Facebook. And a feelgoodgoshtheyreallycareboutme byline in the press.
Government isn't interested, Republicans are interested. It feeds very nicely into their narrative that conservatives are under attack or being repressed or whatever.
You seem to be very confused.
Thanks, but I'm not.
Hillary is very much disliked among people on the Internet, except for the shills her PACs have hired.
The words "on the Internet" are not necessary in that sentence.
However, the media loves her
No, the establishment loves her. The media loves her insofar as they support the establishment. Many smaller media properties who are not in bed with the establishment and who don't have "insiders" as talking heads who get everything wrong this season do not in fact love her.
The media painting her as some kind of hero isn't working
I haven't seen the "hero" narrative. I've seen the "presumptive nominee" narrative, but not the "hero" one. If she's being painted as a hero at this point in the campaign season the reason for that is because of her presumptive opponent.
...so they're voting for the one guy who's different
I know. It's very similar to the support for Bernie Sanders except the opposite end of the spectrum.
The bottom line is we desperately need a new election system.
The next awakening needs to be centered around the fact that there are more than 2 political parties in this country, but that only 2 of them control the presidential election process.
Oh, ok. So when you said "about how awesome she is, about how she did this or that for the good of mankind" what you really mean is "mostly soft".
Because if there's anything this country needs more of, it's hyperbole.
What I do know is that if there is a "credible" allegation of corruption (whatever that means) that Congress can and should investigate it.
Maybe they can start with themselves.
On a site that is supposed to represent the curation of your interests and friends
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no, Facebook is supposed to represent the accumulation of all of your data, which they sell to anyone offering money. That's all they've ever been. The only reason they care whether you clicked on a story is so that they can add that data point to their database, show the same story to your friends to see if they can get those people to click on it also, and then sell that data to an advertiser. If you think they're doing anything else then you're delusional (yes I know your post history, so that assertion might be redundant).
The reason why Facebook has a market cap of over $340 billion is not because their users pay them. The people who sign on and click on news stories are not their customers, those people are the product that Facebook delivers.
Hillary gets a lot of free press - about how awesome she is, about how she did this or that for the good of mankind.
The "free press" Trump gets is pretty much all "look at the insane thing Trump is doing now" or "this new person thinks Trump is Hitler, don't you agree".
Seriously? That's what the world looks like to you, a bunch of Hillary love? That's what you see happening through your bias filter? You think people share all these stories about how Hillary is our savior? Is that what your gut tells you is going on with the man on the street?
Here's the reality. Clinton and Trump are both historically disliked. A lot of people hate Clinton, and a lot of people hate Trump, and both are disliked by a majority. Neither candidate is universally liked, in fact neither candidate is really even liked beyond their relatively small bases. Shit, a lot of Republicans don't even like Trump, he's right up there with Cruz among dislike. And most people other than Democrat party loyalists don't like Clinton either.
The Sanders campaign is what a love-fest looks like. Hillary's campaign is the same shit we've seen for decades, the only people behind her are people who don't think there's a problem with government. Trump is something completely different, he'll just outright tell you that he didn't say something that he was recorded saying and act like you should believe him. It's bizarre.
What a scoundrel might sound like
The allegation is corruption on the part of a business.
What the hell does that even mean? Does Facebook have some stated legally-binding policy somewhere which says that they will provide completely unbiased news coverage? Where is the corruption?
Since businesses are not actually people, but only run by them, then wouldn't it make sense if the biases of those people were reflected in the way the company does business? Is it illegal to have bias, or only show news stories that are of a particular brand? Because, if so, then virtually every news organization is guilty.
You realize that Trump is a democrat right?
You really think that Trump has some sort of consistent ideology which matches up with one of the 2 major political parties in the country? His strategy is to say whatever it takes to get him through that minute, hour, interview, debate, etc, even if it's in complete opposition to what he said yesterday. He'll also just outright deny saying that he ever said something which he was recorded saying. He doesn't exactly have a consistent ethos which he uses to guide his opinions.
Wave action is what erodes and ultimately destroys islands, and any increase in the water level is going to have an effect on wave action.
That being said, from looking at the pictures in the PDF report it kind of looks like this can be explained by extreme weather events, like a cyclone. One of the islands has completely moved since the 1940s. As in, its current boundaries and its boundaries in the 1940s do not overlap at all. That sounds like "regular" erosion of island land brought on by extreme weather events. Whether those events are related to global warming would be another issue.
The point that AC was making wasn't with the actual numbers, it was the claim that the oil company is making a profit every step of the way. AC even said this:
your numbers are off but they're mostly besides the point