This whole thing is a Pandora's box for both sides. Insisting that the comments should be verified leaves you vulnerable to questions about why you're ok with a lower standard of confirmation for voting. Insisting that verification is unnecessary leaves you vulnerable to questions about why then you think the voter registration needs to be verified.
Only for the side that maintains these comments were somehow supposed to be votes. For those that recognize they weren't votes and were never represented to be votes, there's no inconsistency at all advocating for strong identity verification requirements for actual votes.
The background is that you need a hook to make a proper actionable complaint about it.
What's to complain about? This wasn't a mechanism for voting -- it was a mechanism for members of the public to provide perspectives to the FCC that they might not have already considered. Given that, the names attached to the comments are, frankly, irrelevant. The only reason there was a kerfuffle about this at all is the pervasive urban legend that this was somehow a vote.
Nah. As I've said repeatedly around here, the comment mechanism isn't a ballot box and comments aren't votes. The comment mechanism is a way for the FCC to get thoughtful, relevant input from the public that it hadn't previously considered.
The "RETAIN!!1!!" and "REPEEL!!!!" ballot stuffing comments at issue didn't meet that criteria (and in fact made it even more difficult for the FCC to wade through and find anything actually meaningful).
We Tesla backers know it is going to be very barely profitable to sell that car. So we understand Tesla has to make profits from the people who are willing to pay more.
Well, you're more honest than most. You knew that the Model 3 program was set up to be untenable from the beginning, and that the only way for Elon to even try to balance things out was to make people like you feel good about overpaying for upgrades that you know full well you're overpaying for. Not to line Elon's pocketbook, of course, but for the good of humanity. Because humanity needs Teslas.
Every day that goes by this whole thing has more and more freakish cult overtones to it.
Yes, I noticed the conspicuous absence of any promises for delivery for people who have had reservations for years. That strongly suggests they're in the same 6-12 month range. Consistent with that, one of the commenters in your article said they had a long-time standard battery reservation and were still showing December delivery.
It's not only standing up, but moving forward a few rows [electrek.co].
After all we've been through over the past year plus, it's cute that you're saying with a straight face that we should believe a delivery promise from Elon that's still 6-12 months out.
I'm not sure why people have had this notion that despite the fact that the vehicle as a whole was significantly delayed - mainly due to pack production delays - the SR pack should nonetheless have come out on the original schedule. Where's the logic in that?
Um, try the logic that Elon hyped this to the world as a mass-produced $35k electric car, and so he should actually deliver that instead of continually coming up with new high-margin options that he really really hopes people will tack on so he'll take a bit less of a bath on each shipment and buy a bit more time to come up with yet another distraction.
Over how many iterations? Perhaps after one year there will be a single-digit prevalence of patented seeds, but, assuming drift from the neighbour's farm occurs every year, what will this prevalence be after (say) ten years?
In the real world, probably not any higher. Your question presumes the farmer is saving seeds (and, indeed, saving a well-mixed subset of the entire harvest, which is a whole discussion in its own right) every single year, and replanting them the next year. There are a number of reasons why this doesn't actually happen much.
On an even more pragmatic level, I'll again gently point out that nobody has been able to present a single story where there was any actual evidence that a situation played out like this (as opposed to, for example, the farmer just saying "did not" in the face of substantial evidence that they indeed did). It's particularly telling that last night's mod-bomber chose to blow at least 5 points on this thread rather than simply posting even one such example.
Well that settles then, I for one totally trust that they would never intentionally (or even unintentionally) claim something was intentional instead of inadvertent.
5-10 minutes of reading on the subject should inform you that it's a highly bimodal distribution: people who don't replant patented seed but may have a bit of drift from a neighbor's planting end up with a single-digit prevalence of patented seeds in their harvest. Those who deliberately replant patented seed have more like a single-digit prevalence of unpatented seeds in their harvest. Monsanto targets the latter and, unsurprisingly, wins.
Find a genuine case that doesn't fit that pattern, and we'll have something to talk about. But since people actually in the industry who have a highly vested interest in finding such a case haven't been able to do so, I'll not hold my breath.
It's clear you didn't read your own link -- it repeats exactly what I said:
Monsanto has stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."[15] The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who do not harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents.[16]
The usual claim involves patent infringement due to intentionally replanting patented seed.
Monstersanto has created this negative climate by going after farmers and even people who aren't using their seeds
That's an urban legend has been busted for a long time:
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case.
Probably because this was a thought experiment. This was a video that the source reports was released internally with the intention of showing unsettling things they do not plan on doing.
And your confidence in this arises from Google pinky-swearing to that effect after the video was leaked?
Just think how much time and money they could have saved had you been there to explain to them nobody "gives a fuck" anymore (including, of course, the victims and their families), and so they just needed to "move on already."
It takes two to tango: the father is just as culpable here. They chose to have kids as well. But when they skip out, they leave the baby with the mom, since we have the expectation, often enforced by the court system, that the mother raises a child, not the father.
That notion is becoming as antiquated as many other longstanding gender-based memes. Try typing "single mother by choice" into your preferred search engine.
(with the assumption that, on average, the tax increase would be no more than the reduced national cost of health insurance)
I love magic money tree math. Hospitals in the U.S. offer basic stabilization services to indigent walk-ins. The cost of those same people freely accessing the full range of services in the healthcare system would by definition be much higher.
Trump doesn't read anything (longer than 140 characters, anyway), doesn't really know (or care to know) anything, has no moral compass, and has the attention span of a goldfish, so he's easily swayed by the last thing he hears.
No, seriously -- how do you really feel about him?
I wonder what the definition of "suspicion" is in this case.
In this case, the reasonable suspicious arose from the two bags of firearms they caught they guy trying to smuggle out of the country. From the appellate court's opinion:
Because the government in this case had “more than reasonable suspicion” that a forensic examination of Kolsuz’s phone would reveal evidence of both past and ongoing attempts to export firearms parts illegally, the court concluded, the forensic search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Both the lower and appellate courts repeatedly note that this was more than enough to clear the "reasonable suspicion" threshold in this case, and thus there was no need to debate exactly where the threshold might be.
I think you seriously over-estimate people's abilities to correct themselves, and how long it takes these events to unfold
I'm not estimating anything -- I cited to and quoted from a study that found pedal errors aplenty, but zero incidences of this particular one.
In most pedal errors, the first instinct is to press harder on the pedal. Remember, the person generally thinks they have their foot on the brake, now the car is moving -- better push on that "brake" pedal harder.
This is a well-worn idea that the study explicitly found not to be true for people pushing the accelerator instead of the brake. Your anecdote suggesting otherwise concerned an octogenarian that clearly shouldn't have been driving a car at all. There's no evidence the driver in this situation was impaired at all, much less to that extreme degree.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole thing is a Pandora's box for both sides. Insisting that the comments should be verified leaves you vulnerable to questions about why you're ok with a lower standard of confirmation for voting. Insisting that verification is unnecessary leaves you vulnerable to questions about why then you think the voter registration needs to be verified.
Only for the side that maintains these comments were somehow supposed to be votes. For those that recognize they weren't votes and were never represented to be votes, there's no inconsistency at all advocating for strong identity verification requirements for actual votes.
The background is that you need a hook to make a proper actionable complaint about it.
What's to complain about? This wasn't a mechanism for voting -- it was a mechanism for members of the public to provide perspectives to the FCC that they might not have already considered. Given that, the names attached to the comments are, frankly, irrelevant. The only reason there was a kerfuffle about this at all is the pervasive urban legend that this was somehow a vote.
How much of "Americans' personal information" was stolen and used?
Clearly not much, given that comments were filed by George Washington, Tinkerbell Snowflakes, and Big Bird, among many others.
Sorry, was that the text from one of the bulk-submitted comments?
Nah. As I've said repeatedly around here, the comment mechanism isn't a ballot box and comments aren't votes. The comment mechanism is a way for the FCC to get thoughtful, relevant input from the public that it hadn't previously considered.
The "RETAIN!!1!!" and "REPEEL!!!!" ballot stuffing comments at issue didn't meet that criteria (and in fact made it even more difficult for the FCC to wade through and find anything actually meaningful).
The comment form probably looked like this:
Comment: _______________________________________
Please enter your name: _____
Please enter your address: _____
[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.
Pretty much, without even the checkbox. The actual form is here.
They also allowed bulk submissions via an API or uploading a CSV per here.
I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.
We Tesla backers know it is going to be very barely profitable to sell that car. So we understand Tesla has to make profits from the people who are willing to pay more.
Well, you're more honest than most. You knew that the Model 3 program was set up to be untenable from the beginning, and that the only way for Elon to even try to balance things out was to make people like you feel good about overpaying for upgrades that you know full well you're overpaying for . Not to line Elon's pocketbook, of course, but for the good of humanity. Because humanity needs Teslas.
Every day that goes by this whole thing has more and more freakish cult overtones to it.
For new orders.
Yes, I noticed the conspicuous absence of any promises for delivery for people who have had reservations for years. That strongly suggests they're in the same 6-12 month range. Consistent with that, one of the commenters in your article said they had a long-time standard battery reservation and were still showing December delivery.
Wow -- modded both overrated AND underrated. I've reached Slashdot nirvana.
It's not only standing up, but moving forward a few rows [electrek.co].
After all we've been through over the past year plus, it's cute that you're saying with a straight face that we should believe a delivery promise from Elon that's still 6-12 months out.
I'm not sure why people have had this notion that despite the fact that the vehicle as a whole was significantly delayed - mainly due to pack production delays - the SR pack should nonetheless have come out on the original schedule. Where's the logic in that?
Um, try the logic that Elon hyped this to the world as a mass-produced $35k electric car, and so he should actually deliver that instead of continually coming up with new high-margin options that he really really hopes people will tack on so he'll take a bit less of a bath on each shipment and buy a bit more time to come up with yet another distraction.
<eom>
Over how many iterations? Perhaps after one year there will be a single-digit prevalence of patented seeds, but, assuming drift from the neighbour's farm occurs every year, what will this prevalence be after (say) ten years?
In the real world, probably not any higher. Your question presumes the farmer is saving seeds (and, indeed, saving a well-mixed subset of the entire harvest, which is a whole discussion in its own right) every single year, and replanting them the next year. There are a number of reasons why this doesn't actually happen much.
On an even more pragmatic level, I'll again gently point out that nobody has been able to present a single story where there was any actual evidence that a situation played out like this (as opposed to, for example, the farmer just saying "did not" in the face of substantial evidence that they indeed did). It's particularly telling that last night's mod-bomber chose to blow at least 5 points on this thread rather than simply posting even one such example.
Well that settles then, I for one totally trust that they would never intentionally (or even unintentionally) claim something was intentional instead of inadvertent.
5-10 minutes of reading on the subject should inform you that it's a highly bimodal distribution: people who don't replant patented seed but may have a bit of drift from a neighbor's planting end up with a single-digit prevalence of patented seeds in their harvest. Those who deliberately replant patented seed have more like a single-digit prevalence of unpatented seeds in their harvest. Monsanto targets the latter and, unsurprisingly, wins.
Find a genuine case that doesn't fit that pattern, and we'll have something to talk about. But since people actually in the industry who have a highly vested interest in finding such a case haven't been able to do so, I'll not hold my breath.
It's clear you didn't read your own link -- it repeats exactly what I said:
Monsanto has stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."[15] The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who do not harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents.[16]
The usual claim involves patent infringement due to intentionally replanting patented seed.
Monstersanto has created this negative climate by going after farmers and even people who aren't using their seeds
That's an urban legend has been busted for a long time:
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case.
In fact, Monsanto has publicly pledged that it won't do that:
Why does Monsanto sue farmers when Monsanto seed blows into their fields?
We don't sue farmers who have accidentally ended up with trace amounts of our seeds in their fields, and we've made a commitment that we never will.
I'm 40.
So you were slightly ahead of your time. Congrats, I guess.
Probably because this was a thought experiment. This was a video that the source reports was released internally with the intention of showing unsettling things they do not plan on doing.
And your confidence in this arises from Google pinky-swearing to that effect after the video was leaked?
The real question here is : Who gives a fuck?
That shit happened 17 years ago. Move on already.
Ah, millennial gnat-hair attention spans. The FBI spent 45 years trying to track down D.B. Cooper. It took 18 years to find the Unibomber and 37 years to track down the last of the Baptist Street Church bombers.
Just think how much time and money they could have saved had you been there to explain to them nobody "gives a fuck" anymore (including, of course, the victims and their families), and so they just needed to "move on already."
It takes two to tango: the father is just as culpable here. They chose to have kids as well. But when they skip out, they leave the baby with the mom, since we have the expectation, often enforced by the court system, that the mother raises a child, not the father.
That notion is becoming as antiquated as many other longstanding gender-based memes. Try typing "single mother by choice" into your preferred search engine.
High/fast execution is their MO. talk of building a "sky scrapper" in 19 days!!
And perhaps falling down even faster!!
(with the assumption that, on average, the tax increase would be no more than the reduced national cost of health insurance)
I love magic money tree math. Hospitals in the U.S. offer basic stabilization services to indigent walk-ins. The cost of those same people freely accessing the full range of services in the healthcare system would by definition be much higher.
And if I make the browser window full screen?
Three little words: Always on Top.
Trump doesn't read anything (longer than 140 characters, anyway), doesn't really know (or care to know) anything, has no moral compass, and has the attention span of a goldfish, so he's easily swayed by the last thing he hears.
No, seriously -- how do you really feel about him?
I wonder what the definition of "suspicion" is in this case.
In this case, the reasonable suspicious arose from the two bags of firearms they caught they guy trying to smuggle out of the country. From the appellate court's opinion:
Because the government in this case had “more than reasonable suspicion” that a forensic examination of Kolsuz’s phone would reveal evidence of both past and ongoing attempts to export firearms parts illegally, the court concluded, the forensic search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Both the lower and appellate courts repeatedly note that this was more than enough to clear the "reasonable suspicion" threshold in this case, and thus there was no need to debate exactly where the threshold might be.
I think you seriously over-estimate people's abilities to correct themselves, and how long it takes these events to unfold
I'm not estimating anything -- I cited to and quoted from a study that found pedal errors aplenty, but zero incidences of this particular one.
In most pedal errors, the first instinct is to press harder on the pedal. Remember, the person generally thinks they have their foot on the brake, now the car is moving -- better push on that "brake" pedal harder.
This is a well-worn idea that the study explicitly found not to be true for people pushing the accelerator instead of the brake. Your anecdote suggesting otherwise concerned an octogenarian that clearly shouldn't have been driving a car at all. There's no evidence the driver in this situation was impaired at all, much less to that extreme degree.