Shouldn't communication monopolies be subjected to common-carrier regulations to prevent them from abusing peoples' free-speech rights?
I think the better question is, "Shouldn't people who don't understand the Bill of Rights, and don't understand the difference between a private company and the government (or what the term "common carrier" means), be subjected to regulations that would prevent them from abusing people's freedoms by voting?
Because using a citizen's vote, which impacts other people's lives, is definitely something that shouldn't be an option for those who seem eager to remain unfamiliar with the Constitution.
The people running Twitter may indeed be a toxic bunch of rich liberals, but they have every right to deny you the use of the thing they provide for free use, and YOU AGREE TO THAT when you set up an account on THEIR system. And no, they're not a monopoly. There are untold numbers of ways you can communicate, and you can start your own 140-character messaging system and have it hosted by later this afternoon, if you want to.
I would have loved having a week or two without having to hear about the latest Trump rant on CNN.
Then maybe you should watch less CNN. Do you really think that their non-stop anti-Trump ranting is in any way going to be modified by whether or not he's just tweeted something? If they can go on for a solid day about which shoes his wife wears on the way to get on an airplane, your hopes for them shutting up their one-note editorial focus for a week or two because of ANY change in communication method by Trump is just a silly fantasy.
So it's either aging or cancer? I don't buy it. Someone in their teens isn't aging (in way we're all talking about it), quite the opposite. But neither is their rapid renewal of useful stuff like cartilage, collagen, etc., blowing up as cancer for all of them. This mathematical proof that you can't have it both ways is based on a premise of there only being two ways. Something as complicated as a mammal body never operates in a one-way-or-another set of only two possibilities. We're the sum of many, many processes. There's room to tweak the nature and damage of aging skin, joints, brains, and hearts and thus mitigate some of the hardships of aging without assuming that it's only successful if we become beautiful young immortals.
Yes, it IS pesky. Because it's actually quite challenging to get judge to find that copyright infringing use is actually an example of fair use. People trot that out, and are shot down on it, all the time. For good reason.
Because reproducing someone else's work in whole or in part is... reproducing someone else's work in whole or in part. This isn't complicated. How are you not getting that?
They used his photos - a photo is an entire work
Nearly every published image has been cropped. Are you saying that when National Geographic takes a landscape-oriented photo from a photographer, and crops it down to the portrait-orientation to fit on the cover of their magazine, they no longer owe the photographer anything because they didn't use the entire photograph? Are you even listening to yourself?
a screen shot is not an entire work
Right. Just like reproducing a chapter of an author's novel, or the first act of a playwrite's play isn't the "entire work" but is very much subject to copyright law.
They are reproductions of frames from somebody's film or video production. Copyright law is there to prevent people from reproducing your work in whole or in part without your permission. A screen shot is a reproduction of part of the work. How are you not getting this?
Did the fake news make YOU change your vote? Are you really that weak-willed? That's pretty awful. In the future, please don't vote. You're not up to it.
I see Fox and Russians have converged on "blame Hillary Clinton" as the deflection
Wait. How is identifying the fact that she was a terrible candidate who lost the election a "deflection?" The people trying to deflect are the ones implying that it was the RUSSIANS that made her call half the country deplorable people. That it was the RUSSIANS who somehow made her forget to even set foot in states like Wisconsin even once. That it was the RUSSIANS who somehow made her look her supporters in the eye and lie to them for a year straight about her conduct as Secretary of State. You're confusing "deflection" with "pointing out the facts." The Democrats have been trying to deflect reality ever since the night of the election, and their hilarious Russian Collusion narrative is just part of that, and another stellar example of just how dumb they think everyone is. And that misunderstanding of all the people the Dems hold in such contempt is exactly why they've lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the good will of millions of two-time Obama voters who turned away from She Who Shall Be Queen in disgust.
I like how you've provided such quality citations regarding that evidence... as opposed to the flood of evidence that the California law in question actually produced large paychecks for the lawyers in such suits, and generally minimal claims for the actual employees pressing the suit. The law was DESIGNED that way, by the trial lawyers who profit from it so enormously. And since California has never seen a trial-lawyer-friendly law, regulation, or referendum it wouldn't rush into place, that's what employers like Uber are now up against. Thanks again, though, for your detailed analysis - it's sure a good thing you didn't resort to lazy, juvenile ad hominem isn't it! Oh, right, that's all you've got. So impressive.
Plaintiffs assert equality of skill and productivity when it suits them to do so, and will rely on SJW jurors to avoid at all costs any objective measurement of their value, relative to other employees. Same old routine. And if they don't have an internal document asserting that a given engineer is equally productive, equally present week after week, works as many hours, remains as up-to-speed, has the same communications skills, and is otherwise exactly as valuable as somebody else who makes a dollar more a year, then they'll simply assert that the assessment process isn't fair either. This has nothing, whatsoever, to do with having Latina heritage or specific reproductive organs. Unless it's help to cite those things while using the Sue Your Boss law to get a huge paycheck for the lawyers (the boss has to pay them). Gee, I wonder what the motivation could possibly be.
Right. They couldn't charge her with any wrongdoing in connection with the deaths on her watch in Benghazi. All they could do was demonstrate the degree to which she and her boss and his other minions were willing to look you in the eye and repeatedly lie to you about what happened. And a lot of people, including millions of two-time Obama voters, demonstrated last November that they were simply no longer willing to have Hillary Clinton smugly lying to them for another four or eight years as she'd been doing for the previous thirty. She didn't need to be charged for lying about what happened in Benghazi, we just needed to be sure that everyone got to understand her willingness to lie directly to her supporters and expect that to lap it up again, and again, and again. The truth was just fine in that case.
Not to be confused with her willingness to mis-handle classified information and lie about THAT, for which she should indeed have been indicted and convicted.
Of course! Because saying something of substance, and then pointing out when someone's reply is pure snarky childish ad hominem isn't ad hominem... it's simply identifying how the reply is just some drooling, juvenile crap that was dished out in place of any sort of actual rebuttal or even a plausible opinion from a different perspective.
All of the smokers I've known, and all of the obsessive vapers, are Trump Derangement Syndrome types. I'm sure there are plenty of Trump voters who smoke/vape, but I wouldn't even begin to assume that the balance is somehow heavily that direction. Direct experience says otherwise.
You know how you can always tell when you're right? When the whiner who can't address the facts (like, say, books not being "abandoned" and Amazon's overall business growing like crazy) resort to lazy, juvenile ad hominem. Thanks for being true to form!
like amazon.com did when they abandoned books and became stupid
Yeah, it's a shame you can't buy books on Amazon any more. And their pure stupidity is, correctly, reflected in their plummeting stock price. People HATE doing business with and through Amazon. That's why they're failing so badly.
Oh, right. You're talking out of your lying ass. Why? Does it feel good to assert an alternate reality?
You're deliberately only including state and local sworn officers. Complaints about police/agency conduct INCLUDE complaints about non-sworn law enforcement staff (say, the people doing medical work in correctional facilities), and - more importantly - you're completely leaving out federal law enforcement, special agents, administrative agency agents with arrest powers, and of course military police. The DoD has it's own police, each branch of the military has police (with civilian arrest authority!), each has their own investigative agencies... to say nothing of the police that work for everything from the TSA to ICE to the State Department to the officers of the Secret Service (and other Treasury-related activities, like the IRS - also with arrest powers). Hundreds of thousands more people that are "the police."
I'm not including them. I'm saying that the number would be higher IF WE DID. There are over a million law enforcement officers in the country when we DON'T include all of those other types who might still physically stop you from shoplifting, and who are armed to defend themselves and others.
Because your number of police officers is off by about half.
Let's round DOWN to one million (the number is higher than that, and MUCH higher if you include bonded, armed private guards with the ability to detain, all sorts of federal agency types that aren't FBI or Park Police, etc, and others... you can be arrested by, say, an armed employee of the EPA over your koi pond). Let's round down the number of people in the country to 300,000,000 - which is lopping off tens of millions of people. Let's round the number of people who file such complaints up wildly to 10,000. You're STILL talking 0.003%.
Let's look at it a different way: In one year, 1% of all sworn police officers in the United States had misconduct charges brought against them
You're off, deliberately, by a factor of 500. Do you always round up by several decimal places? Your own numbers show that it's less than 0.002%. That's statistically insignificant. And no, we're NOT talking about "charges," we're talking about COMPLAINTS. Meaning, a guy who got caught in the act of raping your daughter could file a misconduct report against the cop who arrested him... because, well, for any reason in the world he feels like trying to distract from what he got caught doing. Misconduct claims (NOT CHARGES) include things like "The officers didn't let me go back in the house to get different shoes before being taken before a magistrate for smashing my neighbor's car windows, just because I tried to hit them with the baseball bat too. This is blatant misconduct." You're pretending there's no difference between an officer being charged and someone complaining about the police.
Police have hundreds of millions of interactions with people every month. Some of those interactions are contentious. And you're worried that less than two thousandths of one percent of hundreds of millions of police interactions give rise to someone saying they didn't like how the police acted?
If you believe in limited government (and I know you do), you must also believe in limited respect for police forces.
What a completely ridiculous bit of sophomoric rhetorical nonsense.
Right, choosing not to pull over when the cops use their lights to signal you - no reason in the world they cops might have guns drawn when they eventually pull you over and can't see through your rear window. Cops frequently DIE in exactly that situation. Grow up and stop being an idiot.
Yes. Footage like that will save many cities and counties and states a LOT of previously wasted civil suit cash, because instead of it being one person's word against another, the cops have a better chance of showing exactly how dangerous their encounters frequently are. Jurors who get to actually SEE how decisions to use force must be made more or less instantaneously will usually rethink their expectation that police can somehow time travel and take actions that normal human beings can't.
So, in 2010, less than two-one-thousandths of one percent of the country's population made misconduct REPORTS? Let's just be fools, and assume that every single one of those reports accurately represents actual misconduct. What percentage of misconduct involves things like bad driving? And... what percentage of those were quickly and justifiably thrown out as nonsense? Because complaining about police misconduct is an INDUSTRY among people who are routinely arrested for things like gang-related street crime, drug trafficking, etc. There are lawyers who do nothing but fish for such things because sometimes the settlement - despite zero actual misconduct - is quicker and easier than wasting everybody's time dealing with spurious complaints in civil court.
And, over 1700 more officers complained about than actual complaints? A sure sign that people simply throwing around complaints about everyone involved in arresting them for DUI, battery, domestic abuse, etc., is - despite the fact that only involves 0.0002% of the population, a nice little start-up business.
Lastly, even if we accept that ALL of the officers "involved" (which means what... happened to be responding to the same event where another cop was accused of something incorrect?) actually committed some sort of misconduct, that's 0.006% of police. Six one-thousandths of one percent. That's "pretty bad?" And that's assuming that EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT was actually legit? I've witnessed events that eventually spawned a misconduct complaint, and observed the complainant being 100% percent responsible for everything that happened, and the cops involved being nearly supernaturally restrained, patient, and by-the-book with completely violent douche bags who were angry that they got themselves arrested. "Arresting a person who's being violent" is not misconduct, but complaints about that are part of the numbers you've copy/pasted. Let's say your numbers are low by an order of magnitude. That's still a TINY number of events compared to the number of interactions the cops have to have, every day, with belligerent, altered, drunken, abusive, assaulting assholes every day, day-in, day-out.
Those numbers don't tell the story of cops being bad, they tell the story of the number of actually bad cops being incredibly low.
Why, because you just can't stand a Supreme Court justice who actually respects the Constitution instead of trying to be a legislator? Because a general posture aimed at reducing the insanely economy-killing regulatory nightmare that businesses (and individuals!) have to navigate is a bad thing? Which corruption were you referring to... the part where he didn't take other people's money to campaign, but used his own?
Hillary Clinton, as part of the Clinton machinery going back decades, has left a trail of criminal corruption and sleaze from Arkansas through New York and right through the White House. She has nothing but contempt for the military people she wanted to lead, nothing but contempt for the people that feed the country, nothing but contempt for other women if they're not actively supporting her power crusade, and nothing but hunger for cash from the sorts of people who run countries where gays are officially killed for being gay and women are treated like property. She's an awful person.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't communication monopolies be subjected to common-carrier regulations to prevent them from abusing peoples' free-speech rights?
I think the better question is, "Shouldn't people who don't understand the Bill of Rights, and don't understand the difference between a private company and the government (or what the term "common carrier" means), be subjected to regulations that would prevent them from abusing people's freedoms by voting?
Because using a citizen's vote, which impacts other people's lives, is definitely something that shouldn't be an option for those who seem eager to remain unfamiliar with the Constitution.
The people running Twitter may indeed be a toxic bunch of rich liberals, but they have every right to deny you the use of the thing they provide for free use, and YOU AGREE TO THAT when you set up an account on THEIR system. And no, they're not a monopoly. There are untold numbers of ways you can communicate, and you can start your own 140-character messaging system and have it hosted by later this afternoon, if you want to.
I would have loved having a week or two without having to hear about the latest Trump rant on CNN.
Then maybe you should watch less CNN. Do you really think that their non-stop anti-Trump ranting is in any way going to be modified by whether or not he's just tweeted something? If they can go on for a solid day about which shoes his wife wears on the way to get on an airplane, your hopes for them shutting up their one-note editorial focus for a week or two because of ANY change in communication method by Trump is just a silly fantasy.
So it's either aging or cancer? I don't buy it. Someone in their teens isn't aging (in way we're all talking about it), quite the opposite. But neither is their rapid renewal of useful stuff like cartilage, collagen, etc., blowing up as cancer for all of them. This mathematical proof that you can't have it both ways is based on a premise of there only being two ways. Something as complicated as a mammal body never operates in a one-way-or-another set of only two possibilities. We're the sum of many, many processes. There's room to tweak the nature and damage of aging skin, joints, brains, and hearts and thus mitigate some of the hardships of aging without assuming that it's only successful if we become beautiful young immortals.
Yes, it IS pesky. Because it's actually quite challenging to get judge to find that copyright infringing use is actually an example of fair use. People trot that out, and are shot down on it, all the time. For good reason.
How can it be the same?
Because reproducing someone else's work in whole or in part is ... reproducing someone else's work in whole or in part. This isn't complicated. How are you not getting that?
They used his photos - a photo is an entire work
Nearly every published image has been cropped. Are you saying that when National Geographic takes a landscape-oriented photo from a photographer, and crops it down to the portrait-orientation to fit on the cover of their magazine, they no longer owe the photographer anything because they didn't use the entire photograph? Are you even listening to yourself?
a screen shot is not an entire work
Right. Just like reproducing a chapter of an author's novel, or the first act of a playwrite's play isn't the "entire work" but is very much subject to copyright law.
subject to fair use
You don't even know what that phrase means.
screenshots are not photos
They are reproductions of frames from somebody's film or video production. Copyright law is there to prevent people from reproducing your work in whole or in part without your permission. A screen shot is a reproduction of part of the work. How are you not getting this?
Did the fake news make YOU change your vote? Are you really that weak-willed? That's pretty awful. In the future, please don't vote. You're not up to it.
I see Fox and Russians have converged on "blame Hillary Clinton" as the deflection
Wait. How is identifying the fact that she was a terrible candidate who lost the election a "deflection?" The people trying to deflect are the ones implying that it was the RUSSIANS that made her call half the country deplorable people. That it was the RUSSIANS who somehow made her forget to even set foot in states like Wisconsin even once. That it was the RUSSIANS who somehow made her look her supporters in the eye and lie to them for a year straight about her conduct as Secretary of State. You're confusing "deflection" with "pointing out the facts." The Democrats have been trying to deflect reality ever since the night of the election, and their hilarious Russian Collusion narrative is just part of that, and another stellar example of just how dumb they think everyone is. And that misunderstanding of all the people the Dems hold in such contempt is exactly why they've lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the good will of millions of two-time Obama voters who turned away from She Who Shall Be Queen in disgust.
despite evidence to the contrary
I like how you've provided such quality citations regarding that evidence ... as opposed to the flood of evidence that the California law in question actually produced large paychecks for the lawyers in such suits, and generally minimal claims for the actual employees pressing the suit. The law was DESIGNED that way, by the trial lawyers who profit from it so enormously. And since California has never seen a trial-lawyer-friendly law, regulation, or referendum it wouldn't rush into place, that's what employers like Uber are now up against. Thanks again, though, for your detailed analysis - it's sure a good thing you didn't resort to lazy, juvenile ad hominem isn't it! Oh, right, that's all you've got. So impressive.
Plaintiffs assert equality of skill and productivity when it suits them to do so, and will rely on SJW jurors to avoid at all costs any objective measurement of their value, relative to other employees. Same old routine. And if they don't have an internal document asserting that a given engineer is equally productive, equally present week after week, works as many hours, remains as up-to-speed, has the same communications skills, and is otherwise exactly as valuable as somebody else who makes a dollar more a year, then they'll simply assert that the assessment process isn't fair either. This has nothing, whatsoever, to do with having Latina heritage or specific reproductive organs. Unless it's help to cite those things while using the Sue Your Boss law to get a huge paycheck for the lawyers (the boss has to pay them). Gee, I wonder what the motivation could possibly be.
Right. They couldn't charge her with any wrongdoing in connection with the deaths on her watch in Benghazi. All they could do was demonstrate the degree to which she and her boss and his other minions were willing to look you in the eye and repeatedly lie to you about what happened. And a lot of people, including millions of two-time Obama voters, demonstrated last November that they were simply no longer willing to have Hillary Clinton smugly lying to them for another four or eight years as she'd been doing for the previous thirty. She didn't need to be charged for lying about what happened in Benghazi, we just needed to be sure that everyone got to understand her willingness to lie directly to her supporters and expect that to lap it up again, and again, and again. The truth was just fine in that case.
Not to be confused with her willingness to mis-handle classified information and lie about THAT, for which she should indeed have been indicted and convicted.
Of course! Because saying something of substance, and then pointing out when someone's reply is pure snarky childish ad hominem isn't ad hominem ... it's simply identifying how the reply is just some drooling, juvenile crap that was dished out in place of any sort of actual rebuttal or even a plausible opinion from a different perspective.
Trump voters will be wiped out in no time.
All of the smokers I've known, and all of the obsessive vapers, are Trump Derangement Syndrome types. I'm sure there are plenty of Trump voters who smoke/vape, but I wouldn't even begin to assume that the balance is somehow heavily that direction. Direct experience says otherwise.
You know how you can always tell when you're right? When the whiner who can't address the facts (like, say, books not being "abandoned" and Amazon's overall business growing like crazy) resort to lazy, juvenile ad hominem. Thanks for being true to form!
like amazon.com did when they abandoned books and became stupid
Yeah, it's a shame you can't buy books on Amazon any more. And their pure stupidity is, correctly, reflected in their plummeting stock price. People HATE doing business with and through Amazon. That's why they're failing so badly.
Oh, right. You're talking out of your lying ass. Why? Does it feel good to assert an alternate reality?
You're deliberately only including state and local sworn officers. Complaints about police/agency conduct INCLUDE complaints about non-sworn law enforcement staff (say, the people doing medical work in correctional facilities), and - more importantly - you're completely leaving out federal law enforcement, special agents, administrative agency agents with arrest powers, and of course military police. The DoD has it's own police, each branch of the military has police (with civilian arrest authority!), each has their own investigative agencies ... to say nothing of the police that work for everything from the TSA to ICE to the State Department to the officers of the Secret Service (and other Treasury-related activities, like the IRS - also with arrest powers). Hundreds of thousands more people that are "the police."
I'm not including them. I'm saying that the number would be higher IF WE DID. There are over a million law enforcement officers in the country when we DON'T include all of those other types who might still physically stop you from shoplifting, and who are armed to defend themselves and others.
Because your number of police officers is off by about half.
... you can be arrested by, say, an armed employee of the EPA over your koi pond). Let's round down the number of people in the country to 300,000,000 - which is lopping off tens of millions of people. Let's round the number of people who file such complaints up wildly to 10,000. You're STILL talking 0.003%.
Let's round DOWN to one million (the number is higher than that, and MUCH higher if you include bonded, armed private guards with the ability to detain, all sorts of federal agency types that aren't FBI or Park Police, etc, and others
Let's look at it a different way: In one year, 1% of all sworn police officers in the United States had misconduct charges brought against them
You're off, deliberately, by a factor of 500. Do you always round up by several decimal places? Your own numbers show that it's less than 0.002%. That's statistically insignificant. And no, we're NOT talking about "charges," we're talking about COMPLAINTS. Meaning, a guy who got caught in the act of raping your daughter could file a misconduct report against the cop who arrested him ... because, well, for any reason in the world he feels like trying to distract from what he got caught doing. Misconduct claims (NOT CHARGES) include things like "The officers didn't let me go back in the house to get different shoes before being taken before a magistrate for smashing my neighbor's car windows, just because I tried to hit them with the baseball bat too. This is blatant misconduct." You're pretending there's no difference between an officer being charged and someone complaining about the police.
Police have hundreds of millions of interactions with people every month. Some of those interactions are contentious. And you're worried that less than two thousandths of one percent of hundreds of millions of police interactions give rise to someone saying they didn't like how the police acted?
If you believe in limited government (and I know you do), you must also believe in limited respect for police forces.
What a completely ridiculous bit of sophomoric rhetorical nonsense.
To be useful, they need to do a study where police misconduct is rampant. Like St. Louis, or Baltimore.
You mean, where violent crime is rampant, and cops' lives are far, far more at risk? Yeah, that's what you actually meant.
Right, choosing not to pull over when the cops use their lights to signal you - no reason in the world they cops might have guns drawn when they eventually pull you over and can't see through your rear window. Cops frequently DIE in exactly that situation. Grow up and stop being an idiot.
Yes. Footage like that will save many cities and counties and states a LOT of previously wasted civil suit cash, because instead of it being one person's word against another, the cops have a better chance of showing exactly how dangerous their encounters frequently are. Jurors who get to actually SEE how decisions to use force must be made more or less instantaneously will usually rethink their expectation that police can somehow time travel and take actions that normal human beings can't.
So, in 2010, less than two-one-thousandths of one percent of the country's population made misconduct REPORTS? Let's just be fools, and assume that every single one of those reports accurately represents actual misconduct. What percentage of misconduct involves things like bad driving? And ... what percentage of those were quickly and justifiably thrown out as nonsense? Because complaining about police misconduct is an INDUSTRY among people who are routinely arrested for things like gang-related street crime, drug trafficking, etc. There are lawyers who do nothing but fish for such things because sometimes the settlement - despite zero actual misconduct - is quicker and easier than wasting everybody's time dealing with spurious complaints in civil court.
... happened to be responding to the same event where another cop was accused of something incorrect?) actually committed some sort of misconduct, that's 0.006% of police. Six one-thousandths of one percent. That's "pretty bad?" And that's assuming that EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT was actually legit? I've witnessed events that eventually spawned a misconduct complaint, and observed the complainant being 100% percent responsible for everything that happened, and the cops involved being nearly supernaturally restrained, patient, and by-the-book with completely violent douche bags who were angry that they got themselves arrested. "Arresting a person who's being violent" is not misconduct, but complaints about that are part of the numbers you've copy/pasted. Let's say your numbers are low by an order of magnitude. That's still a TINY number of events compared to the number of interactions the cops have to have, every day, with belligerent, altered, drunken, abusive, assaulting assholes every day, day-in, day-out.
And, over 1700 more officers complained about than actual complaints? A sure sign that people simply throwing around complaints about everyone involved in arresting them for DUI, battery, domestic abuse, etc., is - despite the fact that only involves 0.0002% of the population, a nice little start-up business.
Lastly, even if we accept that ALL of the officers "involved" (which means what
Those numbers don't tell the story of cops being bad, they tell the story of the number of actually bad cops being incredibly low.
Physics doesn't step aside for anyone, not even smart people.
You're right! That guy builds rockets and actually uses them successfully definitely doesn't know that. You should also remind him of that.
Why, because you just can't stand a Supreme Court justice who actually respects the Constitution instead of trying to be a legislator? Because a general posture aimed at reducing the insanely economy-killing regulatory nightmare that businesses (and individuals!) have to navigate is a bad thing? Which corruption were you referring to ... the part where he didn't take other people's money to campaign, but used his own?
Hillary Clinton, as part of the Clinton machinery going back decades, has left a trail of criminal corruption and sleaze from Arkansas through New York and right through the White House. She has nothing but contempt for the military people she wanted to lead, nothing but contempt for the people that feed the country, nothing but contempt for other women if they're not actively supporting her power crusade, and nothing but hunger for cash from the sorts of people who run countries where gays are officially killed for being gay and women are treated like property. She's an awful person.