Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

@Lars Re: @Bombastic Bob ... unions could be beneficial

In the US, those who join unions do so in an effort to avoid work.

I never understood it until a friend who was in a union explained it to me.

Where I live, we have 2 building engineers. At one time, we had one engineer who was in a union, the other was not. Our building got picketed because the Union was told that we were threatening the employees and not allowing an outsider to meet with them while they were working. So the union called in all of these people to come on down and harass and threaten our residents.

Here's the facts...

1) We are a residential building with 3 employees and contract the services for janitorial and security.

2) We do not allow outsiders who are not here on the request of a resident to come into the building.

(Note: This is why Union organizers who wanted to meet with 'staff' were told no.)

3) The only engineer who isn't union laughed at them because we provide better benefits and salaries than what he could get from the Union. So why should he pay union dues? (The other engineer who was older was in the union before coming to our building.)

4) When the union rep who requested to meet with the one employee who isn't a manager or in the union already, the building manager offered her office, and yet the employee declined. Union Rep then claimed he was coerced to say no. (No evidence to that fact)

So... I don't have a high opinion of Unions here in the US. In Europe, Unions are a bit different.

Unions provide no benefit or protection for the employees where they are protected under the law.

I gave you the example of the Government employees under the union. Just look at Wisconsin... 'nuff said.

@Bombastic Bob ... Re: unions could be beneficial

Unions are an anachronism.

100 years ago, the employees were open to abuse and harsh conditions.

Over the past 100 years, laws were enacted to protect workers.

Unions provide no value and in fact, workers make less in union shops than they do in non union shops when you consider the cost of the Union dues.

Consider that in Wisconsin, the Governor removed unions from public service workers. (You could be a member of the Union, but it was not compulsory. ) Union membership dropped dramatically.

And to think that you *need* Union protection from the Government as your employer? (Think about that for a second....)

Unions are not needed and a source of revenue for corrupt individuals.

Re: Site for sore eyes.

"You're only buying something from Amazon if it says "Sold by Amazon" in the listing."

No.

Amazon is making their brand available to third parties where Amazon is housing product for the third party and is managing the sale/transaction of the product. Amazon will have a certain amount of liability.

I do expect that Amazon will raise this issue, but they will lose.

Think of it this way... would you buy a product from Ma and Pa Kettle if they just put up a website on GoDaddy or Network Solutions? Or did you find the product on Amazon and they had the lowest price?

It gets complicated because Network Solutions and GoDaddy offer site space and handling the electronic payments, and I think some level of fraud protection... But they don't hold stock or manage fulfillment.

The mom and pop shops are not at 'arms length' and IMHO, Amazon will lose if this goes to trial.

@AC Re: Site for sore eyes.

I sympathize with what has happened to this couple. I do not, however, think that Amazon can be liable for failures of every single product they sell, especially since much of what they sell is listed by third-party resellers through the Amazon Marketplace.

Yes, Amazon can and will be held liable for selling defective products.

There is an amount of liability that Amazon has when they make a marketplace for third party resellers to sell products under the Amazon Brand.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

As a class action, expect Amazon to settle where those affected will get nothing and the lawyers get a large chunk of the settlement.

Re: Cue the inevitable

Doug,

You really don't know when to quit.

I suggest you actually go over the history of some of the articles that were written by the WaPo and NYT prior to the election.

Editorials were written justifying that it was ok for journalists to set aside their ethics and to push an agenda especially when it went after Trump.

There's more, but clearly you have an agenda or prejudice so it would be a waste of time.

The fact that is not in question is that the news coverage of Trump is intentionally negative.

Funny thing. While the MSM roasted Trump about denouncing violence on both sides. There's hardly a mention that it took 3 days for Pelosi to denounce the violence of Antifa.

I suggest you google Kass and Chicago Tribune. Today's editorial is a good one, even though I don't agree with everything he says.

@Voland Re: What, specifically, makes news "fake"?

There's an even more simple explanation. He's just being Trump. And he's from Queens if memory serves.

But you just proved my point that your liberal bend is showing. :-)

The funny thing... Trump on the same day as Charlottesville denounces violence on both sides.

He gets hammered for saying that and that he's making a moral equivalency between the left and the right. Yet the reality, he was doing no such thing.

He then two days later clarifies his statement and condemns specifically the white supremacists. The press and MSM criticizes him for being two days too late.

Now we have the rally in Berkley where peaceful 'pro free speech' rally members were violently attacked by Antifa member. Keep in mind that there were other protesters (protesting free speech???) that were non-violent until Antifa showed up.

Some in the MSM are reporting on it, yet we don't see Nancy Pelosi or other Democrats speaking out about the violence on the left. No question of moral equivalency but that there is violence.

Seems the 'demented' POTUS yet again is correct when he denounced both sides.

So I have to ask which politicians are showing signs of dementia and denial?

The simple truth. Trump says something... regardless of how silly it could be... and people attempt to find hidden meaning that he never attempted to communicate. And they condemn him.

And you're also confusing dementia and Alzheimer. Which is why you shouldn't attempt to play doctor.

Re: Cue the inevitable

@Voland,

Show me where Breitbart has to fire or ask for the resignations of multiple reporters for grossly violating their ethics and placing the paper in legal jeopardy.

It cuts both ways mate.

The irony is that Brietbart scores higher in terms of integrity when it comes to reporting than WaPo, CNN or the NYT.

The Daily Caller has broken several key stories and hasn't had any lapses of ethics.

And to be fair, how many stories has the WSJ had to retract, not that many...

@Chris G Re: Curious

And this is something that I alluded to above.

Of course DougS is trying to justify it.

CNN Has lost the trust of the people, So to has NYT and WaPo.

We have to look back over 100 years to see the whole Yellow Journalism play out to understand how this could happen.

The problem is that people are unable to discern which sources are credible and which sources are not. Even within the MSM.

Case in point. Democrats called the rally in Berkley a 'White Supremacist' march, yet, the leader of the rally wasn't white. The rally claims to be anti-violence. And they were peaceful yet Antifa shows up and attacks the protesters. Rather than condemn the violence, the elected Democrats that tried to shut down the rally are silent. Yet you don't see that on the news.

The fact that elected officials don't even know who is doing what is troubling.

@DougS Re: Cue the inevitable

You seem confused.

Posting a retraction is one thing.

Clearly violating any semblance of journalistic ethics is another.

To be clear, I'm not what you call a 'Trump Defender' but rather I am an objective observer and the MSM / Press have gone way over to excuse lapses of ethics as a way to justify an attack on Trump.

The numbers don't lie.

And to be clear... lapses to the point where three 'reporters' are forced to resign. Producers who are injecting their personal bias in an effort to distort the news, in order to driver their agenda?

And then there's the reverse. Killing a story so that most don't see what is happening.

But hey! Be in denial.

Re: FB blocking ad blocking?

You admit to having a FB account?

LOL. Luser

Re: What, specifically, makes news "fake"?

Fake?

How about the story that links Sarah Palin's 'map' identifying liberal politicians in AZ to the shooting of Gabby Gifford well after the fact that was well documented that there was nothing tying the two together?

Meaning that the NYT was guilty of slander/ libel when they went after Palin.

Personally, I thought the porn parity of Palin was funny, but here the NYT crossed the line.

Then there's Ana Navarro who's claiming Trump has dementia. Sorry, but while he may be a Queens guy , Ana Navarro isn't qualified to make a medical opinion.

There's more, but you get the idea.

Its amazing how many attack Trump for saying something, only a couple of weeks later, agreeing with him.

Re: Cue the inevitable

What do you mean from the fringes.

What do you think will happen when the WaPo publishes multiple articles that they have to retract. That would mean Zuck gets a call from Bezos. Oh wait, that was the NYT that is trouble and is also getting sued by Sarah Palin for their attack on her. (And IMHO, she's going to win or NYT settles out of court which is also a win)

@Mephistro Re: stupid politics

You really have a libtard bug up your backside.

What policy are you citing where 100% of the foreign travelers will be adversely affected?

That's right. There are 0 rules that impact all travelers which will adversely affect 100% of the visitors to the US.

Those 15% concerned should be the concern for the rest of us on the internet. It means that they have more in common with 'chicken little' than they do with the rest of us who use the internet.

Now lets face the reality.

Montreal is a much nicer place than San Francisco where there a band of black wearing fascists running around accusing anyone who doesn't look like them or agree with them of being a nazi. I kid you not. Some bloke who's v-blogger was attacked because he was wearing a blue polo shirt.

In Montreal, you have the French Ballet which is a much more enjoyable diversion for all.

IMHO that's probably the real reason.

@Mephstro Re: stupid politics

Dude,

Before you call the kettle, pot, did you read the article on the link provided about Stenberg?

(the fractured quote is intentional...)

I have to ask... if he didn't do the pre-approval, would he still have been denied boarding?

(Free clue... could be an IT fsckup not the TSA or DHS muck up)

To be clear, the IETF is making a political statement by doing this. They are citing an unknown where there is no evidence of any more travel bans. That's like saying we're going to host the meeting where people can travel by ship or train so that we can avoid air travel due to the risk of a plane falling out of the sky.

Now that's plain silly.

I hate to use the term libtard, but that's exactly what you have here.

@bombastic Bob Re: stupid politics

First, how many of the IETF members are coming from those 6 countries ?

So... while you are right that the IETF may be making a political statement, its also possible that they fear that a member could be blocked from travel.

But I will speculate a third reason... they are afraid of getting attacked by a group of rogue Antifa members and accused of being Nazis because they dress differently.

And that makes me wonder.... Is Antifa which is supposed to be against fascism yet acts more like a group of fascist black shirts, all just a fascist hipster attempt at being ironic?

Re: Hmmmm....

People holding an event for which a fee is charged are responsible for cleaning it up, but sometimes they're fulla crap.

In this case.. the doogie doo is there before the event so its on the backs of the parks and recreation service to clean the area before the event. Its not part of the event.

But its all moot, because the event was cancelled out of concern that there will be violence. From both the right and the left.

The reality is that this wasn't an ALT-RIGHT group. This was a group that wants to protect our first amendment rights which are being shut down by the left. Seriously this is fscked up. People are afraid to speak their mind because they are afraid of being attacked.

They cancelled the event because they knew that the Alt-Left (BLM, Antifa and other organizations ) were already planning for armed protest. However, there was evidence that 'white supremacists' and other alt-right groups were planning to attend to make the event violent and to clash with the protesters.

Note: California is home to both Alt-Left (Antifa ) and Alt-Right (Neo-Nazi , 'White Supremacists') factions who both have had violent protests and attacks.

Things are a bit more complicated that what you see in the Guardian and other newsprint. A lot of this is dumb'd down for the masses. This is also why Trump's comments were taken out of context and people didn't understand what he was saying about Charlottesville. (Nobody but the neo-nazis and ISIS would condone somebody running people down with a car.)

Things are getting out of hand and this SHIT STORM was caused by the Dems.

Re: Dictatorship like by U.S Government

This wasn't a 'dictatorship' action.

Dictatorship would have tossed everyone in the loop in jail and seized the information outright.

Or the courts would have rubber-stamped the request without a second thought.

The reality is that the actions of the website could be tied to a protest where the protesters were violent causing criminal acts. So you have some legal (Criminal) laws which allow the Justice Department to go on and request the information.

You have a certain idiot state rep who called for Trump's assassination and that led to a Secret Service investigation along with her being forced out of office.

Remember not all speech is protected and if you say "yeah, lets get the bastids" and someone does because of your post... you may have some criminal liability. (Note: There is more to this... I've just dumbed down the example.)

You clearly don't know the law and you've never dealt with judges. Some are good, Some are idiots who clearly ignore the law when they see fit.

In this specific case... its not a fishing expedition, and while the warrant was overly vague, the judge was right to limit the scope to those registered to the site since they would be the ones facing the most legal jeopardy.

@Scorchioli Re: @The idiot... you really don't get it...

Hey Mate, long time no see.

Yeah, I don't worry about the down votes. Most of the time its out of ignorance of the law and wishing things to be true that aren't. (Of course I do make mistakes so I can't complain there. )

This guy got nabbed. Why?

The FBI can be clueless at times, but not this clueless.

Something isn't right.

I mean what if he is innocent but the guys who did it used some code he wrote long ago?

Or he did do it?

I don't know and I'm not going to assume innocence or guilt, but that the Feds have to have something that ties him to the crime.

@The idiot Re: @The idiot... you really don't get it...

You still missed the point.

There is no presumption of innocence in terms that you think you understand.

The issue is one of the burden of proof.

Does the defendant bear the burden to show his innocence or does the prosecution bear the burden to show that the person is guilty.

Meaning if you can't prove you are innocent, you are therefore guilty,

Or if the Prosecution can't prove that you guilty then you are therefore innocent.

The concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' means that the prosecution must beyond a reasonable doubt prove that you are guilty.

This has nothing to do with the state treating you like you are guilty and placing you in jail until the trial or you make bail. Even under bail, your freedoms are restricted.

Here's an example....

Your next door neighbor is found dead. His head was pounded in with a hammer that happens to have your finger prints all over it. You were questioned and you claimed to be asleep in your own bed at the time of the murder but you have no witnesses.

You are charged with the crime.

The prosecution will supply evidence that you could have done it.

Your defense will try to discredit the prosecution. For example, your finger prints are at your neighbors house because you are friends and you hang out there. Your finger prints are on the hammer because its your hammer that he borrowed...

At the end of the day, If the prosecution doesn't meet the burden, you should be found innocent.

(Meaning you can raise doubt to the assertions made by the prosecution.)

Now if they left out evidence... like security cam footage of a car driving up and then away while you claimed to be home and they didn't use it or tell your lawyer it existed, then you would be able to sue them for leaving out exculpatory evidence. It would be prosecutorial misconduct.

Sorry for tossing that last bit in there.

The point is that 'innocent until proven guilty' is misunderstood.

Look at OJ. Do you really think he was innocent even though the prosecution failed to make their case?

Re: Or maybe they still couldn't make a case against him even with Blairs extradition law

And it's ridiculously low standards of proof from the US side.

And its not really that low.

Seriously there's something wrong here.

Either he was involved somehow...

Or the FBI really screwed up and doubled down on it.

No way of telling until there's a trial.

@The idiot... you really don't get it...

Reply Icon

Sorry mate, you really don't understand the meaning of the phrase innocent until proven guilty. So here's a quick lesson.

The expression is meant to show that at trial, the burden of proof is for the DA to show guild beyond a reasonable doubt. So you're presumed innocent until they have shown enough evidence so that either a judge or the jury find you guilty.

It has nothing to do with the court of public opinion.

The real question is why does the FBI think this is their guy?

@Ochib

Sorry, but this is a bit of a weird one.

Why would the FBI suspect him of committing the crime?

Here's the rub.

Yes, they can go to a Grand Jury and present their evidence. Its taken under the assumption to be true thus if true, is there enough evidence to show that he committed the crime?

They had to do that.

But what happens if the evidence they proffer isn't correct and they know that the evidence is wrong, or that there's exculpatory evidence he didn't do it? (Meaning that while the facts presented may be true, there's another piece of evidence which show's his innocence was intentionally left out and ignored. )

There's more, but if these guys did something underhanded, meaning he's completely innocent of the charges... they could be sued themselves for prosecutorial misconduct. On a Federal charge, that could mean a lot of money.

The interesting thing... they piled on a threat because he went to a gun range in Vegas. All you Brits who hate owning guns end up going to the range to rent and fire a machine gun... IMHO that was a weak bit of evidence thrown in as a way to ask for tighter bail and restrictions. (Even the judge will see through that one.)

But you still have to ask... why him?

@AC ... Re: Here's the reality... its a scam in favor of Facebook.

Here's a better example to show you the dangers...

Suppose Google did this, and had a patent on their Google Web Page Analytics.

You know that little java script that every major web site has embedded which feeds back to google your web page's data.

Now suppose they had a patented license in place where they granted you free use unless you sue them over patent infringement where you then lose the rights to their patented code/process.

Now you sue google. They send a nasty lawyer-gram telling you to stop using their google analytics js code.

You have no choice but to edit all of your web pages and to not use Google's javascript.

What this means is that while you're suing them, they have effectively dropped you lower in terms of page rankings because you're not running their code on your web site.

Now while this is hypothetical, its a good example of what could happen. You may win your lawsuit, however you've lost the right to use their javascript (js) and thus you've hurt yourself in terms of e-commerce and web searches.

That's the danger of it.

@AC Re: Here's the reality... its a scam in favor of Facebook.

-=-

From the article.

The patent grant says that if you're going to use the software we've released under it, you lose the patent license from us if you sue us for patent infringement.”

You do realize that if you lose the rights to use the patent, it means you lose the rights to use the code for which the patent was granted. Right?

In simple terms, you will be infringing on their patent and they can then lob a sue ball at you for suing them.

Here's how it could play out...

Facebook code gets in to an Apache project which IBM uses and builds in to their product and re-licenses it. (Which you can do with Apache code under the terms of APL) You buy the IBM product. You sue FB. You lose the rights to the code that FB granted to Apache that IBM used in the product they sold you.

FB then counter sues you for patent infringement because you've lost the rights that they granted to you thru IBM and Apache.

Got it?

That's the key thing. Everyone else is ok, until they decide to sue Facebook for patent infringement. In short it has the potential to make them bullet proof.