At this point, it no longer matters; Cricut hereby joins Amazon Kindle, John Deere, etc, on my list on my list of manufacturers whose products are no longer even to be considered for "purchase" -- new or used.
I don't do business with companies who can't (read "choose not to") remember whether the business &/or it's product serves the customer's needs, or vice versa.
Okay, I only took a couple of basic (not BASIC) programming courses at uni, long, long ago --- but I have to admit that I have no freaking clue why anybody would think it made sense to go to that much effort.
(except maybe, just possibly, some fancy approach to controlling duplicate entries? Nah, that doesn't make sense either...)
Tell me how many times you've regarded Rodin's pieces. I bet ZERO. So state how this affects you personally...
There's this thing called 'circular reasoning' or 'circular logic' (not to mention more academic, formal names with fancy Greek or Latin labels).
The point of this description is that circular reasoning is well understood to be simply, even self-evidently, not valid. In cases like this, its even an evident argument against your position -- the colloquial name for that is an "own goal".
Ummm... that's how 'culture' works. Culture evolves, spreads, gets picked up and used by new people, gets adopted, then adapted, reworked, reinterpreted...
Notions around "owning" culture is like the notion of "owning" ideas -- it ignores or even denies the fundamental nature of culture in the first place.
"Cultural appropriation" is a sign of, and direct consequence of, the strength and value and vigour of that cultural phenomenon. If your culture isn't being "appropriated", you may not have an actual, viable 'culture' to begin with.
"All the evidence and your own observation should indicate the opposite..."
Unfortunately for your argument, what "all the evidence and [our] own observation" actually indicates that the so-called War On Drugs' causes far, far more harm, than the drugs themselves do.
The aforesaid evidence and observation also powerfully demonstrate that freely offered medical assistance, non-judgmental counselling, and similar measures are also far more effective in reducing and preventing substance abuse -- and harm -- than all the heavy-handed, heavily-armed law enforcement measures have ever managed to achieve.
For a thoroughly traditional example, the strong arm of the law didn't manage to stem alcohol abuse, and Prohibition did nothing but provide greater profits and increase the power and influence of organized crime -- while probably increasing both alcohol consumption and full-blown alcoholism (hint: alcohol is a drug, and 'alcoholic' is just another word for 'alcohol addict').
We supposedly learned from that experience: We don't arrest people who drink for merely 'possessing' or 'using' alcohol. We figured out, decades ago, that such measures not only don't work, but indeed only exacerbate every aspect of the problem. Anyone who proposed returning to that approach would be laughed out of the premises.
So we're smarter about how we handle alcohol use, and abuse, today, by using proven approaches such regulating (even taxing) the actual supply, implementing employer-supported treatment programs, supporting community organizations that help addicts, etc. This is the approach that evidence and observation shows to actually work.
What we don't do is to try to deal with the scourge of alcohol abuse and addiction by sending trigger-happy paramilitary police units to conduct "no-knock" armed assaults on breweries, distilleries, liquor stores, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol -- and it takes a truly remarkable sort of astoundingly stubborn and wilful blindness, to seriously suggest that such 'War On Drugs' approaches are the obvious "evidence and observation" based way to deal effectively with substance abuse and addiction of any other sort.
While your response to his comment was understandable (there are indeed far too many of those idiots"), I suspect that Scary Devil monastery himself isn't "one of those idiots, but rather, was being more subtly ironic than you realize.
Ummm... maybe if you would actually present any such evidence, rather than just bare and completely unsupported assertions, then you just might conceivably have an argument.
Am I the only one who can't help but remember that time, when Microsoft tried to sue a "non-techie" Linux distribution over alleged infringement of it's Windows trademark -- and ended up settling out of court (paid the Linux distributor several million $US to change it's name) for fear of having the court nullify it's extremely generic Windows trademark?
... this article leaves at least one important question not quite addressed:
CPB claims to have identified 300 imposters;
Was the use of computerized facial recognition technology actually the means by which these imposters were identified and caught?
This was meant to be a reply to a post further up.
Like so:
> Net neutrality does not apply to cable TV. Tying content neutrality and net neutrality benefits companies that are in both markets. As cable TV suppliers, those companies are not affected by any content neutrality that they try get imposed on Internet content.
The previous government in my home province (I'm Canadian) got into big trouble because it had become standard practice to "triple delete" inconvenient documents (ie. they made sure to delete the back-ups, too) -- potentially compromising official records, especially those documents/e-mails that were being officially sought through our Freedom of Information process.
Hence, Conservapedia.com is a thing :-( and Conservapedia moderators can moderate, delete, and outright bar whatever and whomever they choose, no matter how moronic, insane, and alt-reality their perspective and criteria might be.
Section 230 giveth, and Section 230 taketh away -- but it protects everyone's "free speech" rights, including Conservapedia's :-(.
I recall how in the late 1970's and the 1980's eighties the "conservative" religious and ideological "Right" were doing this -- but back then they were calling it "Politically Correct" or "Political Correctness" ("PC" for short) in a mock-ironic reference to brand this alleged phenomenon as a 'socialist" or "communist" style of suppression.
The label has changed since then, but the pattern is the same.
(untitled comment)
At this point, it no longer matters; Cricut hereby joins Amazon Kindle, John Deere, etc, on my list on my list of manufacturers whose products are no longer even to be considered for "purchase" -- new or used.
I don't do business with companies who can't (read "choose not to") remember whether the business &/or it's product serves the customer's needs, or vice versa.
(untitled comment)
ummm...
Okay, I only took a couple of basic (not BASIC) programming courses at uni, long, long ago --- but I have to admit that I have no freaking clue why anybody would think it made sense to go to that much effort.
(except maybe, just possibly, some fancy approach to controlling duplicate entries? Nah, that doesn't make sense either...)
Re: Re: Comrades! Our forces have won a glorious victory today!
There's this thing called 'circular reasoning' or 'circular logic' (not to mention more academic, formal names with fancy Greek or Latin labels).
The point of this description is that circular reasoning is well understood to be simply, even self-evidently, not valid. In cases like this, its even an evident argument against your position -- the colloquial name for that is an "own goal".
Re:
Ummm... that's how 'culture' works. Culture evolves, spreads, gets picked up and used by new people, gets adopted, then adapted, reworked, reinterpreted...
Notions around "owning" culture is like the notion of "owning" ideas -- it ignores or even denies the fundamental nature of culture in the first place.
"Cultural appropriation" is a sign of, and direct consequence of, the strength and value and vigour of that cultural phenomenon. If your culture isn't being "appropriated", you may not have an actual, viable 'culture' to begin with.
Re: WHY? Because drugs destroy lives.
"All the evidence and your own observation should indicate the opposite..."
Unfortunately for your argument, what "all the evidence and [our] own observation" actually indicates that the so-called War On Drugs' causes far, far more harm, than the drugs themselves do.
The aforesaid evidence and observation also powerfully demonstrate that freely offered medical assistance, non-judgmental counselling, and similar measures are also far more effective in reducing and preventing substance abuse -- and harm -- than all the heavy-handed, heavily-armed law enforcement measures have ever managed to achieve.
For a thoroughly traditional example, the strong arm of the law didn't manage to stem alcohol abuse, and Prohibition did nothing but provide greater profits and increase the power and influence of organized crime -- while probably increasing both alcohol consumption and full-blown alcoholism (hint: alcohol is a drug, and 'alcoholic' is just another word for 'alcohol addict').
We supposedly learned from that experience: We don't arrest people who drink for merely 'possessing' or 'using' alcohol. We figured out, decades ago, that such measures not only don't work, but indeed only exacerbate every aspect of the problem. Anyone who proposed returning to that approach would be laughed out of the premises.
So we're smarter about how we handle alcohol use, and abuse, today, by using proven approaches such regulating (even taxing) the actual supply, implementing employer-supported treatment programs, supporting community organizations that help addicts, etc. This is the approach that evidence and observation shows to actually work.
What we don't do is to try to deal with the scourge of alcohol abuse and addiction by sending trigger-happy paramilitary police units to conduct "no-knock" armed assaults on breweries, distilleries, liquor stores, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol -- and it takes a truly remarkable sort of astoundingly stubborn and wilful blindness, to seriously suggest that such 'War On Drugs' approaches are the obvious "evidence and observation" based way to deal effectively with substance abuse and addiction of any other sort.
Re: Re: Re:
While your response to his comment was understandable (there are indeed far too many of those idiots"), I suspect that Scary Devil monastery himself isn't "one of those idiots, but rather, was being more subtly ironic than you realize.
Re: Reminder: Compulsory patriotism isn’t patriotism.
"When a man loves a country,
it can do no wrong...''
:-( Nope, that doesn't work out in real life, any better than the original version does.
Re: Re:
Ummm... maybe if you would actually present any such evidence, rather than just bare and completely unsupported assertions, then you just might conceivably have an argument.
Opening a Windows...
Am I the only one who can't help but remember that time, when Microsoft tried to sue a "non-techie" Linux distribution over alleged infringement of it's Windows trademark -- and ended up settling out of court (paid the Linux distributor several million $US to change it's name) for fear of having the court nullify it's extremely generic Windows trademark?
Yes, it was implied, but...
... this article leaves at least one important question not quite addressed:
CPB claims to have identified 300 imposters;
Was the use of computerized facial recognition technology actually the means by which these imposters were identified and caught?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This was meant to be a reply to a post further up.
Like so:
Re: Re: Re:
"Colorless green ideas spin furiously."
Re: 'You said it. ... I did too, but you said it in court.'
Actually, "No one takes me seriously," worked pretty well for Tucker Carlson.
Re: Well at least he's consistent...
The previous government in my home province (I'm Canadian) got into big trouble because it had become standard practice to "triple delete" inconvenient documents (ie. they made sure to delete the back-ups, too) -- potentially compromising official records, especially those documents/e-mails that were being officially sought through our Freedom of Information process.
Re: Re:
Asymmetry, ashmymmetry.
This scheme is as about as senseless as passing a law that the bank must pay me interest on my mortgage.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Simple
Hence, Conservapedia.com is a thing :-( and Conservapedia moderators can moderate, delete, and outright bar whatever and whomever they choose, no matter how moronic, insane, and alt-reality their perspective and criteria might be.
Section 230 giveth, and Section 230 taketh away -- but it protects everyone's "free speech" rights, including Conservapedia's :-(.
And that's the way it's supposed to be.
Re: Re: Re:
Ummm... that would, arguably, actually be fair.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
... but more than half the acreage.
Re: Re:
In other words, this list is set up to be self-fulfilling prophecy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: https.com/josh-hawley-defended-okl
I recall how in the late 1970's and the 1980's eighties the "conservative" religious and ideological "Right" were doing this -- but back then they were calling it "Politically Correct" or "Political Correctness" ("PC" for short) in a mock-ironic reference to brand this alleged phenomenon as a 'socialist" or "communist" style of suppression.
The label has changed since then, but the pattern is the same.
More comments from BernardoVerda >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by BernardoVerda.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt