Wendy Cockcroft 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (1678) comment rss

  • On the post: Social Media Promised To Block Covid-19 Misinformation; But They're Also Blocking Legit Info Too

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2020 @ 05:17am

    Re: Re:

    btr1701 is correct. This is the true definition of Socialism.

  • On the post: Insane: China Expels American Journalists In Ridiculous, Unhelpful Spat About Covid-19

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2020 @ 04:54am

    Re: Re:

    Workers are entitled to a living wage as a matter of morality as well as economy. Think about it: Henry Ford made a point of paying his workers enough to purchase the cars they made, and he was successful. Why?

    1. The workers had disposable income
    2. They spent their money in the local economy
    3. This provided and maintained jobs for local workers
    4. Many of them were able to earn enough to purchase a car
    The lesson is: in a consumer economy, the more workers earn, the more they have to spend on local goods and services. This causes the economy to thrive because each purchaser buys goods for themselves and their loved ones. If the flow of money is curtailed, businesses suffer due to lack of customers. Therefore allowing the top tier of managers to hoover up all the dosh and restrict the amount of money provided to workers is bad for the wider economy. The cost of manufacturing and service provision will go up but not that much; the more products the manufacturer or service provider produce or provide, the more money they make. There is no justification for slavery. Never was, never will be.

  • On the post: Volunteers 3D-Print Unobtainable $11,000 Valve For $1 To Keep Covid-19 Patients Alive; Original Manufacturer Threatens To Sue

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2020 @ 02:56am

    Re: Re:

    There shouldn't be patents on medicines or medical devices in the first place.

  • On the post: SoftBank Owned Patent Troll, Using Monkey Selfie Law Firm, Sues To Block Covid-19 Testing, Using Theranos Patents

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2020 @ 02:17am

    Re:

    Wouldn't it be better to simply get patents off all medicines and medical equipment, including vaccines? End of problem.

  • On the post: BestNetTech In The Time Of Covid-19

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2020 @ 06:30am

    Re:

    Take into account the long incubation period. It's up to 24 days in some cases. This is what marks it out from SARS and Swine flu -- they were easier to spot and stop. The Coronavirus is being spread by apparently healthy people who don't realise they're infected.

  • On the post: Court Orders Chelsea Manning Released From Jail One Day After Suicide Attempt: Testimony 'No Longer Needed'

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2020 @ 09:19am

    Re: Re:

    The cruelty is the point; they were trying to coerce her and were getting nowhere.

  • On the post: Arrests R Us: Six-Year-Old Cuffed And Tossed Into A Cop Car For 'Throwing A Tantrum' At School

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2020 @ 09:05am

    Re:

    You are, Tom. This is a child being a child but treated as an adult. The arrest was illegal. Yes, she threw a tantrum. . One time I was babysitting a five year old boy. I wanted to take a particular route home from school. He threw a tantrum, shouting, crying, and rolling on the ground. I let him. I did nothing to calm him, I just sat on a nearby wall and waited until he was finished. Then we took my route home. It was the first and last time he did that. Next, I took some tinned tomatoes, some onions, and a tin of sweetcorn and cooked them together. In another pot I boiled some pasta, then put the lot together and served them. Little Timmy didn't want it. "Okay, Timmy, but that's all there is, kiddo." He ate it up. You don't have to arrest and restrain a child who misbehaves, just be firm and don't give in. If they tantrum in a room where other kids are, remove them from the room and let them scream outside. Stand nearby, ready to intervene if they try to break things, but otherwise leave them to it. Once they realise it gets them nowhere they'll give up. Show me a kid who repeatedly tantrums and I'll show you how the parents and carers encourage it by indulging the kid or paying attention. The trick is not to. I only ever indulge kids who behave well and do as they're told. This has never failed me.

  • On the post: Arrests R Us: Six-Year-Old Cuffed And Tossed Into A Cop Car For 'Throwing A Tantrum' At School

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2020 @ 06:53am

    Re: Re:

    If ignorance of the law is an excuse for them, how come it's not for us?

  • On the post: Bizarre: Democrats In Congress Agree To Give Trump More Of The Spying Powers He Complains Were Abused Against Him

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2020 @ 06:25am

    Re:

    Failure to kiss Trump's rump is emphatically not partisan. Stop it!

  • On the post: DOJ's Latest Ideas For Section 230 Reform Dumber Than Even I Expected

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2020 @ 06:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Simple Solution to most Internet defamation

    Many people who post this type of defamation on the world's billboard owned by Yelp are looking for the notoriety, attention and money which could come with being sued.
    Nonsense! My troll used a .ru email address. There was no way to track or sue him. And who the hell gets a) famouse or b) paid to tell lies on review sites? Stop it!
    They don't have any assets to worry about and can keep posting and building pressure on the professional being defamed to pay them to stop.
    I'm a professional and all I had to do was post a rebuttal, then contact Yelp to ask them to remove the post, which they did.
    Each new day of the lawsuit gives them more to spew about. Now the professional has to bring more suits to deal with the continuing falsehoods.
    Give me just one example of this. You can't, can you?
    Yelp could easily moderate defamation just as it does hate speech or any other violation of their content guidelines.
    They do moderate defamation. They got rid of the claim about me. All I had to do was prove it was a troll post, which I easily did; the troll kindly helped me out by posting similar crap elsewhere using a variety of pseudonyms. His accusations were so ridiculous they couldn't be taken seriously. I mean, if someone breaks the law and costs you money doing it, you go to the cops, not a review site.
    If someone claims someone else committed a murder you have to back that up with at least the police record, article etc.
    And if there's no evidence of even an investigation taking place for crimes like extortion, etc., and the cops are kind enough to put that in writing for you, that helps Yelp, etc., to understand it's a troll post and they take it down.
    Yelp has plenty of minions cold calling 24/7, they can do some moderation.
    Cold calling whom? They already moderate. If you can't rebut the assertions or prove the review is fake, tough tizzy.

  • On the post: DOJ's Latest Ideas For Section 230 Reform Dumber Than Even I Expected

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2020 @ 09:03am

    Re: Re: Simple Solution to most Internet defamation

    Correct. This happened to me; someone made up a stack of lies about me and posted them on various review sites, then tried to get me fired from my job by posting links to the reviews on my employer's Twitter account. I got hauled into the office for it. He failed. Years later, resident troll Hamilton decided to post those links here in an effort to discredit me; he failed. Why did they fail? Because my own conduct and that described in the fake reviews didn't match up. Defamation claims only stick where there's actual harm. A bit of brown trousers time while waiting for the police to verify that I wasn't being investigated for the crimes the troll accused me of isn't actual harm; it wouldn't get past GO in a court of law and I wouldn't get £200. Why does this dead horse keep getting flogged? At this point it's just bits of bone and tattered, dried out skin. Give it up! Once more, for the hard of thinking:

    1. Defamation charges only stick if actual, measurable harm is done.
    2. Wild allegations about any individual tend to cause other people to check them out.
    3. Your good name can only be tarnished if people actually believe the things being said about you.
    4. People are less likely to believe histrionic allegations about you if your general conduct is good, so don't behave badly.
    This is why those commenters who name-call and make nasty comments about Mike and the team tend to get flagged as a matter of course, even if they make reasonable comments; we have come to expect them to behave badly, then whine about their comments being flagged. If people have come to expect you to be reasonable or at least well-behaved, that is less likely. When people check you out online, they build a mental picture of you, i.e. your story. If your message, i.e. the things you say online, contradict your story they won't take you seriously, e.g. that girl who called herself a badass for tracking down people who make mean comments about her being chubby and DMCA'd them. That is not badass, it's butthurt. So, then, if someone posts fake reviews about a generally good dentist, etc., few people will believe them, ergo, no defamation. If someone posts bad reviews about a generally bad dentist and people believe it, tough. No defamation because it's true. If bad reviews or unsavoury comments show up in the Google search results on a person's name, people will click on the links and take a closer look. If the person has contested the comments, the one looking him up will take a closer look to find out more and make a decision based on how the person conducts himself. If the conduct doesn't match the claims, no harm done. Better still, reputable review sites will remove false reviews if you can prove the posts were made by a troll, as I did. Why is this hard?

  • On the post: Michigan State Police Spend The Weekend Getting Ratioed For Bragging About Stealing $40,000 From A Driver

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2020 @ 03:30am

    Re: NOW how much would you pay?

    You're describing radical evil.

  • On the post: Michigan State Police Spend The Weekend Getting Ratioed For Bragging About Stealing $40,000 From A Driver

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2020 @ 03:20am

    Re: Re:

    Sheriff Buford T. Justice.

  • On the post: Bold: Matthew Storman, Sans Lawyer, Counter Sues Nintendo For False Allegation Of Copyright Infringement

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2020 @ 09:40am

    Re:

    Agreed. I'm not a mad fan of copyright but Storman has no case here while Nintendo does. Whether or not Nintendo benefits from Storman's ROM site is immaterial; he infringed and made money from copyrighted items. Bad move. He will lose, and hard.

  • On the post: Why Is Fox News Acting As State Media, Announcing Trump's Lawsuits Before They're Filed And Failing To Point Out How Frivolous They Are?

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2020 @ 06:36am

    Re: Answering your question

    Roger Ailes turned it into the media arm of the Republican party. Don't be so shocked, it's just Fox being Fox.

  • On the post: Lt. Governor Of Texas Gets Offended By An Anti-Police Shirt, Decides He Needs To Start Violating The First Amendment

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2020 @ 06:33am

    Re: Re: Two things

    What Bob says. Add Afghanistan to the above list. America needs to stop getting into foreign wars -- and keep the damn neocons out. Their "leadership" is what gets you into these messes. Now repeat after me: "We can't create our own reality" until you actually believe it. The trouble with the neocons is that they don't; they totally believe that the rightness of their cause will somehow magically reduce any harm and only do good despite the wealth of evidence against this. They also hate facts and aren't interested in the fine details and nuances of the situations they insert themselves into. This has been true from Korea to Vietnam to South American, North African, Asian, and Middle East interventions. You've won none of them, unless you count "Creating an almighty mess, thousands if not millions of refugees, and a political quagmire that will take generations to resolve" as a victory of any kind. /End rant.

  • On the post: Why Does The NY Times Seem Literally Incapable Of Reporting Accurately On Section 230?

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2020 @ 03:39am

    Re: Re:

    Syphilis rots your brain. Mind you, so does ideology.

  • On the post: In New 5Pointz Decision, Second Circuit Concludes That VARA Trumps The Constitution

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2020 @ 03:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's "Reify." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reify

  • On the post: Rhode Island Legislators Decide To Introduce Some Random Dude's First Amendment-Threatening Legislation

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2020 @ 02:56am

    Re: Re:

    When can we start? A) it'd make a great Candid Camera-style show
    B) it'd teach those twerps to do a bit of due dilligence prior to bringing bills to the floor.

  • On the post: Rhode Island Legislators Decide To Introduce Some Random Dude's First Amendment-Threatening Legislation

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2020 @ 02:54am

    Re:

    That seems reasonable to me. Perp-walking innocent people has got to stop.

Next >>