Slashdot Mirror
Search
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
The Mac is a tightly integrated system. Apple takes responsibility for the entire experience. So to claim that it's not their fault that they can't handle simple MPEG2 files is ludicrous. The same goes for any other format. According to their own hype they practically invented the extensible video decoding system. So the idea that anything is unusable is absurd.
In this respect Ubuntu has me spoiled. If it tries to play something and it can't then it will go out and look for what it needs. I don't have to go out and manually futz with plugins that might be crippleware. If things are supported formats then any combination of them will do. There will be no BS artificial limit on what combinations of audio codec, video codec, and container can be combined.
This NIH nonsense then percolates up into applications like iMovie or Front Row.
The total lack of configurability in apps like Front Row is another separate issue.
By comparison, even the worst caricature of Ubuntu is infinitely flexible.
The "superior user experience" answer is to convert all of your incoming data on an ongoing basis. It boggles the mind...
No, obviously not. Likening Michelle Obama to a monkey is insulting her because she is black, and is therefore racist. Likening Bush to a monkey is not insulting him because he is white, and so is not racist
Reluctantly, I googled for possible copies of the offending image, and came up short. Before replying to you, I would have liked to gauge for myself how blatantly racist the image is.
Let me break this down:
* The picture caricatures Michelle Obama as a monkey
* Michelle Obama is black
* Therefore, the creator of the image was racially motivated to insult her with that caricature.
Do you not see the HUGE assumption that exists between those premises, and your conclusion? That assumption might be occasionally true-- and I concede that it could actually be true in this case-- but it is not universally so. What is it about monkeys that makes their use in caricatures of (only!) blacks inherently and unequivocally racist?
Pretending race doesn't exist, on the other hand, is just a way of pretending that racism doesn't exist, and so will inevitably perpetuate it.
By that logic, racism will never be eliminated. By your reckoning, the moment we finally manage to become color-blind, we give new life to racism. It's a demon that can't be vanquished. And, I suspect, some people like it that way.
I should feel free to (example) make hiring decisions based solely on merits and content of character, without having to worry that someone will accuse me of having decided based on skin color.
If comparing people to monkeys is horribly offensive then where were you when Bush was getting this treatment? Probably sitting at home laughing about it.
Yes I was, because when it was done to Bush it wasn't done for racist reasons, in the same way that the caricatures of Darwin as an ape were not racist. But with Obama the primary reason is racism, and if you can't understand why that is different you are a fool, along with all the other people who have modded you up to "5; Insightful"
it's that their algorithm thought it would be a good idea to make a most offensive caricature of someone be in the top search results. They are responsible for what they rank.
Riiiight. What likely happened is that the picture in question ruthlessly gamed the pagerank algorithm. Google has long had a policy of delisting sites that do that. That's what they should have said they did here.
. If when you Google Image someone's name, the first picture that appears is an unpleasant caricature then I'm no lawyer but it sounds good enough to sue them for defamation of character.
Bullshit. You'd have to prove that google had a hand in making the monkey pics highly ranked instead of just applying a neutral algorithm and showing what was popular at the time. You sue ATT when someone yells at you over the phone?
Actually it can. If when you Google Image someone's name, the first picture that appears is an unpleasant caricature then I'm no lawyer but it sounds good enough to sue them for defamation of character. Because of course there's going to be unpleasant caricatures of public persons, but if one of them is the first result, if it comes before any legitimate depiction, then the problem comes from you, and you'd better fix it.
Wrong wrong wrong.
If you are running an algorithm and the result of that algorithm are applied to all searches for images of public persons your lawsuit would fall on its face.
There is no reason why a legitimate depiction should come first for the search of someone's name if the algorithm is applied equally. All Google would have to do is show that their algorithm is the same for everyone and therefore the reason that such a depiction was negative is because the negative depiction is the one which is most popular/relevant/whatever the algorithm is designed to measure.
If I run an algorithm to find the most linked to image for a set of search terms I have NO obligation to alter that algorithm simply because the most linked to image for a set of search terms (person) happens to be negative.
No, the problem isn't that Google indexed the image, it's that their algorithm thought it would be a good idea to make a most offensive caricature of someone be in the top search results. They are responsible for what they rank. If you looked up "holocaust" and the first result was "the holocaust never happened" you'd get the same kind of shitstorm, not because of what's indexed, but because of how things are ranked.
As someone who isn't American, thank you for explaining that. I couldn't figure out what people were so worked up over.
I still think it's a steaming pile of horse shit. In bad taste, yes. Something to get excited over? I'm still not seeing it. Many people can be caricatured in various ways due to their looks, and sometimes it's even amusing. I don't see the need to declare a comparison "off limits" because of someone's race. A lot of the comments here seem to suggest it's fine for me to portray a white person as a monkey (even if we agree it's in bad taste), even if they happen to resemble one more than most of us do. But don't dare make that comparison of someone black.
Be willing to call it like it is, even it's a crappy attempt at humour. That seems to more closely embody equality, at least to me. But yes, a lot of it depends on intent, and I wasn't around to hear the racial slurs of the past.
When's the last time you saw a white politician attacked for being white? Never? Because we don't believe in racism against whites, two thirds of the nation is white, so it doesn't seem to make any sense to suspect anyone of being anti-white when they're seen attacking one white person. Therefore we're practically blind to racism towards whites, which isn't very common anyway. If you saw a caricature of a white politician as a fat pig, you wouldn't bother to wonder if it's because he's white, you'd wonder what he did to deserve that caricature. Even if it was racially motivated, you wouldn't know it, unless perhaps it came from Black Panther Magazine.
When it comes to black people, we're much more keen to detect racist attacks, because they're extremely common, you can't be a black personality (let alone a black politician) without eventually being the object of a verbal racist attack. And we've seen and heard enough of such racist attacks to easily know one when we see one. So we're comparing a non-problem that we would hardly acknowledge if it really was a problem, to a very real and ubiquitous problem that regularly taints political discourse.
Google can't be held responsible for it
Actually it can. If when you Google Image someone's name, the first picture that appears is an unpleasant caricature then I'm no lawyer but it sounds good enough to sue them for defamation of character. Because of course there's going to be unpleasant caricatures of public persons, but if one of them is the first result, if it comes before any legitimate depiction, then the problem comes from you, and you'd better fix it.
Only if you believe that black people *are* like monkeys. Do you believe that ? Are you a racist ? When Darwin published his seminal work, he was caricatured in the press as a monkey. Was that racist or because he was white it can't have been ? It's an insult, sure, but dragging race specificity into it is only prolonging racism. Complain about the insult all you like, but don't pretend it's more than that unless you buy into the idea that we are substantially different, which makes you a racist.
You all complain when somebody tries to stick to an outmoded definition of a word, often using the excuse "language changes". If that's the case, then ignoring the word "racism" and defining it accurately as insulting behaviour, will over time remove the colour/race aspect and reduce it to what it is - juvenile name calling.
Treating certain races as separate under law can only prolong racism. Treating everybody the same way can only reduce racism, because racism is just another term for xenophobia. Last I heard, we are all part of the human race. Allowing one group to play the race card stacks the deck and is unfair. To even things out, remove that card. It causes more problems than it solves.
"If you were a pakistani who's family got killed by a drone would you see a caricature of Mrs Obama in the same light as a caricature of Mugabe?"
Probably. But at that point I'd also probably be beyond rational thought.
"Under freedom of speech either should be allowed to be expressed."
I didn't say that it shouldn't be expressed. I said that Mugabe deserved it more. You may think this is hair-splitting, but hear me out. I am also allowed to voice my outrage at the attack on Mrs. Obama should I so choose, just like I am allowed to voice my opinion on Mugabe saying that it's "not so bad" because I think he's a murderer. And you are free to disagree. Free speech cuts both ways.
To get back to a point that I mentioned earlier, Google is free (under the idea of free speech) to index or not index items. Freedom of speech is also a freedom not to be compelled to speak. If they decided that not indexing the picture is in their best interest (because of public outrage) then they may remove it from the direct search (you can get it, and many others, if you include the word "monkey" which is a suggested term)
If the White House or the Justice Department came out and told Google to de-index the picture, then I'd have a problem with censorship.
But they didn't. It was Google on its own which removed the picture from the original search results and moved it over to a different search.
--
BMO
While I agree with both your sentiments as wel as the AC above caricaturing a person based on race is clearly NOT OK.
That is the issue at hand here.
I live in South Africa and have family and friends in Zim living (at least trying to) under the Mugabe regime, trust me I see him in as low a light as is possible.
Side-tracking the issue by pointing out his flaws is not helpful to discuss whether to put a caricature image of anybody online.
If you were a pakistani who's family got killed by a drone would you see a caricature of Mrs Obama in the same light as a caricature of Mugabe?
Under freedom of speech either should be allowed to be expressed.
But under common decency neither should be encouraged.
Where to draw the line then?
sensitivity to such issues whatsoever know that it's racially-charged to use the symbolism of a monkey to represent a black person. In the name of not looking like a racist pig most people would just choose a different way to caricaturize the President.
In otherwords, oversensitive people who get their panties in a bunch is okay? But I guess that double standards is the standard these days?
Bush was characterised as a stupid white frat boy. He was compared to a chimp, intelligence called into question, etc Cheney was compared to Darth Vader, Sauron, Satan, etc All of these things were accepted without batting an eyelid.
Yet when one website called celeberityapes.com makes a picture of Michelle Obama (when its sole purpose is to make Simian-human hybrids of celebrities) it is branded as racist. WTF? Why is it “International News”.
I personally think that it is only because of the cult of personality around the Obama’s.
Ah, so it's reasonable to call a black man a nigger as long as you agree with his politics. Gotcha.
Mugabe's argument is that anything's better in the long run than a state predominantly owned by ex-colonials. You may think servitude across generations is OK as long as everyone gets their bowl of gruel a day, but most revolutionaries tend to think not dinner party, barrel of gun, etc.
You may disagree, and Mugabe is clearly corrupt, but you're still just a dirty racist of no help to any involved party if you think caricaturing his colour is appropriate.
In the past, numerous artists have drawn caricatures of numerous politicians, and no one apologized for the caricatures.
In much the same way, the media has ignored the racist voting pattern by African-Americans in favor of Barack Hussein Obama. Allow me to explain.
During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
Why would they need to ask? Why would they even bother?
There have been signs of racial epithets directed at the man's children from those teabagger lynchmobs, and I don't recall anything from the administration in response. Why would he bother asking for a stupid caricature of his wife?
It absolutely makes sense to me that regular people would get offended enough by what they see as race baiting to contact google and ask them to do something about it, no intervention by the administration is needed. I'm sure people were offended by the google chimp pictures, too, but then it's really hard to argue that comparing a white guy to a chimp is racist and not satire.
In the past, numerous artists have drawn caricatures of numerous politicians, and no one apologized for the caricatures.
In much the same way, the media has ignored the racist voting pattern by African-Americans in favor of Barack Hussein Obama. Allow me to explain.
During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
You're ridiculous.
The administration wouldn't have to lift a finger to get Google to remove this - market pressures would. Someone finds a race-baiting image of the First Lady is a top result on Google and sends word to everyone in their address book about it, and those people spread it, and so on. At some point you'd have tons of people contacting Google to demand that it be remedied, and Google would do it rather than suffer a pretty serious PR black eye.
Why would the Obama administration bother swinging at a pitch in the dirt like this? People have been shown at protests with signs that insult the man's *children* by calling them all kinds of racist names, and he doesn't bother responding to it, but you think that a stupid caricature of his wife is somehow going to get him to say "Hey, I think I'll take an action that, if found out, would completely ruin my credibility and won't have any impact because the image will still be out there. That's a winning move!"
It looks like you're a paranoid kook who doesn't have any clue how the real world actually works. The fact that some other mong modded you "insightful" should be frightening to people who actually have a functioning brain.