"That's not the problem. Just tell people what you're doing. Make sure that it's legal and ethical. Don't be shy of what you're doing. Then we might accept it."
Actually, yes it is part of the problem. Their claims of effectiveness are dubious at best.
But even if they are accurate, there's another problem: cost. Is that (by their own admission paltry) effectiveness worth the COST to our liberty, and the massive potential for government abuse?
Hell no, it's not.
Even without government programs like that you are far more likely to die from an accident in your bathtub than by a terrorist attack. Are you willing to give up your liberty to have your bathtub activities monitored by government agents? If not, why not? And why do you say the same does NOT apply to telephones and internet?
"Some of the things in the list they are already doing. For example, Comcast does not count use of their video streaming service against your monthly cap but does count use of other streaming services."
But there *IS* a law against it, and they *ARE* in court over it. And I think it is pretty obvious that they will lose.
"Possibly a dumb question, but does that mean any site that removes spam or has a profanity filter becomes liable?"
That's not dumb at all, it's actually a pretty good question. I don't know for sure but I don't think that has really been established yet.
But we do have a general legal precedent that says if you attempt to control the content, you assume liability for it. And it's actually a pretty reasonable concept, if you think about it.
"The Stanford team and its leader Sebastian Thrun (that won 2005 and came in 2nd in 2007) are basically the guys working on the Google self-driving car now (also responsible for Google Street View)."
Which pretty much PROVES the point I was making: Google didn't invent it, they just bought it. You're proving my point for me.
"Again, many brave women have demonstrated that balls != courage. If you're actually a woman, it's odd that I have to repeatedly explain this to you."
It's a common American figure of speech, and you know it. I'm not going to apologize or make excuses for using a common figure of speech. How about "fuck you"? Do you think I mean that literally, too? You really are a moron.
If "Jane Q. Public" weren't anonymous, you'd have shared your real name like many here do.
You still don't get it. Not that I'm surprised.
My account name is what it is. It has been what it is for years. Not only do I have no reason to change it (you certainly aren't "a reason"), but I also have perfectly legitimate reasons to keep using it. And those reasons are none of your goddamned business.
Even so, I make my opinions known, and they are associated with the name. I don't try to hide behind AC.
But again, more to the point: using a pseudonym online (yes, obviously it's a pseudonym regardless of whether you think I'm a man or woman), and keeping it for years, is socially acceptable and has a long and respected history.
Transgenderism, for better or worse, is also becoming more socially acceptable.
Online sock puppetry, on the other hand, is not socially acceptable behavior. It is universally condemned, for good reasons. And all you're doing here is acting like a billboard, illustrating those reasons. But again, I am not terribly surprised that you don't seem to understand that.
"... and posing as a woman on the internet while minimizing the struggles of transgendered people is hypocritical."
Why do you say I'm "posing" as a woman? (You needn't answer that because despite the fact that you're posing as AC, I know who you are, we've been over this before, and you don't have the balls to actually try present what you think is evidence because it will show who you are.)
But more to the point of the actual topic at hand: I DID NOT "minimize" anybody's struggles. I simply stated that it's their struggle, not mine.
Jane Q. Public has been my Slashdot handle for many years now. It is an IDENTIFIABLE, consistent account. As you already know. AC is nothing of the sort. AC is used by people who are either (A) occasional visitors to the site, or (B) people who "pose" as an AC sockpuppet because they don't have the guts to own up to their comments.
Therefore, Jane Q. Public is not "anonymous". There is a regular account and a definite persona behind it. AC is no way similar.
Further, you STILL haven't posted any evidence that what you claim is true. Even after doing this at least several times in recent memory, you ball-less posterchild for Dunning-Kruger.
"You don't give a damn and you'll be damned because it's quite literally not your problem? The "lady" doth protest too much, methinks."
I did not protest AT ALL. As I clearly wrote, I don't care one way or another what gender they want to write down.
My only point was that the problem described in this thread is self-created, and I don't have an obligation to help them feel less uncomfortable with it.
Excuse me, but being wrong does not justify a "flamebait" mod. That's not what flamebait mods are for.
"First off, Russia is not an enemy. Get over it. We won. "
I never said they were. Whether Russia in particular is a friend or an enemy has exactly zero to do with my point. I think you read more into my words than what I actually wrote.
"Secondly, Russia space budget is not going up 7x more than NASA's, let alone 17x"
Did you read the part where I wrote "I'm having trouble finding my original source"??? That's called an admission that I could have been wrong. The comment about the typo is a completely separate issue.
They did the same thing, but they did it in an entirely new way. That's how it was revolutionary.
Prior search engines used only page visits and a few other mundane criteria to rank websites. The Google guys (Brin and Schmidt) came up with the idea of using external links to the page for the primary ranking.
Frankly, I don't give a damn. If they want to be M, they can put M. If they want to be F, they can put F. But I'll be damned if I'll change my database just because THEY decided to change a letter on a form.
Their decision, they can deal with it. It is quite literally not my problem.
Slashdot Mirror
"That's not the problem. Just tell people what you're doing. Make sure that it's legal and ethical. Don't be shy of what you're doing. Then we might accept it."
Actually, yes it is part of the problem. Their claims of effectiveness are dubious at best.
But even if they are accurate, there's another problem: cost. Is that (by their own admission paltry) effectiveness worth the COST to our liberty, and the massive potential for government abuse?
Hell no, it's not.
Even without government programs like that you are far more likely to die from an accident in your bathtub than by a terrorist attack. Are you willing to give up your liberty to have your bathtub activities monitored by government agents? If not, why not? And why do you say the same does NOT apply to telephones and internet?
"I know the feeling."
Yes, I am sure you do. The similarity between your comments and masturbation has not escaped my attention.
"Some of the things in the list they are already doing. For example, Comcast does not count use of their video streaming service against your monthly cap but does count use of other streaming services."
But there *IS* a law against it, and they *ARE* in court over it. And I think it is pretty obvious that they will lose.
Not a lie; I simply changed my mind. Your comments are so incredibly, hilariously asshole-ish that I find reading them hard to resist.
"Possibly a dumb question, but does that mean any site that removes spam or has a profanity filter becomes liable?"
That's not dumb at all, it's actually a pretty good question. I don't know for sure but I don't think that has really been established yet.
But we do have a general legal precedent that says if you attempt to control the content, you assume liability for it. And it's actually a pretty reasonable concept, if you think about it.
"The Stanford team and its leader Sebastian Thrun (that won 2005 and came in 2nd in 2007) are basically the guys working on the Google self-driving car now (also responsible for Google Street View)."
Which pretty much PROVES the point I was making: Google didn't invent it, they just bought it. You're proving my point for me.
Hahahahahahaha! Well, that lets me off the hook then.
Have a not so nice day, troll.
"This is why we can't have nice things."
I think all the actions described by OP as a way ISPs may try to limit the service are already illegal.
(1) They can't legally discriminate based on source.
(2) They can't legally charge one outside source significantly more than another because that would violate (1).
(3) They can't legally charge more for services that are not their own. (There is a Federal law specifically prohibiting that.)
I suspect OP is much ado about nothing.
I made no such suggestion. That's a distortion of my words, and that's just dishonest. I am done here. Goodbye troll.
Now you're JUST trolling, nothing more. Of course you probably were from the beginning.
And then you wonder why I do not respect your opinions. What a joke.
"Again, many brave women have demonstrated that balls != courage. If you're actually a woman, it's odd that I have to repeatedly explain this to you."
It's a common American figure of speech, and you know it. I'm not going to apologize or make excuses for using a common figure of speech. How about "fuck you"? Do you think I mean that literally, too? You really are a moron.
If "Jane Q. Public" weren't anonymous, you'd have shared your real name like many here do.
You still don't get it. Not that I'm surprised.
My account name is what it is. It has been what it is for years. Not only do I have no reason to change it (you certainly aren't "a reason"), but I also have perfectly legitimate reasons to keep using it. And those reasons are none of your goddamned business.
Even so, I make my opinions known, and they are associated with the name. I don't try to hide behind AC.
But again, more to the point: using a pseudonym online (yes, obviously it's a pseudonym regardless of whether you think I'm a man or woman), and keeping it for years, is socially acceptable and has a long and respected history.
Transgenderism, for better or worse, is also becoming more socially acceptable.
Online sock puppetry, on the other hand, is not socially acceptable behavior. It is universally condemned, for good reasons. And all you're doing here is acting like a billboard, illustrating those reasons. But again, I am not terribly surprised that you don't seem to understand that.
"... and posing as a woman on the internet while minimizing the struggles of transgendered people is hypocritical."
Why do you say I'm "posing" as a woman? (You needn't answer that because despite the fact that you're posing as AC, I know who you are, we've been over this before, and you don't have the balls to actually try present what you think is evidence because it will show who you are.)
But more to the point of the actual topic at hand: I DID NOT "minimize" anybody's struggles. I simply stated that it's their struggle, not mine.
"Jane Q. Public" is anonymous just like an AC"
You're a moron.
Jane Q. Public has been my Slashdot handle for many years now. It is an IDENTIFIABLE, consistent account. As you already know. AC is nothing of the sort. AC is used by people who are either (A) occasional visitors to the site, or (B) people who "pose" as an AC sockpuppet because they don't have the guts to own up to their comments.
Therefore, Jane Q. Public is not "anonymous". There is a regular account and a definite persona behind it. AC is no way similar.
Further, you STILL haven't posted any evidence that what you claim is true. Even after doing this at least several times in recent memory, you ball-less posterchild for Dunning-Kruger.
I mean seriously. Do you even realize how much of a FUCKING HYPOCRITE you are, to pose as an AC and then accuse others of "posing" as somebody else?
No, they just use AC sockpuppet accounts to harass people they don't like for some reason, and expect nobody to notice.
"Of course, they saw justice was done. It's why they got a postcard threat. It's obvious who the criminal is."
What a stupid goddamned thing to say.
"You don't give a damn and you'll be damned because it's quite literally not your problem? The "lady" doth protest too much, methinks."
I did not protest AT ALL. As I clearly wrote, I don't care one way or another what gender they want to write down.
My only point was that the problem described in this thread is self-created, and I don't have an obligation to help them feel less uncomfortable with it.
"Thats because you are wrong with your 'facts'."
Excuse me, but being wrong does not justify a "flamebait" mod. That's not what flamebait mods are for.
"First off, Russia is not an enemy. Get over it. We won. "
I never said they were. Whether Russia in particular is a friend or an enemy has exactly zero to do with my point. I think you read more into my words than what I actually wrote.
"Secondly, Russia space budget is not going up 7x more than NASA's, let alone 17x"
Did you read the part where I wrote "I'm having trouble finding my original source"??? That's called an admission that I could have been wrong. The comment about the typo is a completely separate issue.
"But to say all of those people working on that project at Google haven't innovated is absurd
It sure is. That's why I didn't say that.
"Show me anyone who is as close as Google to making self-driving cars a reality and I'll agree it's not innovation."
Okay. The people who INVENTED the fucking things in the DARPA contests.
"How was the search engine *not* evolutionary?"
They did the same thing, but they did it in an entirely new way. That's how it was revolutionary.
Prior search engines used only page visits and a few other mundane criteria to rank websites. The Google guys (Brin and Schmidt) came up with the idea of using external links to the page for the primary ranking.
... a postcard threat received by Philip Heymann was cited by Ortiz's office as evidence of why such secrecy was necessary.
When prosecutors are more worried about covering their own asses than seeing that justice is done, you know things have gotten seriously f*ed up.
I see one of my detractors has gotten mod points again. Clarifying my previous statement is "flamebait"??? Give me a fucking break.
This.
Frankly, I don't give a damn. If they want to be M, they can put M. If they want to be F, they can put F. But I'll be damned if I'll change my database just because THEY decided to change a letter on a form.
Their decision, they can deal with it. It is quite literally not my problem.
"You had better recheck that last comment regarding Russia. Their increased funding is over many years, and still below nasa."
I'm having trouble finding my original source now. But regardless, it should have said 7 times, not 17.