Sorry, I don't really keep up on phones... looks like it's been out a couple months already.
Still, it's a bit silly to compare them, since in a few more months we'll be screaming "iPhone 5 beats Nexus S!", then later "Nexus 3 beats iPhone 5!"...
2004: Indian Ocean - The initial surge was measured at a height of approximately 33 meters
1993: Okushiri, Hokkaido, Japan - Okushiri, a small island near the epicenter...was struck with extremely big waves, some reaching 30 meters
1983: Sea of Japan - The waves exceeded 10 meters in some areas.
1964: Alaska, USA - The waves were up to 100 feet tall, and killed 11 people as far away as Crescent City, California.
1960: Valdivia, Chile - It spread across the entire Pacific Ocean, with waves measuring up to 25 meters high.
1958: Lituya Bay, Alaska, USA - an earthquake caused a megatsunami to reach a height taller than the Empire State Building, measuring over 520 metres (1,706 ft), killing two....
1923: Kanto, Japan - waves reaching 12 meters were recorded.
1896: Meiji Sanriku, Japan - the waves, which reached a height of 100 feet, killed approximately 27,000 people
1854: Nankai, Tokai, and Kyushu Japan - Earthquake generated a maximum wave of 28 meters at Kochi, Japan
1792: Mount Unzen, Nagasaki Prefecture, Kyushu, Japan - the waves reached a height of 330 ft, classing this tsunami as a small megatsunami.
1771: Yaeyama Islands, Okinawa, Japan - Estimates of the highest seawater runup on Ishigaki Island, range between 30 meters and 85.4 meters
You know, I'd have some sympathy if pirates had a "cause" anymore.
Years ago, we said "we're pirating music because they won't let us download it!" And they made download stores.
Then we said "we're pirating music because they won't sell individual tracks!" And they let us buy single tracks.
Then we said "we're pirating music because they add DRM!" And they stopped adding DRM.
Then we said "we're pirating music because 128kbps is crap!" And they gave us 256kbps+ tracks.
Then we said "we're pirating music because the major labels have a monopoly!" And now any indie artist can get on iTunes and other major music stores.
And we still pirate. Because all along, we really just wanted stuff for free.
I'm all for copyright reform, but really: The latest music, movies, and games are not vital liberties, and they take a lot of time and money to make. If someone wanted to give their content away for free, they would have done so. So ask yourself: If a person who made something you want expects compensation, why do you deserve to have it for free?
No, they mean the "free movies" and "free music" sites that so far have escaped prosecution by not actually saving anything permanently to their clients' computers and thus claiming they are not "distributing" anything. This law would apparently close that loophole.
IMHO copyright laws should be revised and dramatically shortened, but still enforced. Unfortunately, the consumers of content outnumber the producers, so the "we're entitled to everything you make for free" voices tend to drown out the "we should actually get paid for our hard work" ones.
Yeah, I'm not seeing the problem here. I mean, what was the alternative?
"You lied about someone in an attempt to smear their reputation? Yep, that's libel all right. Oh, but you did it on Twitter? Ah, that's totally different! No harm done then!"
Of course, nuclear power also suffers from the same PR problem as air travel: It may kill far fewer people in the long run, but when there is a catastrophic failure it can kill a lot of people at once.
"Nuclear plant explodes, hundreds dead!" is a lot more (*ahem*) newsworthy than "Coal power still in use, air pollution still high, low levels of radioactive elements still being dumped into the atmosphere, risk of lung disease and cancer still elevated, global warming could still cause problems decades from now."
I agree with everyone that this was a bad decision on Flickr's part. I'm simply trying to point out that calling it "censorship"—or just claiming that Flickr had no right to remove the pictures—is pure sensationalism. For something to be "censored", it has to be blocked by an entity or group that has control over (a) the content, (b) the distribution network, or (c) the audience. Flickr has none of these things. The owner of the images can take them anywhere else.
Now, if every major hosting site agreed to block the images, then they would be collectively guilty of censorship. Censorship is a very real thing with a very specific meaning, and applying it to cases like this this just weakens the public's understanding of it.
Here's an analogy: Let's say I'm a racist jerk who hates people from Lichtenstein. I even have a policy: No people from Lichtenstein in my house! Last week I hired a plumber, and the moment I found out he was a Lichtensteiner I tossed him out on my front porch. Am I a good person? No. Was I within my rights? Yes. Am I engaging in Ethnic Cleansing? No, that's sensationalism and insults real victims of ethnic cleansing.
And one last question: Should I be forced to allow Lichtensteiners in my house?
He didn't say it was a good thing. He's saying it can't be called censorship. Censorship is an organized attempt to entirely prevent certain content from reaching the public. You shouldn't refer to one single media outlet's independent actions as "censorship", just like you shouldn't refer to one single bastard's hate crime as "genocide". Doing so promotes sensationalism and is disrespectful of the real victims of censorship (or genocide).
Censorship is an attempt by a controlling body to actually prevent information from reaching the public. If Flickr broke into the guy's house and stole his originals, or contacted the operators of every other file hosting service and threatened to break their legs if they put the images up, then Flickr would be censoring this guy.
But they aren't doing that. They're just choosing what goes on their own web site, and in this case enforcing their own TOS. Was it a bad decision? I'd say so. Was it censorship? Absolutely not. They have every right to decide what goes on their web site, just as you have the right to control the content of you own.
What bothers me is the attitude of entitlement from so many people who claim to be libertarian yet are happy to take everyone else's rights away for some perceived greater good. Sorry, but in a "free" world nobody has to do what you want them to do. Web sites don't have to post your images, gadget makers don't have to cater to the FOSS crowd, and movie studios don't have to give you their latest $100,000,000 film for free. Those are the breaks, kid.
Ah, so if I taped the photos all over your car, you'd be obligated to keep them there permanently? After all, removing them would VIOLATE MY FREE SPEECH AMENDMENTS! OMG YOU CENSORIAL WHORESON!
If I had a dollar for every libertard who though that freedom meant "I can do anything I want and everyone else must bend to my desires"...
I have to respond to the Guantanamo Bay issue, since it pops up so often. In 2009 and again in 2011, congress passed laws blocking the transfer of prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. They were part of omnibus spending bills, so refusing to sign them would have been a disaster. I don't know what you expected Obama to do, short of declaring himself emperor and ruling by decree.
It's ironic that one of your complaints is about the president violating the constitution, while the other is about him not violating the constitution to get his way. Funny how our views change depending on whether we oppose or support an issue.
It's perfectly natural, since football and comic books are symbols of the two incompatible phenotypes of human males: "Strong Jock", and "Intelligent Nerd".
Of course, there is a theory which states if a single man could love both football and comic books he would become an Übermensch. And there is another theory which states this has already happened.
How true. I can't enjoy recorded music, because it's simply a cold reproduction from a creepy, unsympathetic machine. Books are the same; who could expect empathy or morality from ink on a page? And don't get me started about video games.
First, "Obama and his administration" aren't pushing the bill. Tom Carper (D-DE), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are, and I'd challenge you to find any information connecting any member of the President's administration to the bill.
Second, you're making the claim that this "Internet kill switch" has anything to do with preventing the spread of sensitive information, which makes no sense: In the real world, disconnecting the entire country from the Internet to stop a leak would (a) ensure that the embarrassing information gets read by every person on Earth (thanks, Streisand Effect!), and (b) go over about as well as dropping a nuke on a major city or instating a $100/gallon gas tax. Any president who thinks he (or she) can cut off everyones' communication and shut down most businesses without a really fucking good reason would be extremely lucky to make it to the next election before getting tossed out.
Third, the bill itself has several provisions that specifically prevent it from being used in the manner you describe. I put "Internet kill switch" in quotes because it's a gross exaggeration and not at all the point of the law; the law itself is designed to force network operators to develop disaster plans to prevent disruptions in service, and spells out that emergency powers can only be invoked in response to a cyber-warfare attack on national infrastructure, must use the least disruptive means feasible, and not restrict the free flow of information on a network unless there is no other way to preserve the reliable operation of the network. Using this as your private censorship tool would have the judicial branch on your ass in no time... unless you have no fear of of legal process, in which case you don't need laws to begin with.
Which brings me to my last point; if there was really was open revolt and martial law, no one would care about "Internet kill switch" legislation: The powers that be could simply introduce the network operators the the proverbial $5 wrench.
So congratulations on wrapping several layers of lies, misinformation, and outright stupidity into a single sentence. For what it's worth, I suspect you're either a clever troll, a libertarian conspiracy whack-job whose world view comes from yellow journalism and people named Rand, or a blithering fool who believes Obama to be a Terrorist Socialist Muslim Kenyan Magic Negro Who Happens To Be The Antichrist, and Fox News, Rush Limbaugh & co. to be Guiding Lights Sent Directly from God Above By Christ Reagan The First.
Or whatever we're calling right-wingers this week.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I always turn emoticons off in chat—you never know what's on the other end.
Sorry, I don't really keep up on phones... looks like it's been out a couple months already.
Still, it's a bit silly to compare them, since in a few more months we'll be screaming "iPhone 5 beats Nexus S!", then later "Nexus 3 beats iPhone 5!"...
Just-released gadget is faster than year-old gadget! You know It's news, because it has something to do with Apple!
An abridged list from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis :
2004: Indian Ocean - The initial surge was measured at a height of approximately 33 meters
1993: Okushiri, Hokkaido, Japan - Okushiri, a small island near the epicenter...was struck with extremely big waves, some reaching 30 meters
1983: Sea of Japan - The waves exceeded 10 meters in some areas.
1964: Alaska, USA - The waves were up to 100 feet tall, and killed 11 people as far away as Crescent City, California.
1960: Valdivia, Chile - It spread across the entire Pacific Ocean, with waves measuring up to 25 meters high.
1958: Lituya Bay, Alaska, USA - an earthquake caused a megatsunami to reach a height taller than the Empire State Building, measuring over 520 metres (1,706 ft), killing two. ...
1923: Kanto, Japan - waves reaching 12 meters were recorded.
1896: Meiji Sanriku, Japan - the waves, which reached a height of 100 feet, killed approximately 27,000 people
1854: Nankai, Tokai, and Kyushu Japan - Earthquake generated a maximum wave of 28 meters at Kochi, Japan
1792: Mount Unzen, Nagasaki Prefecture, Kyushu, Japan - the waves reached a height of 330 ft, classing this tsunami as a small megatsunami.
1771: Yaeyama Islands, Okinawa, Japan - Estimates of the highest seawater runup on Ishigaki Island, range between 30 meters and 85.4 meters
You know, I'd have some sympathy if pirates had a "cause" anymore.
Years ago, we said "we're pirating music because they won't let us download it!"
And they made download stores.
Then we said "we're pirating music because they won't sell individual tracks!"
And they let us buy single tracks.
Then we said "we're pirating music because they add DRM!"
And they stopped adding DRM.
Then we said "we're pirating music because 128kbps is crap!"
And they gave us 256kbps+ tracks.
Then we said "we're pirating music because the major labels have a monopoly!"
And now any indie artist can get on iTunes and other major music stores.
And we still pirate.
Because all along, we really just wanted stuff for free.
I'm all for copyright reform, but really: The latest music, movies, and games are not vital liberties, and they take a lot of time and money to make. If someone wanted to give their content away for free, they would have done so. So ask yourself: If a person who made something you want expects compensation, why do you deserve to have it for free?
No, they mean the "free movies" and "free music" sites that so far have escaped prosecution by not actually saving anything permanently to their clients' computers and thus claiming they are not "distributing" anything. This law would apparently close that loophole.
IMHO copyright laws should be revised and dramatically shortened, but still enforced. Unfortunately, the consumers of content outnumber the producers, so the "we're entitled to everything you make for free" voices tend to drown out the "we should actually get paid for our hard work" ones.
Envy?
Noticeably muddier and harsher than DSD memory, though.
Yeah, I'm not seeing the problem here. I mean, what was the alternative?
"You lied about someone in an attempt to smear their reputation? Yep, that's libel all right.
Oh, but you did it on Twitter? Ah, that's totally different! No harm done then!"
Of course, nuclear power also suffers from the same PR problem as air travel: It may kill far fewer people in the long run, but when there is a catastrophic failure it can kill a lot of people at once.
"Nuclear plant explodes, hundreds dead!" is a lot more (*ahem*) newsworthy than "Coal power still in use, air pollution still high, low levels of radioactive elements still being dumped into the atmosphere, risk of lung disease and cancer still elevated, global warming could still cause problems decades from now."
I agree with everyone that this was a bad decision on Flickr's part. I'm simply trying to point out that calling it "censorship"—or just claiming that Flickr had no right to remove the pictures—is pure sensationalism. For something to be "censored", it has to be blocked by an entity or group that has control over (a) the content, (b) the distribution network, or (c) the audience. Flickr has none of these things. The owner of the images can take them anywhere else.
Now, if every major hosting site agreed to block the images, then they would be collectively guilty of censorship. Censorship is a very real thing with a very specific meaning, and applying it to cases like this this just weakens the public's understanding of it.
Here's an analogy: Let's say I'm a racist jerk who hates people from Lichtenstein. I even have a policy: No people from Lichtenstein in my house! Last week I hired a plumber, and the moment I found out he was a Lichtensteiner I tossed him out on my front porch. Am I a good person? No. Was I within my rights? Yes. Am I engaging in Ethnic Cleansing? No, that's sensationalism and insults real victims of ethnic cleansing.
And one last question: Should I be forced to allow Lichtensteiners in my house?
He didn't say it was a good thing. He's saying it can't be called censorship. Censorship is an organized attempt to entirely prevent certain content from reaching the public. You shouldn't refer to one single media outlet's independent actions as "censorship", just like you shouldn't refer to one single bastard's hate crime as "genocide". Doing so promotes sensationalism and is disrespectful of the real victims of censorship (or genocide).
Censorship is an attempt by a controlling body to actually prevent information from reaching the public. If Flickr broke into the guy's house and stole his originals, or contacted the operators of every other file hosting service and threatened to break their legs if they put the images up, then Flickr would be censoring this guy.
But they aren't doing that. They're just choosing what goes on their own web site, and in this case enforcing their own TOS. Was it a bad decision? I'd say so. Was it censorship? Absolutely not. They have every right to decide what goes on their web site, just as you have the right to control the content of you own.
What bothers me is the attitude of entitlement from so many people who claim to be libertarian yet are happy to take everyone else's rights away for some perceived greater good. Sorry, but in a "free" world nobody has to do what you want them to do. Web sites don't have to post your images, gadget makers don't have to cater to the FOSS crowd, and movie studios don't have to give you their latest $100,000,000 film for free. Those are the breaks, kid.
Ah, so if I taped the photos all over your car, you'd be obligated to keep them there permanently? After all, removing them would VIOLATE MY FREE SPEECH AMENDMENTS! OMG YOU CENSORIAL WHORESON!
If I had a dollar for every libertard who though that freedom meant "I can do anything I want and everyone else must bend to my desires"...
I have to respond to the Guantanamo Bay issue, since it pops up so often. In 2009 and again in 2011, congress passed laws blocking the transfer of prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. They were part of omnibus spending bills, so refusing to sign them would have been a disaster. I don't know what you expected Obama to do, short of declaring himself emperor and ruling by decree.
It's ironic that one of your complaints is about the president violating the constitution, while the other is about him not violating the constitution to get his way. Funny how our views change depending on whether we oppose or support an issue.
http://www.bmfwallets.com/ (mildly nsfw)
It's perfectly natural, since football and comic books are symbols of the two incompatible phenotypes of human males: "Strong Jock", and "Intelligent Nerd".
Of course, there is a theory which states if a single man could love both football and comic books he would become an Übermensch.
And there is another theory which states this has already happened.
How true. I can't enjoy recorded music, because it's simply a cold reproduction from a creepy, unsympathetic machine. Books are the same; who could expect empathy or morality from ink on a page? And don't get me started about video games.
*cough*
Apple limits the freedoms of its users, and thus becomes a tyrant. You therefore limit the freedoms of your users, and thus become a hero.
Debian Linux is Best Linux?
You're begging the question:
First, "Obama and his administration" aren't pushing the bill. Tom Carper (D-DE), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are, and I'd challenge you to find any information connecting any member of the President's administration to the bill.
Second, you're making the claim that this "Internet kill switch" has anything to do with preventing the spread of sensitive information, which makes no sense:
In the real world, disconnecting the entire country from the Internet to stop a leak would (a) ensure that the embarrassing information gets read by every person on Earth (thanks, Streisand Effect!), and (b) go over about as well as dropping a nuke on a major city or instating a $100/gallon gas tax. Any president who thinks he (or she) can cut off everyones' communication and shut down most businesses without a really fucking good reason would be extremely lucky to make it to the next election before getting tossed out.
Third, the bill itself has several provisions that specifically prevent it from being used in the manner you describe. I put "Internet kill switch" in quotes because it's a gross exaggeration and not at all the point of the law; the law itself is designed to force network operators to develop disaster plans to prevent disruptions in service, and spells out that emergency powers can only be invoked in response to a cyber-warfare attack on national infrastructure, must use the least disruptive means feasible, and not restrict the free flow of information on a network unless there is no other way to preserve the reliable operation of the network. Using this as your private censorship tool would have the judicial branch on your ass in no time... unless you have no fear of of legal process, in which case you don't need laws to begin with.
Which brings me to my last point; if there was really was open revolt and martial law, no one would care about "Internet kill switch" legislation: The powers that be could simply introduce the network operators the the proverbial $5 wrench.
So congratulations on wrapping several layers of lies, misinformation, and outright stupidity into a single sentence. For what it's worth, I suspect you're either a clever troll, a libertarian conspiracy whack-job whose world view comes from yellow journalism and people named Rand, or a blithering fool who believes Obama to be a Terrorist Socialist Muslim Kenyan Magic Negro Who Happens To Be The Antichrist, and Fox News, Rush Limbaugh & co. to be Guiding Lights Sent Directly from God Above By Christ Reagan The First.
Or whatever we're calling right-wingers this week.
Says someone who's never had to make the choice.
Really?
So many crackpot dictators, so few megawatt lasers.
And even their not-so-current products; all Apple routers have supported IPv6 since March 2008.
You might want to check the settings on your time machine; you're back in 2011 right now.