Try reading the RA, and what the minister actually said, rather than the spin/. and ISPreview have tried to put on it: "It is certainly worth the Government brokering a conversation with the internet industry about setting up a mediation service for consumers who have legitimate concerns that their privacy has been breached or that online information about them is inaccurate or constitutes a gross invasion of their privacy to discuss whether there is any way to remove access to that information."
There is nothing -- nothing -- in Vaizeys comments about "forcing" anybody to take anything down. There's no point: that already exists in UK law. Vaizey's suggestion is for a lower-cost less adversarial route. Maybe the suggestions are unworkable because they would be "immensely complicated and time consuming", but it looks as if ISPreview is trying to scupper it through misinformation rather than genuine argument. And it will work if people don't bother reading past the headline.
Er, no. Net profit is the only real measure of success.
Yes, this is a short-term goal for any newspaper. But you're ignoring the long-term consequences of this move
I'm ignoring them because they're not measures of success. I'm not disputing that they are likely to have an effect on the future success of the title, but they're not measures.
They're valid, but because the "not" modifies the modal auxiliary "will" they're not necessary: the form I proposed is valid too. See the entry in Fowler, 2nd edition, under "nor".
There actually IS such a history - however it is very slanted towards giving money to some charity or other enterprise such that it generates kudos for the philanthropist from society.
Or to buy political influence / support a political agenda. Supporting the Murdoch press could fall in that category.
How many people used to read it before? That's the only real measure of success
Er, no. Net profit is the only real measure of success. Murdoch also wants the political influence, no doubt, but I don't think that can be measured by anything as simple as the number of readers.
Well, if we absolutely must have a pedantry thread, somebody is going to have to point out that "neither" shouldn't be used when there are more (or, indeed, fewer) than two possibilities, so it shouldn't be neither/or or neither/nor. "Not you, the OP, or I" might be the safest construction.
Actually, it isn't pure utilitarianism, unless one takes a very narrow definition of "needs". Utilitarianism would also be concerned with how severe the consequences would be if the various needs were not met, whereas Spock's maxim only looks at how many people have needs. So if we took Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for example, Spock's maxim would allow the many to deprive the few of primary needs (such as the need to breathe) in order to satisfy their need for esteem or self actualisation. Actually, it could be as bad if you just stayed at the physiological level of Maslow: the many could stop the few satisfying their need to breathe in order to satisfy the majority's need for sex. In other words it's far far worse than utilitarianism. It's very democratic, though.
Except it doesn't, because they're not. Repeated experiments have shown that most people in market economies don't act selfishly (members of some tribes that don't operate any sort of market economy do, and chimpanzees do). So the smart companies don't depend on selfishness. And if you go to the roots of modern democracy you'll find that it was an attempt to determine the general will, not the particular will.
It won't work. From the RA: 'The term "Troll" was described in court as someone who creates new identities on Facebook accounts [sic] and then posts numerous offensive comments to upset or provoke a reaction from others.' (My emphasis.) Slashdot isn't Facebook.
It's the closest you'll get in any of the chains. You can get truly great pizza if you go to an independent, but it will be Italian style, not American style, so all to many Americans will be wondering where all the dough and fat are.
All the "liquid explosives" people are worried about are not mostly water. All of the crap people take on planes to drink is mostly water. Yet the TSA won't let me take a bit of juice or water through security? What a crock.
If they let you through with water, you wouldn't have to buy the overpriced stuff in the airport shops, which would hit their profits. Now, that's a threat they take very seriously.
Just out of interest, when did the British take land from the Irish? As far as I can see, Britain and Ireland came under common rule when the Normans conquered both. Sure, Ireland was then treated pretty crappily which led to understandable resentment, but the British never actually stole the land. The nearest was the so-called "Tudor conquest", but that was actually just a re-establishment of control that had been waning.
Yes, it is frustrating having to put up with all those silly airpot checks demanded by the TSA.
It is also frustrating to have to wait forever when trying to land at Heathrow at 6 AM in the morning just because you don't have enough runways. Do you think you could you do something about that?
That's easy. Don't fly into Heathrow. Chances are you didn't want to go to Hounslow anyway.
It should go faster than a smaller meteorite would because air resistance would have less decelerating effect (air resistance goes with the square of the size, mass with the cube so acceleration goes with 1/size), but the increased air resistance would mean more heating, which would be in proportion to the increased surface area (both go with the square of the size). Overall, I reckon it would light up like any other meteorite.
Slashdot Mirror
Try reading the RA, and what the minister actually said, rather than the spin /. and ISPreview have tried to put on it: "It is certainly worth the Government brokering a conversation with the internet industry about setting up a mediation service for consumers who have legitimate concerns that their privacy has been breached or that online information about them is inaccurate or constitutes a gross invasion of their privacy to discuss whether there is any way to remove access to that information."
There is nothing -- nothing -- in Vaizeys comments about "forcing" anybody to take anything down. There's no point: that already exists in UK law. Vaizey's suggestion is for a lower-cost less adversarial route. Maybe the suggestions are unworkable because they would be "immensely complicated and time consuming", but it looks as if ISPreview is trying to scupper it through misinformation rather than genuine argument. And it will work if people don't bother reading past the headline.
I don't think you understand the word "mediation".
Er, no. Net profit is the only real measure of success.
Yes, this is a short-term goal for any newspaper. But you're ignoring the long-term consequences of this move
I'm ignoring them because they're not measures of success. I'm not disputing that they are likely to have an effect on the future success of the title, but they're not measures.
They're valid, but because the "not" modifies the modal auxiliary "will" they're not necessary: the form I proposed is valid too. See the entry in Fowler, 2nd edition, under "nor".
you get less frequent/severe colds when you have an active lifestyle and feel healthy.
Remember this is /. -- that won't be a significant factor here.
I expect they will be plenty concerned about FDA approval, wherever they are. The USA is a large and lucrative market.
Yes, they just put "Naughty Nymphos 2" on at prime time and "Old Grannies 52" on at past-prime time.
There actually IS such a history - however it is very slanted towards giving money to some charity or other enterprise such that it generates kudos for the philanthropist from society.
Or to buy political influence / support a political agenda. Supporting the Murdoch press could fall in that category.
How many people used to read it before? That's the only real measure of success
Er, no. Net profit is the only real measure of success. Murdoch also wants the political influence, no doubt, but I don't think that can be measured by anything as simple as the number of readers.
Well, if we absolutely must have a pedantry thread, somebody is going to have to point out that "neither" shouldn't be used when there are more (or, indeed, fewer) than two possibilities, so it shouldn't be neither/or or neither/nor. "Not you, the OP, or I" might be the safest construction.
What is there about this proposal that stops you doing that?
Because firing off legal threats is always so much more effective than actually talking to each other, isn't it?
Property ownership leads to better outcomes both on average and individually.
Whose version of "better"?
Actually, it isn't pure utilitarianism, unless one takes a very narrow definition of "needs". Utilitarianism would also be concerned with how severe the consequences would be if the various needs were not met, whereas Spock's maxim only looks at how many people have needs. So if we took Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for example, Spock's maxim would allow the many to deprive the few of primary needs (such as the need to breathe) in order to satisfy their need for esteem or self actualisation. Actually, it could be as bad if you just stayed at the physiological level of Maslow: the many could stop the few satisfying their need to breathe in order to satisfy the majority's need for sex. In other words it's far far worse than utilitarianism. It's very democratic, though.
Yes, "I heard it from some unverified source who might know" stories really are sloppy journalism. It is appalling that people put up with them.
Except it doesn't, because they're not. Repeated experiments have shown that most people in market economies don't act selfishly (members of some tribes that don't operate any sort of market economy do, and chimpanzees do). So the smart companies don't depend on selfishness. And if you go to the roots of modern democracy you'll find that it was an attempt to determine the general will, not the particular will.
It won't work. From the RA: 'The term "Troll" was described in court as someone who creates new identities on Facebook accounts [sic] and then posts numerous offensive comments to upset or provoke a reaction from others.' (My emphasis.) Slashdot isn't Facebook.
It's the closest you'll get in any of the chains. You can get truly great pizza if you go to an independent, but it will be Italian style, not American style, so all to many Americans will be wondering where all the dough and fat are.
Yes but baptists are such a small group and are mainly in the US
[citation needed]
All the "liquid explosives" people are worried about are not mostly water. All of the crap people take on planes to drink is mostly water. Yet the TSA won't let me take a bit of juice or water through security? What a crock.
If they let you through with water, you wouldn't have to buy the overpriced stuff in the airport shops, which would hit their profits. Now, that's a threat they take very seriously.
Being a Southern Baptist doesn't make any sense either, but it's valid terminology.
Just out of interest, when did the British take land from the Irish? As far as I can see, Britain and Ireland came under common rule when the Normans conquered both. Sure, Ireland was then treated pretty crappily which led to understandable resentment, but the British never actually stole the land. The nearest was the so-called "Tudor conquest", but that was actually just a re-establishment of control that had been waning.
Yes, it is frustrating having to put up with all those silly airpot checks demanded by the TSA.
It is also frustrating to have to wait forever when trying to land at Heathrow at 6 AM in the morning just because you don't have enough runways. Do you think you could you do something about that?
That's easy. Don't fly into Heathrow. Chances are you didn't want to go to Hounslow anyway.
It, like almost all English words, was in fact stolen from another language, in this case Chinese
It wasn't stolen, because it didn't deprive the Chinese of the use of it. What, are you some sort of RIAA shill?
It should go faster than a smaller meteorite would because air resistance would have less decelerating effect (air resistance goes with the square of the size, mass with the cube so acceleration goes with 1/size), but the increased air resistance would mean more heating, which would be in proportion to the increased surface area (both go with the square of the size). Overall, I reckon it would light up like any other meteorite.