There is absolutely a First Amendment right to libel and slander!
Not according to the Supreme Court. For example, in NYT vs. Sullivan, the SC modified NY's libel laws because of the first amendment (demonstrating that just calling it a civil action doesn't remove it from the first amendment), but libel is still actionable (demonstrating that libel itself is not protected.) Prior restraint is a different issue, and could be used to prevent publication of a serious enough libel. But, in general, prior restraint has to be justified on a case-by-case basis.
ouTube consistently exercises editorial control over videos
I'd have to look it up, but algorithms promoting/demoting/demonetizing is not editorial control. And removing videos that violate the ToS isn't either. Again, according to the courts.
How does a CEO of a company worth almost a trillion dollars go into a high profile meeting with the US House Judiciary Committee and _not_ already know about the things they're likely to ask about?
I guess because the hearing was not about getting answers from Pichai but more about the Senators talking.
Senators rarely speak in the House.
To answer GP, it was a question about some new conspiracy theory. If it was about pizzagate, he probably could have answered, but this could just be too damn new.
This is pretty much to goal of the Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories. They know the truth about X is going to come out, but they just want 50 falsehoods about X for it to get lost in.
"Dear representative, surely you're not trying to apply pressure from position of governmental authority on me, the private entity in violation of my first amendment rights? Are you at all aware of the principles outlined in constitution, and why they were put there?"
Leaving aside a needlessly combative tone, there are a lot of issues with that response that make it pretty dumb.
There is no first amendment right to libel or slander, nor on inciting people to commit violent crimes
Asking questions like "what is your company's policy on X" and "are you trying to prevent X" isn't a violation of the first amendment, even if X relates to speech.
YouTube claims no editorial control over videos, and therefore it has no expression that would be infringed upon
The "safe harbor" exemptions to copyright infringement enforcement that enable YouTube to function make Google's policy questions fair game
Thanks for being more articulate than I was. I'll go further though, in the spirit of discussion. The OP never said that they were entitled to because of their skill, but risk. Heck, since frequently there are owners of the business (e.g. a VC/Angel/stockholder) aren't the ones supplying the skill, I'm not sure where your argument applies to them being entitled. And certainly there are non-owner key hires whose skill is vital.
I think your point about failed owners is really valid - if the only criteria is risk-taking, they definitely did so as well.
The lack of typesafety. The lack of a good IDE with autocomplete that works well. Inconsistent (and non-mixable) include systems. Numerous competing libraries to do basic things instead of the language defining one way. Debugging in the same browser window as opposed to a separate application. Inability to define class variables. Inability to define interfaces. Inability to set up enums. I could go on...
Why the fuck would you want me to use a special purpose language
I imagine the alternative isn't a special purpose language, but C/C++.
The reason Verizon offered severance was to eliminate the possibility of lawsuits and/or because the managers didn't want to decide who to fire. The H1Bs are going to be fired because their visas expired, and there are no decisions. Hence, no reason to give them anything.
If you own something and it increases in value, are you not entitled to that value as the owner of the asset?
What do you mean by the word "entitled"? It may sound like I'm being an ass, but there is the "entitled means have a legal right" and "entitled meaning worthy of X". (There are other definitions, but we'll ignore them). The conversation up to now seemed to focus on the second definition. And I want to know if you're trying to shift it to the first or if I'm misunderstanding.
I'm not sure why you think business owners are (in caps) "ENTITLED to make more money". It seems like you think you demonstrated something, but instead seem to just be asserting it loudly.
It's not the amount of time a start-up takes, it's the risk. A start up is a long shot. You might get rich, or you might spend years going nowhere. Risks are taken by people who can afford them. Fewer people can now.
Look, for a long time, people said "oh, if only it was available ala carte as streaming, I wouldn't pirate" Then, it was available, and people found a new excuse.
However, if you want a better player, and have Prime already, you can watch HBO through the Prime Video app (for a surcharge). Or, the app on iDevices works pretty well.
She's being arrested for things she (allegedly) did in NYC, and the US requested an extradition for that. Are the charges made up? Probably not. But the Canadian government is giving her a chance to demonstrate it's BS before they extradite her. That's pretty much how extradition works.
The charges against her (which she may be guilty of or not), is that she set up a fraudulent subsidiary of Huawei and defrauded US banks to do business with Iran several years ago when there were UN sanctions against doing business with Iran.
That violates US law, Chinese international agreements and UN resolutions. Further, there were other, related, crimes in other countries. Hence, the charges.
Any time anything comes from China about any scientific advances they've made, those sorts of people are going to claim it's because "they fake science."
I don't know about Chinese science, but I assume that any tech demo, especially if prerecorded, is fake. At least when announcing breakthrough technology.
Well, once you have a Netflix subscription, it's also "free" for the month, in that "all you can watch" sense. So, the question is, is YouTube making inroads among people with a Netflix subscription.
I'm sorry, but since GoT is available via HBO, which is not filled with ads or season limited, what's your justification for pirating it? I mean, I get that $15/mo is too expensive for some people, but are you really pleading poverty?
The costs of operating an airport are pretty high. They are talking about shutting airports down to save money already. They're not going to open new ones. At least not without massive fees from the airliners that make it not profitable.
There's a difference between wanting electric planes (Cool!) and thinking this is a useful one (less so, for many reasons.) Similarly, I'd love (cold fusion/true AI/quantum computers) to exist, but we're not there yet. People are negative because they don't believe in this plane.
Also, the motors aren't the question. Given enough electricity, we could trivially make all-electric 747s. Since this doesn't push battery tech forward, it falls into a cool example of a toy for the rich, not a massive sea-change for air travel. And, since they're not researching batteries, they aren't the ones who ate going to change that.
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but the manufacturer says $200/hr for the electric plane and $1000/hr for a turboprop. Your $72 is enough to climb and land
And yes, electricity is cheaper than gas, etc. The reason that things haven't taken off is energy density for storage isn't there yet. And it still isn't there here.
I mean, for a private jet, sure. But commercial airlines need more space.
Yes, and that turboprop costs 5x an hour to operate, but seats 10x. And I'm pretty sure those costs don't include pilot salaries. And, of course, you're right about the commercial use of these things requiring a lot of (limited) airport resources.
They may have a market though in those empty flights airlines use to avoid having landing/gate slots taken away from them for underuse.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the betting line on whether the next country she goes to is China vs the US?
Not according to the Supreme Court. For example, in NYT vs. Sullivan, the SC modified NY's libel laws because of the first amendment (demonstrating that just calling it a civil action doesn't remove it from the first amendment), but libel is still actionable (demonstrating that libel itself is not protected.) Prior restraint is a different issue, and could be used to prevent publication of a serious enough libel. But, in general, prior restraint has to be justified on a case-by-case basis.
I'd have to look it up, but algorithms promoting/demoting/demonetizing is not editorial control. And removing videos that violate the ToS isn't either. Again, according to the courts.
Senators rarely speak in the House.
To answer GP, it was a question about some new conspiracy theory. If it was about pizzagate, he probably could have answered, but this could just be too damn new.
This is pretty much to goal of the Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories. They know the truth about X is going to come out, but they just want 50 falsehoods about X for it to get lost in.
Leaving aside a needlessly combative tone, there are a lot of issues with that response that make it pretty dumb.
Thanks for being more articulate than I was. I'll go further though, in the spirit of discussion. The OP never said that they were entitled to because of their skill, but risk. Heck, since frequently there are owners of the business (e.g. a VC/Angel/stockholder) aren't the ones supplying the skill, I'm not sure where your argument applies to them being entitled. And certainly there are non-owner key hires whose skill is vital.
I think your point about failed owners is really valid - if the only criteria is risk-taking, they definitely did so as well.
The lack of typesafety. The lack of a good IDE with autocomplete that works well. Inconsistent (and non-mixable) include systems. Numerous competing libraries to do basic things instead of the language defining one way. Debugging in the same browser window as opposed to a separate application. Inability to define class variables. Inability to define interfaces. Inability to set up enums. I could go on...
I imagine the alternative isn't a special purpose language, but C/C++.
Side benefit? You went on to describe the main/only benefit.
What Congress-selected firms? There are three firms that control 95%, but there are several other competitors.
The reason Verizon offered severance was to eliminate the possibility of lawsuits and/or because the managers didn't want to decide who to fire. The H1Bs are going to be fired because their visas expired, and there are no decisions. Hence, no reason to give them anything.
What do you mean by the word "entitled"? It may sound like I'm being an ass, but there is the "entitled means have a legal right" and "entitled meaning worthy of X". (There are other definitions, but we'll ignore them). The conversation up to now seemed to focus on the second definition. And I want to know if you're trying to shift it to the first or if I'm misunderstanding.
That could be true. I know it's available inside the US. But it's probably not available worldwide.
I'm not sure why you think business owners are (in caps) "ENTITLED to make more money". It seems like you think you demonstrated something, but instead seem to just be asserting it loudly.
It's not the amount of time a start-up takes, it's the risk. A start up is a long shot. You might get rich, or you might spend years going nowhere. Risks are taken by people who can afford them. Fewer people can now.
I'd rather get free stuff too!
Look, for a long time, people said "oh, if only it was available ala carte as streaming, I wouldn't pirate" Then, it was available, and people found a new excuse.
However, if you want a better player, and have Prime already, you can watch HBO through the Prime Video app (for a surcharge). Or, the app on iDevices works pretty well.
She's being arrested for things she (allegedly) did in NYC, and the US requested an extradition for that. Are the charges made up? Probably not. But the Canadian government is giving her a chance to demonstrate it's BS before they extradite her. That's pretty much how extradition works.
Except that the actions she was arrested for took place in NYC, NY, USA. So, you know, that tends to fall under US jurisdiction.
The charges against her (which she may be guilty of or not), is that she set up a fraudulent subsidiary of Huawei and defrauded US banks to do business with Iran several years ago when there were UN sanctions against doing business with Iran.
That violates US law, Chinese international agreements and UN resolutions. Further, there were other, related, crimes in other countries. Hence, the charges.
I don't know about Chinese science, but I assume that any tech demo, especially if prerecorded, is fake. At least when announcing breakthrough technology.
Well, once you have a Netflix subscription, it's also "free" for the month, in that "all you can watch" sense. So, the question is, is YouTube making inroads among people with a Netflix subscription.
I'm sorry, but since GoT is available via HBO, which is not filled with ads or season limited, what's your justification for pirating it? I mean, I get that $15/mo is too expensive for some people, but are you really pleading poverty?
The costs of operating an airport are pretty high. They are talking about shutting airports down to save money already. They're not going to open new ones. At least not without massive fees from the airliners that make it not profitable.
There's a difference between wanting electric planes (Cool!) and thinking this is a useful one (less so, for many reasons.) Similarly, I'd love (cold fusion/true AI/quantum computers) to exist, but we're not there yet. People are negative because they don't believe in this plane.
Also, the motors aren't the question. Given enough electricity, we could trivially make all-electric 747s. Since this doesn't push battery tech forward, it falls into a cool example of a toy for the rich, not a massive sea-change for air travel. And, since they're not researching batteries, they aren't the ones who ate going to change that.
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but the manufacturer says $200/hr for the electric plane and $1000/hr for a turboprop. Your $72 is enough to climb and land
And yes, electricity is cheaper than gas, etc. The reason that things haven't taken off is energy density for storage isn't there yet. And it still isn't there here.
I mean, for a private jet, sure. But commercial airlines need more space.
Yes, and that turboprop costs 5x an hour to operate, but seats 10x. And I'm pretty sure those costs don't include pilot salaries. And, of course, you're right about the commercial use of these things requiring a lot of (limited) airport resources.
They may have a market though in those empty flights airlines use to avoid having landing/gate slots taken away from them for underuse.