You're applying modern laws and beliefs to an ancient time in very different cultures, which is just silly.
It's not silly at all, it's just the notion that societies progress. That we get better. Certainly segments of both Islam and Christianity however are fixated with the notion that their prophet/divine figures were "perfect," and that if we do things differently, then we're the wrong ones. That's a dangerous, destructive ideology.
If there will be innocent victims no matter which solution is taken (let anyone in without checking if they're terrorists, or seal the borders no matter if people aren't terrorists), what do you do?
There will always be innocent victims, so it's better to die being the sort of person you want to see in the world, rather than die becoming closer in thought and action to the enemy you're fighting.
But jihadism is totally opposite to everything our left stands for right now: status of women, prisoner rights, gay rights, worker rights, and use of rape as a standard tactic for exercising power and outbreeding the local population
Most leftists I've known have absolutely no love for jihadis or conservative muslims, but see them as a very separate creature from the liberal or normal Muslims, while some of the more ultra-conservative Christians don't see a difference between the two or feel like the liberal Muslims are responsible for the conservative actions.
2) She complains that the DMCA policy with content ID requires her to give Google/youtube a permissive license to redistribute her work, and considers this racketeering.
I think she's really just referring to videos that others had uploaded, but Youtube is not requiring her to sign up for ContentID in order for her to file a DMCA takedown. The rules of the DMCA apply whether or not you choose to participate in ContentID.
ContentID does NOT give Youtube a license to redistribute unless she signs up for that. Yes, when she registers a song with ContentID, one of the options is to allow others to distribute the song with revenue going to her. But that's just one of the options -- another option is to have the audio be muted, or outright block that uploaded video entirely. I feel like she's just not aware of, or is outright ignoring those other options.
What percent of people that consider themselves "artists" make a profit? 1%? Less probably. No, artists aren't motivated by money. They are motivated by a love of the art. If money comes they take it like anybody would, and they take measures to increase their profitability like anyone would, but it isn't their motivation.
Sure, artists express themselves through their art, and that's a wonderful thing. But at the end of the day, we live in a society where you NEED to bring in money. A not-insubstantial amount. Poverty sucks. Poverty really, really fucking sucks, and "I love the art, man" isn't enough at the end of the day when everything requires that you have money. Real artists need to be able to earn a living, and they shouldn't have to take a couple fast food jobs in order to be able to do art. Most people in our country think that a talented artist should be able to do it professionally, as their source of income.
ContentID is the "protection money" Youtube pays to not get sued, as they have several times in the past. Eric Schmidt specifically referenced the persistence of lawsuits like the Viacom one which alleged that Youtube profited off of videos featuring copyrighted content. That particular lawsuit was settled with undisclosed terms, but it wouldn't surprise me if adherence to a system like ContentID was one of the terms.
Participant B saying A is an idiot means that participant A's statement was idiotic and participant A indeed is an idiot strictly related to the statement within the conversation.
Whoa, hold on, that's not how the average person interprets such a statement! Usually that's interpreted as "You are generally an idiot, because only a particularly stupid person says something as dumb and as at odds with reality."
To you and everyone else who uses the "go outside" meme - the internet is not some weird geeky subsection of humanity any more. I would have thought on this site - people commenting on this particular *website* - would know better than to try and diminish it.
First, Wikipedia is small, small part of the Internet. If you feel you can't escape from -working on- Wikipedia and contemplate suicide, then yes, you absolutely do need to "go outside." It's a fucking encyclopedia, let's not elevate its status any higher than it deserves. Whether 'going outside' means just leave Wikipedia and do other things on the Internet, or just unplug and spend most of your time doing things offline (something the majority of people in the US do without a problem!), those are certainly better options than staying in an environment where either you or those contacting you are damaging your mental health.
I suppose that's the peril of making such a general statement an absolute.
People with terminal illnesses, who through age or the nature of the illness itself face no recovery, only a continual breakdown, certainly have reason for suicide, and I wouldn't say that would be a loss of perspective.
The Wikipedia editor contemplating suicide, that's an absolute loss of perspective.
Whenever I metamodded, I would go in thinking "yeah, now I have a chance to right the clearly-political mods! Let's do this!" Then I'd get in and it'd be "Well, ok, that's fine. Yeah, that one was fine too. This one... I have no idea what the moderator was thinking. Whatever." And it'd be a boring list. I'd go in because I wanted to undo some of the crazy mods I'd seen, but when I metamodded... I never ran across them. The two possibilities are that the crazy mods are somehow excluded from the system, which seems extremely unlikely, or that.. well, maybe there aren't as many crazy/weird/wrong moderations as we suspect there are, that the vast majority of moderation is done correctly.
We don't get any feedback for metamodding, so it's hard for us to say "yes, the system is working!" But in general I think the system works.
In my experience the vast majority of people aren't assholes. Perhaps things are different where you live?
The "vast majority of people" aren't Wikipedia editors, either. The question is whether a particular power structure attracts assholes and is complicit with or even rewards assholish behavior.
Regulating migration is against the principles upon which the US was founded, and against freedom.
The US, from the very beginning, has long made the determination of who, when, and how people are let into the country.
It's a poorly disguised form of racism in which people try desperately to find justification for why people who seem like them are more worthy to some area of land than others. The very idea that immigration can be illegal is ridiculous. It's like complaining about people making illegal speech or illegal assembly.
Anyone with any sense knows that counting on Wikipedia for fundamental accuracy is, and has always been, hugely hit-and-miss. As it stands now, some pages by their very nature settle out at one extreme or another; one I am familiar with is the page on Atheism, which begins with one accurate sentence, and then wanders off into absolute theist-oriented nonsense before the paragraph is done.
Could you be more specific? Looking at the first paragraph of the Atheism article, as an agnostic/atheist, I don't see anything in there that is incorrect. It doesn't always apply to me personally, since there are multiple levels/flavors of atheism, just as their are in most things:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Nothing wrong there, atheism has been an umbrella term encompassing hard atheists whose denial of any theism brims with a religious fervor of its own, to very weak atheists who don't think there's any god because they've yet to see compelling proof, but are still open to a possibility. They're not all the same and they have varying levels of certainty.
Oh, I dunno, it worked for Ebola, and that included a great many people whom traveled to African countries which are nowhere near the affected countries.
But it didn't work with Ebola. You had folks like Kaci Hickox who thought she knew better than everyone. When she was put under 21-day quarantine after coming back from treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone, she called it a human rights violation (like being thrown in jail without committing a crime) and publicly broke quarantine.. and no one did anything. Maine courts ruled that if someone doesn't WANT to abide by a quarantine and they show no symptoms.. then they don't have to abide by it. And this was freaking EBOLA. Do you think that we'll be able to successfully quarantine the larger number of people with the far-milder Zika virus?
Just bring your own water and wear a mosquito-proof suit (or just full hazmat) the entire time. I'd love to see the summer games with all the athletes in hazmat suits. That would be fantastic.
It has only been found unconstiutional in Arkansas. It remains law in the other 49 states and all territories.
The Supreme Court only NEEDS to get involved if it disagrees with the lower court's decision, or two different federal courts issue contradictory rulings. Otherwise the Court doesn't need to arbitrate.
Indeed. Before Iran became an Islamic Republic, it was an enlightened American client state, ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a really great guy, who provided his people with the most modern instruments of torture, and housed his political prisoners in state of the art facilities.
Oh yeah, and Iranians are so much better off today! The problem with the Iranian Revolution is the revolutionaries were revolting to put a far worse group in power. Great job!
What do you mean the web-based client works so much better? Does it work better when the entire service will go down and be unable to authenticate for eight hours at a time? (the situation a month ago). Or does it work better when it just shows some online contacts as being offline and vice versa? How about when it queues messages for later delivery without notifying you? Problems I've never had with the standalone client, as crappy as it is.
The client has always been trash. They need to fix the Skype Web interface. It's what allows third-party skype clients to work, and it's what lets you check/message your contacts without having the skype client installed. But frequently you'll log into the web interface and it's clearly out of sync. Like.. contacts who are actually online will show up as offline, etc. Or messages will get queued instead of delivered. Or the whole thing will crash and not accept username/passwords for an hour (which is better than it was a month ago, when the entire skype web client would be offline for a day at a time).
I have Microsoft's Skype for Linux client installed as a backup for when skypeweb fails, and it's surprisingly reliable.
Slashdot Mirror
You're applying modern laws and beliefs to an ancient time in very different cultures, which is just silly.
It's not silly at all, it's just the notion that societies progress. That we get better. Certainly segments of both Islam and Christianity however are fixated with the notion that their prophet/divine figures were "perfect," and that if we do things differently, then we're the wrong ones. That's a dangerous, destructive ideology.
If there will be innocent victims no matter which solution is taken (let anyone in without checking if they're terrorists, or seal the borders no matter if people aren't terrorists), what do you do?
There will always be innocent victims, so it's better to die being the sort of person you want to see in the world, rather than die becoming closer in thought and action to the enemy you're fighting.
But jihadism is totally opposite to everything our left stands for right now: status of women, prisoner rights, gay rights, worker rights, and use of rape as a standard tactic for exercising power and outbreeding the local population
Most leftists I've known have absolutely no love for jihadis or conservative muslims, but see them as a very separate creature from the liberal or normal Muslims, while some of the more ultra-conservative Christians don't see a difference between the two or feel like the liberal Muslims are responsible for the conservative actions.
2) She complains that the DMCA policy with content ID requires her to give Google/youtube a permissive license to redistribute her work, and considers this racketeering.
I think she's really just referring to videos that others had uploaded, but Youtube is not requiring her to sign up for ContentID in order for her to file a DMCA takedown. The rules of the DMCA apply whether or not you choose to participate in ContentID.
ContentID does NOT give Youtube a license to redistribute unless she signs up for that. Yes, when she registers a song with ContentID, one of the options is to allow others to distribute the song with revenue going to her. But that's just one of the options -- another option is to have the audio be muted, or outright block that uploaded video entirely. I feel like she's just not aware of, or is outright ignoring those other options.
What percent of people that consider themselves "artists" make a profit? 1%? Less probably. No, artists aren't motivated by money. They are motivated by a love of the art. If money comes they take it like anybody would, and they take measures to increase their profitability like anyone would, but it isn't their motivation.
Sure, artists express themselves through their art, and that's a wonderful thing.
But at the end of the day, we live in a society where you NEED to bring in money. A not-insubstantial amount.
Poverty sucks. Poverty really, really fucking sucks, and "I love the art, man" isn't enough at the end of the day when everything requires that you have money. Real artists need to be able to earn a living, and they shouldn't have to take a couple fast food jobs in order to be able to do art. Most people in our country think that a talented artist should be able to do it professionally, as their source of income.
ContentID is the "protection money" Youtube pays to not get sued, as they have several times in the past. Eric Schmidt specifically referenced the persistence of lawsuits like the Viacom one which alleged that Youtube profited off of videos featuring copyrighted content. That particular lawsuit was settled with undisclosed terms, but it wouldn't surprise me if adherence to a system like ContentID was one of the terms.
You might be able to answer these questions pretty reasonable, but you'd have to get off the cross first and moderate your victimhood attitude.
Participant B saying A is an idiot means that participant A's statement was idiotic and participant A indeed is an idiot strictly related to the statement within the conversation.
Whoa, hold on, that's not how the average person interprets such a statement! Usually that's interpreted as "You are generally an idiot, because only a particularly stupid person says something as dumb and as at odds with reality."
To you and everyone else who uses the "go outside" meme - the internet is not some weird geeky subsection of humanity any more. I would have thought on this site - people commenting on this particular *website* - would know better than to try and diminish it.
First, Wikipedia is small, small part of the Internet. If you feel you can't escape from -working on- Wikipedia and contemplate suicide, then yes, you absolutely do need to "go outside." It's a fucking encyclopedia, let's not elevate its status any higher than it deserves. Whether 'going outside' means just leave Wikipedia and do other things on the Internet, or just unplug and spend most of your time doing things offline (something the majority of people in the US do without a problem!), those are certainly better options than staying in an environment where either you or those contacting you are damaging your mental health.
Thank you Hans, for posting a link to probably the most depressing article I've read all year. Ughhhh.
I suppose that's the peril of making such a general statement an absolute.
People with terminal illnesses, who through age or the nature of the illness itself face no recovery, only a continual breakdown, certainly have reason for suicide, and I wouldn't say that would be a loss of perspective.
The Wikipedia editor contemplating suicide, that's an absolute loss of perspective.
Whenever I metamodded, I would go in thinking "yeah, now I have a chance to right the clearly-political mods! Let's do this!"
Then I'd get in and it'd be "Well, ok, that's fine. Yeah, that one was fine too. This one... I have no idea what the moderator was thinking. Whatever." And it'd be a boring list. I'd go in because I wanted to undo some of the crazy mods I'd seen, but when I metamodded... I never ran across them. The two possibilities are that the crazy mods are somehow excluded from the system, which seems extremely unlikely, or that.. well, maybe there aren't as many crazy/weird/wrong moderations as we suspect there are, that the vast majority of moderation is done correctly.
We don't get any feedback for metamodding, so it's hard for us to say "yes, the system is working!" But in general I think the system works.
In my experience the vast majority of people aren't assholes.
Perhaps things are different where you live?
The "vast majority of people" aren't Wikipedia editors, either. The question is whether a particular power structure attracts assholes and is complicit with or even rewards assholish behavior.
Regulating migration is against the principles upon which the US was founded, and against freedom.
The US, from the very beginning, has long made the determination of who, when, and how people are let into the country.
It's a poorly disguised form of racism in which people try desperately to find justification for why people who seem like them are more worthy to some area of land than others. The very idea that immigration can be illegal is ridiculous. It's like complaining about people making illegal speech or illegal assembly.
tl;dr go fuck yourself.
Absolute rubbish.
Anyone with any sense knows that counting on Wikipedia for fundamental accuracy is, and has always been, hugely hit-and-miss. As it stands now, some pages by their very nature settle out at one extreme or another; one I am familiar with is the page on Atheism, which begins with one accurate sentence, and then wanders off into absolute theist-oriented nonsense before the paragraph is done.
Could you be more specific? Looking at the first paragraph of the Atheism article, as an agnostic/atheist, I don't see anything in there that is incorrect. It doesn't always apply to me personally, since there are multiple levels/flavors of atheism, just as their are in most things:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Nothing wrong there, atheism has been an umbrella term encompassing hard atheists whose denial of any theism brims with a religious fervor of its own, to very weak atheists who don't think there's any god because they've yet to see compelling proof, but are still open to a possibility. They're not all the same and they have varying levels of certainty.
Oh, I dunno, it worked for Ebola, and that included a great many people whom traveled to African countries which are nowhere near the affected countries.
But it didn't work with Ebola. You had folks like Kaci Hickox who thought she knew better than everyone. When she was put under 21-day quarantine after coming back from treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone, she called it a human rights violation (like being thrown in jail without committing a crime) and publicly broke quarantine.. and no one did anything. Maine courts ruled that if someone doesn't WANT to abide by a quarantine and they show no symptoms.. then they don't have to abide by it. And this was freaking EBOLA. Do you think that we'll be able to successfully quarantine the larger number of people with the far-milder Zika virus?
Certainly doesn't sound like it.
Just bring your own water and wear a mosquito-proof suit (or just full hazmat) the entire time.
I'd love to see the summer games with all the athletes in hazmat suits. That would be fantastic.
Whether suicide is wrong or not should have little to do with whether it's illegal.
It has only been found unconstiutional in Arkansas. It remains law in the other 49 states and all territories.
The Supreme Court only NEEDS to get involved if it disagrees with the lower court's decision, or two different federal courts issue contradictory rulings. Otherwise the Court doesn't need to arbitrate.
Indeed. Before Iran became an Islamic Republic, it was an enlightened American client state, ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a really great guy, who provided his people with the most modern instruments of torture, and housed his political prisoners in state of the art facilities.
Oh yeah, and Iranians are so much better off today! The problem with the Iranian Revolution is the revolutionaries were revolting to put a far worse group in power. Great job!
What do you mean the web-based client works so much better? Does it work better when the entire service will go down and be unable to authenticate for eight hours at a time? (the situation a month ago). Or does it work better when it just shows some online contacts as being offline and vice versa? How about when it queues messages for later delivery without notifying you? Problems I've never had with the standalone client, as crappy as it is.
The client has always been trash. They need to fix the Skype Web interface. It's what allows third-party skype clients to work, and it's what lets you check/message your contacts without having the skype client installed. But frequently you'll log into the web interface and it's clearly out of sync. Like.. contacts who are actually online will show up as offline, etc. Or messages will get queued instead of delivered. Or the whole thing will crash and not accept username/passwords for an hour (which is better than it was a month ago, when the entire skype web client would be offline for a day at a time).
I have Microsoft's Skype for Linux client installed as a backup for when skypeweb fails, and it's surprisingly reliable.
Why would I go through the effort to install a piece of software, when there are good-quality web-based alternatives like google hangouts?
Because you have friends/contacts who are only using skype. And/or you don't want to give your soul to Google+.
The 1964 minimum wage was $1.25/hr. Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that would be $9.60/hr in today's dollars when adjusted for inflation.