On the other hand, Sega is no longer in the game console market, whereas Nintendo's brand as a kid-friendly platform has helped them maintain their position as one of the main players in that market.
Both Nintendo and Sega got taken to the cleaners by Sony with their strong third-party support and superior hardware. Philips CDi was "family friendly." Family friendly is not what kept Nintendo in business, it's the strong in-house content that kept the company afloat despite their disastrous choices in most other aspects of their business until the Wii. Sega didn't really have that, and they finally sunk after holding strong in the Genesis era.
the southern vote was solid Democrat from the time Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1875
Earlier than that, even. Some Southern states went to Grant in the late 1860s/early 1870s, but it was pretty solidly Democratic before that, with the Southern Democraft vote during the Civil War, and a blue block during the 1850s. The Whigs were pretty strong in the South in the 1830s-40s, but the civil war buildup put the South in the Blue for over a hundred years.
It is not neutral. It already censors and decides what is monetizable and what is not. They can't have it both ways. Either be truly neutral (like they used to be) or abide these kinds of rulings.
You're arguing apples and oranges. It's not like Google censors videos/creators that people complain about, and then they don't take down videos that companies complain violate content. They do both, they always have.
What this ruling says is that Google has to curate videos before challenges are filed. They don't do that currently, either with copyright issues or other videos that violate their content rules (though they might have some deals with the feds regarding proactively getting rid of terrorist content that I don't know about).
Having stated that, it's good that Google (YouTube, Alphabet... Whatever responsibility-avoiding name you'd like to refer to them by) is finally getting knocked for this. They've acted all along like they're above the law by claiming innocence when users upload copyright material, yet on the other hand they assist large companies with take downs elsewhere, and they assist law enforcement in identifying those breaking the law.
Yes, and this is absolutely how it should be. Assist in after-the-fact takedowns if someone complains. They cannot curate every video, they have no way of knowing for sure whether a copyright is being violated. Yeah, if someone uploads a cam recording of Avengers: Infinity War, duh that violates copyright. But the law must apply equally to the big guys and the little guys, because the "Law to Protect Copyright Just For The Biollion Dollar Company 2018" is an incredibly unjust law.
In your dislike for Youtube, you're ignoring that Youtube is not (and should not) be considered special. This is a law, a new way of managing user content on the Internet, that will have to be applied to any service. Any service will have to go through every minute of video to ensure copyright isn't violated. Look through every picture to make sure a photographer's copyright isn't violated. Listen to every note in every audio upload. They can't half-ass it, because they will be liable. Do you not see how of an implausible task this is? I know you have a hate-on for Youtube, but you really aren't thinking through what this means.
You are being far too kind to them. From direct personal experience, you can have the exact same account uploading the exact same infringing content they have already been notified about just hours after it's been taken down in response to a formal notification, and they still don't do anything.
They do to a certain extent. If you upload a video that is taken down, you get a "copyright strike." Three strikes and you're out and any revenue is confiscated.
I agree, their arguments are somewhat disingenuous. "We're extending GDPR protections to non-Europeans because"
"it's the right thing to do" So why didn't they do it before? "we believe in user privacy" So you didn't believe in last month? "we're just awesome like that" So you sucked until now?
The real answer being "It's really hard to distinguish EU and non-EU users, and we don't want to take the chance of getting it wrong"
That is true, but also: "we calculated that the people getting pissed off about our privacy violations is not substantial enough to justify not taking advantage of the revenue stream that violating user privacy means. Also, silicon valley execs said 'privacy is dead anyway, get over it,' so we're taking that to heart."
So, conversely, does that mean you agree that Budweiser, which is owned by InBev, a European company, can sell alcohol to 18 year olds in America?
I'm absolutely fine with Budweiser selling alcohol to 18-year-olds in areas where that's legal. Youtube can also block videos in certain countries where such content is illegal.
But man, we're talking about a web site accessible globally. I have strong dislike for country courts that pull shit like this, just.. unilaterally deciding that user-generated sites have to proactively filter before posting. It completely breaks the entire model of "user-content websites" on the Internet.
6: and 16: were supposed to be <the sound of crickets> but I forgot to escape the angle brackets.
But a blank line works almost as well, doesn't it? B-)
6 and 16 are crickets, because enforcement is "regulation," and regulation is always bad. Feds aren't interested in using a heavy hand with telemarketers because free speech or the market with fix it.
At the rate I get spam calls, it would be full in less than 2 years. Every single one is from a different number.
Since they're spoofed, you're probably blocking plenty of legit numbers that you'll never see used for spam again. Eventually I figured out I'd have to blacklist pretty much all numbers.
Illegal it may certainly be, but an increasing number of ordinary people are taking that risk because this is what happens when you tell the truth to police: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/02...
I'm not sure what that has to do with telling or not telling the truth to police. They were accused of a crime they didn't commit -- drug trade/money laundering. They didn't declare the money, which is the only "crime" they committed, and this something that would have gotten caught no matter what they were doing, as security actively looks for this sort of thing and it will show up on scans.
Why should MY phone company (T-Mobile) be allowed to let a foreign company connect to their network and spoof a LOCAL number?
That's as idiotic as saying why should my email carrier allow someone to send me an email from overseas. Why should the United States Post Office allow someone to send me a letter from overseas?
You ignored the "spoof a LOCAL number" part of the GP's object. IE, I have no problems with the postal service marking envelopes based on where they were mailed from. And zero problem with them just throwing away letters from China that say "mailed in Spokane, Washington" which were clearly not mailed from there.
Trouble is it has a valid use for both VOIP and PABX; it's kinda equivalent to the reply-to on an email.
Does it? That is, given the unbelievable abuse of this feature, I don't think it's worth allowing call spoofing because VOIP relies on it. I'm sure there might be a few use cases that are broken, but we're talking about a feature that is abused to contact every person in the country with a phone, multiple times a week. There's an order of magnitude of abuse > non-abuse involved here.
Maybe VOIP needs a new technology, something secureable.
I'm a big fan of that "feature" of spam callers -- I haven't lived in the area code of my cell phone number for over 10 years, so when I see a caller with that area code and prefix, I'm nearly 100% sure it's a spam caller.
I'm a big fan of that too. I ignore all calls that share my prefix, and 800notes takes care of many of the rest. I get a lot of spam now since it's election season, but it's legally-sanctioned spam.
If only! He did indeed have the opportunity to end the war fall into his lap like manna from heaven, yes, because North Korea's nuclear research complex was destroyed in a semi-natural disaster. [theguardian.com] Then with John "War Fetish" Bolton's help, the fat ugly imbecilic wannabe-dictator snatched crushing defeat from the jaws of free glorious victory [washingtonpost.com] by reminding North Korea what happened to Libya (and Gaddafi) along with demonstrating that the USA's word isn't worth jack shit, [nytimes.com] and now it's all going to fall through. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Don't forget, the real broker for peace is the South Korean President. Many Americans conveniently forget about this and just credit Trump, for whatever reason. Well, Trump fucked it up like we figured he could, so now he's out of the process, but the North and the South are continuing their negotiations. You know that if they sign some sort of accord together, Trump is going to barge to the front of the line like he has before and claim credit.
the author connected him to Wall Street bases on the fact that in the 1980s he was a VP of a movie studio, Castle Rock entertainment. Seriously? THAT is what you're going to call "Wall Street", someone having a job in the movie industry 30 years ago makes them "Wall Street".
This is a misreading of the article. I'm not entirely sure how you reached that conclusion; it seems such a logic leap has to be intentional. Here's what the article said:
Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs through the mid to late ’80s, after stints at Harvard and in the Navy. Highlights of his tenure include the sale of film studio Castle Rock Entertainment to Ted Turner, through which Bannon entered the entertainment industry himself, leaving Goldman Sachs as a vice president.
It did not say that his claim to Wall Street was working at Castle Rock. His tie to wall street is that he was a Vice President at Goldman Sachs through the 1980s, leaving in '89. He was hired by Westinghouse in 1990 to negotiate the sale of Castle Rock. He didn't work for Castle Rock, he was the negotiator between Westinghouse (the seller) and Ted Turner (the buyer). Instead of an adviser's fee, he was paid in a financial stake in five TV shows, one of which was Seinfeld, and that made him millions. He still gets residuals on Seinfeld reruns. He entered Hollywood afterwards as an executive producer on Titus and the Indian Runner as well as over a dozen conservative documentaries.
Once a month or once a quarter, the FEC would distribute the funds to campaigns, without revealing who the contributors were.
What's to stop the contributors from telling the candidate? If we make that illegal (under some "election influencing" law), I will expect a lot of "hacks" of company/private servers, which we are apparently powerless to stop already, which will leak and make public the details of contributions.
Slashdot has turned to crap because the people on it have become toxic. I've read Slashdot on/off since about 1999, and it's declined sharply since perhaps somewhere around 2010. About 5-6 years ago I noticed the site had become dominated by a hard-core set of blowhards,
This. This this this this. The trolls and the blowhards, whether well known or not, have made the comments sections on Slashdot somewhat toxic. Not to mention the mod abuse. But they've been encouraged by Slashdot itself, with its tendency more and more over the years to run overtly political articles. I don't need to go anywhere else for politics now, I get a ton of it here.. and likely, that was the point.
I think Slashdot should have stuck to a more mission -- tech stuff for nerds that other people don't cover. Instead it's "anything that a nerd (and probably most non-nerds) might be interested in."
Hey, there was a time when Slashdot itself could be the worst DDOS ever launched on the Internet. Beware the Slashdot effect.
-- (not logged in, id in the low 5 digits)
I'm kindof glad the Slashdot effect is not really a thing anymore. Overall, it feels like the Internet has made great strides towards addressing network burst. It used to be that large sites would be ok (maybe), but any smaller site would be knocked offline. Now, even smaller sites partner in a co-lo which can handle a lot of traffic, or with services like Akamai or Cloudflare to handle unexpected (or expected) traffic bumps.
Thank you for updating. Sometimes I feel like the staff is very hands-off (this is a charitable way of saying "absentee") when it comes to user and design issues. I've used the feedback email address before and when there's no feedback (heh), things don't change, and those issues aren't publicly addressed either, one gets the impression that maybe there's no one on the other end.
I don't see many others commenting publicly, maybe just the occasional BeauHD post. It's mostly you. Does Slashdot run on a "ok, this one guy will be the public relations / public poster" model and everyone else lurks? Or do you just like being extra talkative?:-D
On the other hand, given the quality of feedback given during Beta (some good, most bad), I don't blame the staff for mostly lurking and not opening themselves up to public attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
Blaming the baby boomers is a tool of the millennials used to deflect from their apathy.
Millennials had no input into the fucked-up world that they're inheriting.
Isn't "learn to code" what we typically say to the lower class when they're rendered obsolete?
When they're not in the lower class because of mental and/or drug problems, yes.
An attention whore, and also a walking carpet with those legs of hers, jesus christ woman show some hygiene.
Why should she? Do you shave yours?
On the other hand, Sega is no longer in the game console market, whereas Nintendo's brand as a kid-friendly platform has helped them maintain their position as one of the main players in that market.
Both Nintendo and Sega got taken to the cleaners by Sony with their strong third-party support and superior hardware. Philips CDi was "family friendly." Family friendly is not what kept Nintendo in business, it's the strong in-house content that kept the company afloat despite their disastrous choices in most other aspects of their business until the Wii. Sega didn't really have that, and they finally sunk after holding strong in the Genesis era.
the southern vote was solid Democrat from the time Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1875
Earlier than that, even. Some Southern states went to Grant in the late 1860s/early 1870s, but it was pretty solidly Democratic before that, with the Southern Democraft vote during the Civil War, and a blue block during the 1850s. The Whigs were pretty strong in the South in the 1830s-40s, but the civil war buildup put the South in the Blue for over a hundred years.
It is not neutral. It already censors and decides what is monetizable and what is not. They can't have it both ways. Either be truly neutral (like they used to be) or abide these kinds of rulings.
You're arguing apples and oranges. It's not like Google censors videos/creators that people complain about, and then they don't take down videos that companies complain violate content. They do both, they always have.
What this ruling says is that Google has to curate videos before challenges are filed. They don't do that currently, either with copyright issues or other videos that violate their content rules (though they might have some deals with the feds regarding proactively getting rid of terrorist content that I don't know about).
Some infringement is not detected for decades and some of it is subjective
Exactly, an algorithm will never be able to tell if something is actually allowed under fair use.
Having stated that, it's good that Google (YouTube, Alphabet... Whatever responsibility-avoiding name you'd like to refer to them by) is finally getting knocked for this. They've acted all along like they're above the law by claiming innocence when users upload copyright material, yet on the other hand they assist large companies with take downs elsewhere, and they assist law enforcement in identifying those breaking the law.
Yes, and this is absolutely how it should be. Assist in after-the-fact takedowns if someone complains. They cannot curate every video, they have no way of knowing for sure whether a copyright is being violated. Yeah, if someone uploads a cam recording of Avengers: Infinity War, duh that violates copyright. But the law must apply equally to the big guys and the little guys, because the "Law to Protect Copyright Just For The Biollion Dollar Company 2018" is an incredibly unjust law.
In your dislike for Youtube, you're ignoring that Youtube is not (and should not) be considered special. This is a law, a new way of managing user content on the Internet, that will have to be applied to any service. Any service will have to go through every minute of video to ensure copyright isn't violated. Look through every picture to make sure a photographer's copyright isn't violated. Listen to every note in every audio upload. They can't half-ass it, because they will be liable. Do you not see how of an implausible task this is? I know you have a hate-on for Youtube, but you really aren't thinking through what this means.
You are being far too kind to them. From direct personal experience, you can have the exact same account uploading the exact same infringing content they have already been notified about just hours after it's been taken down in response to a formal notification, and they still don't do anything.
They do to a certain extent. If you upload a video that is taken down, you get a "copyright strike." Three strikes and you're out and any revenue is confiscated.
I agree, their arguments are somewhat disingenuous. "We're extending GDPR protections to non-Europeans because"
"it's the right thing to do" So why didn't they do it before?
"we believe in user privacy" So you didn't believe in last month?
"we're just awesome like that" So you sucked until now?
The real answer being "It's really hard to distinguish EU and non-EU users, and we don't want to take the chance of getting it wrong"
That is true, but also: "we calculated that the people getting pissed off about our privacy violations is not substantial enough to justify not taking advantage of the revenue stream that violating user privacy means. Also, silicon valley execs said 'privacy is dead anyway, get over it,' so we're taking that to heart."
So, conversely, does that mean you agree that Budweiser, which is owned by InBev, a European company, can sell alcohol to 18 year olds in America?
I'm absolutely fine with Budweiser selling alcohol to 18-year-olds in areas where that's legal. Youtube can also block videos in certain countries where such content is illegal.
But man, we're talking about a web site accessible globally. I have strong dislike for country courts that pull shit like this, just.. unilaterally deciding that user-generated sites have to proactively filter before posting. It completely breaks the entire model of "user-content websites" on the Internet.
6: and 16: were supposed to be <the sound of crickets> but I forgot to escape the angle brackets.
But a blank line works almost as well, doesn't it? B-)
6 and 16 are crickets, because enforcement is "regulation," and regulation is always bad. Feds aren't interested in using a heavy hand with telemarketers because free speech or the market with fix it.
At the rate I get spam calls, it would be full in less than 2 years. Every single one is from a different number.
Since they're spoofed, you're probably blocking plenty of legit numbers that you'll never see used for spam again. Eventually I figured out I'd have to blacklist pretty much all numbers.
Illegal it may certainly be, but an increasing number of ordinary people are taking that risk because this is what happens when you tell the truth to police:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/02...
I'm not sure what that has to do with telling or not telling the truth to police. They were accused of a crime they didn't commit -- drug trade/money laundering. They didn't declare the money, which is the only "crime" they committed, and this something that would have gotten caught no matter what they were doing, as security actively looks for this sort of thing and it will show up on scans.
Why should MY phone company (T-Mobile) be allowed to let a foreign company connect to their network and spoof a LOCAL number?
That's as idiotic as saying why should my email carrier allow someone to send me an email from overseas. Why should the United States Post Office allow someone to send me a letter from overseas?
You ignored the "spoof a LOCAL number" part of the GP's object. IE, I have no problems with the postal service marking envelopes based on where they were mailed from. And zero problem with them just throwing away letters from China that say "mailed in Spokane, Washington" which were clearly not mailed from there.
Trouble is it has a valid use for both VOIP and PABX; it's kinda equivalent to the reply-to on an email.
Does it? That is, given the unbelievable abuse of this feature, I don't think it's worth allowing call spoofing because VOIP relies on it. I'm sure there might be a few use cases that are broken, but we're talking about a feature that is abused to contact every person in the country with a phone, multiple times a week. There's an order of magnitude of abuse > non-abuse involved here.
Maybe VOIP needs a new technology, something secureable.
I'm a big fan of that "feature" of spam callers -- I haven't lived in the area code of my cell phone number for over 10 years, so when I see a caller with that area code and prefix, I'm nearly 100% sure it's a spam caller.
I'm a big fan of that too. I ignore all calls that share my prefix, and 800notes takes care of many of the rest.
I get a lot of spam now since it's election season, but it's legally-sanctioned spam.
If only! He did indeed have the opportunity to end the war fall into his lap like manna from heaven, yes, because North Korea's nuclear research complex was destroyed in a semi-natural disaster. [theguardian.com] Then with John "War Fetish" Bolton's help, the fat ugly imbecilic wannabe-dictator snatched crushing defeat from the jaws of free glorious victory [washingtonpost.com] by reminding North Korea what happened to Libya (and Gaddafi) along with demonstrating that the USA's word isn't worth jack shit, [nytimes.com] and now it's all going to fall through. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Don't forget, the real broker for peace is the South Korean President. Many Americans conveniently forget about this and just credit Trump, for whatever reason. Well, Trump fucked it up like we figured he could, so now he's out of the process, but the North and the South are continuing their negotiations. You know that if they sign some sort of accord together, Trump is going to barge to the front of the line like he has before and claim credit.
People will always break laws, and that can't be stopped.
Sure, I'm just saying that it's easier to keep things that are public, public indefinitely than it is to keep things private, private indefinitely.
The pizza thing was pretty funny, until some idiots thought it was serious.
the author connected him to Wall Street bases on the fact that in the 1980s he was a VP of a movie studio, Castle Rock entertainment. Seriously? THAT is what you're going to call "Wall Street", someone having a job in the movie industry 30 years ago makes them "Wall Street".
This is a misreading of the article. I'm not entirely sure how you reached that conclusion; it seems such a logic leap has to be intentional. Here's what the article said:
It did not say that his claim to Wall Street was working at Castle Rock. His tie to wall street is that he was a Vice President at Goldman Sachs through the 1980s, leaving in '89. He was hired by Westinghouse in 1990 to negotiate the sale of Castle Rock. He didn't work for Castle Rock, he was the negotiator between Westinghouse (the seller) and Ted Turner (the buyer). Instead of an adviser's fee, he was paid in a financial stake in five TV shows, one of which was Seinfeld, and that made him millions. He still gets residuals on Seinfeld reruns. He entered Hollywood afterwards as an executive producer on Titus and the Indian Runner as well as over a dozen conservative documentaries.
Once a month or once a quarter, the FEC would distribute the funds to campaigns, without revealing who the contributors were.
What's to stop the contributors from telling the candidate?
If we make that illegal (under some "election influencing" law), I will expect a lot of "hacks" of company/private servers, which we are apparently powerless to stop already, which will leak and make public the details of contributions.
Slashdot has turned to crap because the people on it have become toxic. I've read Slashdot on/off since about 1999, and it's declined sharply since perhaps somewhere around 2010. About 5-6 years ago I noticed the site had become dominated by a hard-core set of blowhards,
This. This this this this. The trolls and the blowhards, whether well known or not, have made the comments sections on Slashdot somewhat toxic. Not to mention the mod abuse. But they've been encouraged by Slashdot itself, with its tendency more and more over the years to run overtly political articles. I don't need to go anywhere else for politics now, I get a ton of it here.. and likely, that was the point.
I think Slashdot should have stuck to a more mission -- tech stuff for nerds that other people don't cover. Instead it's "anything that a nerd (and probably most non-nerds) might be interested in."
Hey, there was a time when Slashdot itself could be the worst DDOS ever launched on the Internet. Beware the Slashdot effect.
-- (not logged in, id in the low 5 digits)
I'm kindof glad the Slashdot effect is not really a thing anymore. Overall, it feels like the Internet has made great strides towards addressing network burst. It used to be that large sites would be ok (maybe), but any smaller site would be knocked offline. Now, even smaller sites partner in a co-lo which can handle a lot of traffic, or with services like Akamai or Cloudflare to handle unexpected (or expected) traffic bumps.
Thank you for updating. Sometimes I feel like the staff is very hands-off (this is a charitable way of saying "absentee") when it comes to user and design issues. I've used the feedback email address before and when there's no feedback (heh), things don't change, and those issues aren't publicly addressed either, one gets the impression that maybe there's no one on the other end.
I don't see many others commenting publicly, maybe just the occasional BeauHD post. It's mostly you. Does Slashdot run on a "ok, this one guy will be the public relations / public poster" model and everyone else lurks? Or do you just like being extra talkative? :-D
On the other hand, given the quality of feedback given during Beta (some good, most bad), I don't blame the staff for mostly lurking and not opening themselves up to public attacks.