And what is EU going to do to company that is solely based outside EU? They have to jurisdiction even if GDPR says so. PS: I am talking about the companies that make the apps
Ah, but they're sending the data to Facebook, which probably didn't think this one through.
The spacecraft was placed into Earth orbit by a SpaceX rocket. It looks like it was a secondary payload on a telecommunications satellite launch, which probably means that the SpaceX rocket placed it in Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO), an elliptical orbit with a peak altitude of 36,000 km.
Yup: there were three payloads on the Falcon 9, all going to GTO. An Arab comm sat, a secret military payload "Sorry, we won't be able to show video of that part of the launch", and this spacecraft.
The comm sat will fire its rockets at apogee to circularize into the desired geostationary orbit. I believe the moonshot will fire its rockets at perigee, over the course of 3 or 4 passed, raising apogee each time until it gets a close encounter with the moon (and then it will take several passes to circularize its moon orbit). It's not a very powerful rocket, but it will eventually get the job done. They say it will take 40 days and 40 nights.
Couldn't decide between using meters or feet and went with a completely useless unit instead?
Exactly like measuring rocket efficiency in ISP, when you generally want the exhaust velocity. But ISP is in "seconds", so no "meters per second" or "feet per second". Sigh.
Much as I'd like to think is was a Star Trek nod, the mission is about inspiring people and new projects, so "genesis" or "a beginning" both work fine.
that "Israeli spacecraft" has better things to do than carry a bunch of kitsch to the fucking moon. There is actual science to be done on the moon. This is a vanity shot.
SpaceIL understands what AC doesn't: it's more about inspiration than science. This mission was explicitly about inspiring people.
Inspiring people to get into STEM fields more valuable than any actual science done on other planets or moons. And it's certainly worth the cost! Heck, this mission only cost $100 M. That's a mid-budget movie these days. For the cost of an underwater Avatar sequel we can send people to Mars.
Once they colonize the moon - maybe they could share a bit of land that they took away from the Palestines
That land has been disputed literally longer than recorded history. Jewish tribes seem to have owned it more often than not, though it's hard to say beyond 3000 years ago. The current people called "Palestinians" wandered in fairly recently in history, and can't be said to have any more claim to the land than the very long list of historical owners.
But we all know that "Palestine" is just a euphemism. Perhaps we can dispense with euphemism now that we have a couple of openly anti-Semitic congresscritters. Let's get it all out in the open - always the best way to clean house.
So whaddya gonna do? You let the NSA do it, why not facebook? Just charge them a tax on it.
I'd bet they aren't geoblocking this in the EU. That's gonna sting. The GDPR has big, sharp, poisonous fangs.
Any EU Slashdotters using any of these apps? Please do make a "take" request to get everything they have on you, followed by a "sanitize" request to delete it all. We ma not see the fireworks, but they will be impressive.
If you seriously believe that businesses donâ(TM)t get to choose their own business offerings
We as a society have already decided it's not that simple. A baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, even if that product offering goes against the core values of the owners. eHarmony was forced by law to create an entire new product offering and web site for gay dating. Heck, a game company was once ordered by a judge to create an entire new game for someone else in a trademark/copyright dispute.
Do you agree it's not that simple, or are you an absolutist, denying any complexity?
To me, one draws the line at privately owned, where the rights of the owners should prevail, vs a publicly traded corporation, where the owners are distant and have no shared values (beyond profit) and the rights of the customers should prevail.
If you're not an absolutist, how do you balance the rights of the owners vs the rights of the customers?
They are choosing to not distribute their own content for business reasons. Thatâ(TM)s not censorship
Chosing not to distribute your own content, based on the content, is self-censorship. That's what "self-censorship" means. If you do so out of fear of the consequences were you not to self-censor, that's a "chilling effect", which is often seen as the strongest kind of censorship.
But that's not what's happening here: it's about refusing to allow targeted advertising to a specific demographic. They are censoring the advertisements, explicitly based on the presumed content of those advertisements: material that might appeal to neo-Nazis.
Publicly traded corporations have no rights. The whole concept is nonsense. They are allowed to do whatever we decide to allow them to do, but they start at 0. So, why is it in society's best interest to allow them to censor speech they disagree with? More clearly, why is it in society's best interest to allow an effective monopoly to censor speech it disagrees with, and thereby control political discussion? Lack of free discussion is the anathema of democracy.
They are helping Nazis to target such people with their propaganda via their advertising platform. They are helping Nazis radicalize people.
It's one thing to support free speech on your platform and allow that kind of material, it's another to actively assist Nazis in their recruitment drive.
Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
They are helping Muslims to target such people with their propaganda via their advertising platform. They are helping Muslims radicalize people.
It's one thing to support free speech on your platform and allow that kind of material, it's another to actively assist Muslims in their recruitment drive.
Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
They are helping Socialists to target such people with their propaganda via their advertising platform. They are helping Socialists radicalize people.
It's one thing to support free speech on your platform and allow that kind of material, it's another to actively assist Socialists in their recruitment drive.
I do not support the right to infringe on other's speech by compelling them to print someone else's speech on their privately-held platform.
Do you support the right of a privately-held restaurant to turn away black customers? For a bakery to turn away gays? You run a business open to the public, you might be compelled to serve all the public.
Separately, Publicly-traded corporations have no right to free speech. There's no trade-off to discuss. The rights of one side are being infringed, the other side has no such rights, case closed.
Slashdot Mirror
And what is EU going to do to company that is solely based outside EU? They have to jurisdiction even if GDPR says so.
PS: I am talking about the companies that make the apps
Ah, but they're sending the data to Facebook, which probably didn't think this one through.
The spacecraft was placed into Earth orbit by a SpaceX rocket. It looks like it was a secondary payload on a telecommunications satellite launch, which probably means that the SpaceX rocket placed it in Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO), an elliptical orbit with a peak altitude of 36,000 km.
Yup: there were three payloads on the Falcon 9, all going to GTO. An Arab comm sat, a secret military payload "Sorry, we won't be able to show video of that part of the launch", and this spacecraft.
The comm sat will fire its rockets at apogee to circularize into the desired geostationary orbit. I believe the moonshot will fire its rockets at perigee, over the course of 3 or 4 passed, raising apogee each time until it gets a close encounter with the moon (and then it will take several passes to circularize its moon orbit). It's not a very powerful rocket, but it will eventually get the job done. They say it will take 40 days and 40 nights.
Do you also say "NASA didn't launch jack shit" when they use a launch vehicle from UAL or Northrup or SpaceX?
Much as I love the actual rockets, it's the mission that matters, not the bus it rides to get there.
Couldn't decide between using meters or feet and went with a completely useless unit instead?
Exactly like measuring rocket efficiency in ISP, when you generally want the exhaust velocity. But ISP is in "seconds", so no "meters per second" or "feet per second". Sigh.
Much as I'd like to think is was a Star Trek nod, the mission is about inspiring people and new projects, so "genesis" or "a beginning" both work fine.
The ship will take 40 days and 40 nights to find new land. Funny, that.
3 years without sex, you write code
3 decades without sex, you become a wizard.
Nice sig.
Well played, sir.
that "Israeli spacecraft" has better things to do than carry a bunch of kitsch to the fucking moon. There is actual science to be done on the moon. This is a vanity shot.
SpaceIL understands what AC doesn't: it's more about inspiration than science. This mission was explicitly about inspiring people.
Inspiring people to get into STEM fields more valuable than any actual science done on other planets or moons. And it's certainly worth the cost! Heck, this mission only cost $100 M. That's a mid-budget movie these days. For the cost of an underwater Avatar sequel we can send people to Mars.
Once they colonize the moon - maybe they could share a bit of land that they took away from the Palestines
That land has been disputed literally longer than recorded history. Jewish tribes seem to have owned it more often than not, though it's hard to say beyond 3000 years ago. The current people called "Palestinians" wandered in fairly recently in history, and can't be said to have any more claim to the land than the very long list of historical owners.
But we all know that "Palestine" is just a euphemism. Perhaps we can dispense with euphemism now that we have a couple of openly anti-Semitic congresscritters. Let's get it all out in the open - always the best way to clean house.
So whaddya gonna do? You let the NSA do it, why not facebook? Just charge them a tax on it.
I'd bet they aren't geoblocking this in the EU. That's gonna sting. The GDPR has big, sharp, poisonous fangs.
Any EU Slashdotters using any of these apps? Please do make a "take" request to get everything they have on you, followed by a "sanitize" request to delete it all. We ma not see the fireworks, but they will be impressive.
If you seriously believe that businesses donâ(TM)t get to choose their own business offerings
We as a society have already decided it's not that simple. A baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, even if that product offering goes against the core values of the owners. eHarmony was forced by law to create an entire new product offering and web site for gay dating. Heck, a game company was once ordered by a judge to create an entire new game for someone else in a trademark/copyright dispute.
Do you agree it's not that simple, or are you an absolutist, denying any complexity?
To me, one draws the line at privately owned, where the rights of the owners should prevail, vs a publicly traded corporation, where the owners are distant and have no shared values (beyond profit) and the rights of the customers should prevail.
If you're not an absolutist, how do you balance the rights of the owners vs the rights of the customers?
They are choosing to not distribute their own content for business reasons. Thatâ(TM)s not censorship
Chosing not to distribute your own content, based on the content, is self-censorship. That's what "self-censorship" means. If you do so out of fear of the consequences were you not to self-censor, that's a "chilling effect", which is often seen as the strongest kind of censorship.
But that's not what's happening here: it's about refusing to allow targeted advertising to a specific demographic. They are censoring the advertisements, explicitly based on the presumed content of those advertisements: material that might appeal to neo-Nazis.
RIght: your geek card, in the box by the door, on your way out. https://youtu.be/FQ5YU_spBw0?t...
Their choice to make, not yours
Why do you believe that should be the case? You keep advocating for it, but you refuse to make an argument, or even answer any related questions.
Not censorship
You seem unclear on the concept.. When anyone chooses not to distribute content for any content-based reason, that's censorship.
Ah, malicious quoting.
you Jews and stockholders are vermin, not people?
You said it, right there!
Now let me make this perfectly clear: no one is to stone anyone until I give the signal, even if they do say "Jehova".
You? Or the US Democratic party? Or our pet troll (but he's not new)?
[Unhinged rant redacted]
Well, at least Slashdot still has freedom of speech.
Publicly traded corporations have no rights. The whole concept is nonsense. They are allowed to do whatever we decide to allow them to do, but they start at 0. So, why is it in society's best interest to allow them to censor speech they disagree with? More clearly, why is it in society's best interest to allow an effective monopoly to censor speech it disagrees with, and thereby control political discussion? Lack of free discussion is the anathema of democracy.
his left blue-and-white Nike sneaker ripped apart at the seams and he tumbled to the floor, grabbing his right knee in pain....
Nike just took a knee.
The way people talk about Nazis, or whites, or Trump supporters, or increasingly Jews, in America is just like how the Nazis talked about Jews.
Totalitarianism always comes as an excuse to contain those dangerous vermin who threaten society.
The difference being that Islam and socialism are not inherently violent or opposed to anyone's existence.
Your comedian today was AmiMoJo, give him a round of applause.
Oh, or so so far gone that to you Jews and stockholders are vermin, not people?
I'm not seeing a law here.
Imagine for a moment that our rights precede law and are more important, and that law should change to increase our rights.
There's no constitutional issue here: publicly traded corporations have no such rights.
Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
They are helping Nazis to target such people with their propaganda via their advertising platform. They are helping Nazis radicalize people.
It's one thing to support free speech on your platform and allow that kind of material, it's another to actively assist Nazis in their recruitment drive.
Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
They are helping Muslims to target such people with their propaganda via their advertising platform. They are helping Muslims radicalize people.
It's one thing to support free speech on your platform and allow that kind of material, it's another to actively assist Muslims in their recruitment drive.
Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
They are helping Socialists to target such people with their propaganda via their advertising platform. They are helping Socialists radicalize people.
It's one thing to support free speech on your platform and allow that kind of material, it's another to actively assist Socialists in their recruitment drive.
I do not support the right to infringe on other's speech by compelling them to print someone else's speech on their privately-held platform.
Do you support the right of a privately-held restaurant to turn away black customers? For a bakery to turn away gays? You run a business open to the public, you might be compelled to serve all the public.
Separately, Publicly-traded corporations have no right to free speech. There's no trade-off to discuss. The rights of one side are being infringed, the other side has no such rights, case closed.