The "Academy of Tobacco Studies" is a made-up industry trade group in the satirical film Thank You for Smoking. You're probably thinking of the Tobacco Institute.
Because some doctors are, as you said negligent, it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure their children are getting proper health care. Rather than legislate/litigate, the FDA is trying to raise awareness, so parents will actively participate in their children's health care, and use their "free market power" to demand proper health care with minimal X-rays.
I realize this may not be possible because they'd be costing Chertoff ^W^W sympathizing with terrorists, but the FDA should work on TSA body scanners too while they're at it. In medicine, doctors are at least remotely concerned about how much radiation people are exposed to. The TSA is only concerned with keeping people in line, maintaining a security theater, and spending/receiving lots of public money.
Limiting children's exposure to X-rays is a respectable, important cause, and not all children will travel by air, but it will all be wasted if the kids run through too many body scanners with traveling parents. Plus, parents will probably not know anything about body scanners, and will believe the TSA agents when they say the scanners are "perfectly safe".
"How do I draw a circle? I CAN'T DRAW A CIRCLE WITH IT YET AFTER LIKE 30 YEARS" --lowuserid1997
I see this one asked all the time. First draw your circle in the ellipse selection tool. To make it a perfect circle, just hold shift while selecting, or check the "Fixed" (aspect ratio) option box in the toolbox.
For a hollow circle, go to Edit --> Stroke Selection. Then pick your line width, color, etc.
For a solid circle, go to Edit --> Fill with BG Color, Fill with FG Color, or Fill with Pattern, depending on what you're trying to do.
Also works with paths (vectors), text, rectangles (with rounded corners), and arbitrary freehand/contiguous/cut-out selections.
In past years, autism was barely understood/defined, and often misdiagnosed as ADHD, mental retardation, or something similar. As awareness increases and the diagnostic criteria become more straightforward, autism is diagnosed more and more frequently. You can't call that increase in diagnosis an epidemic.
Of course I'm also sure that none of this has anything to do with the fact that YouTube gets a cut of those ad proceeds. And that a small user posting original content would probably opt not to insert ads, such that YouTube would be then getting a cut of zero.
That shouldn't matter. YouTube gets a cut of the ad revenue no matter who gets the other cut. It's just whether you make the extra profit or Rabblefish.
I'm also willing to venture that after going through the figleaf of a process of he-said, she-said, he-said, that there is little recourse. My guess is that any future attempt by a little guy to appeal/refute/re-dispute a big copyright holders' refutation of the original dispute will fall down some big black rabbit hole of non-responsiveness from YouTube corporate bureaucracy, complete with lack of any personal points of contact for trying to actually resolve this.
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of the DMCA was that if you dispute it, the company has to either sue you or let it slide. It's not just a you-say-it's-yours they-say-you're-wrong thing; they make an authoritative claim to own the content in question (stating formerly that they did their research), and you dispute it and refuse to comply with the takedown. At this point, liability for infringement is passed from the service provider to you, as you force their hand; if they want DMCA action, they have to take you to court.
From the summary here, I can't quite understand what the OP did or whether he did just that, or any of the other specific details, but I would expect YouTube to remove the ads once the company backed out of filing a lawsuit. Of course the company(ies) in question will keep doing it because there is a financial (and political) incentive and very little risk of any kind of repercussions, but that's how corporate legal departments operate and you just have to keep fighting back when they try to bully you.
Wait... do you really think politicians would actually research something? Something that requires
reading? We are talking about America, right?
I'm not saying this won't be effective -- if Wikipedia disappears, with the message that if SOPA/PIPA pass they'll be gone for good, every congressman's switchboard will be flooded -- but to think that congressmen actually do their own thinking, much less research something, is sorely mistaken. The ones who do are probably the ones who are opposed to this already. You must be new here.
I said phone, not cell phone or smart phone. You know, those ancient analog devices mounted on the wall from the day and age mentioned in GP, before cell phones were widespread. You speak into them, and they don't connect to the internet or remember your recent contacts. We are still talking about
decades ago when employees got home telephones and occasionally talked business on them
right? Maybe I'm naive, but I don't seem to remember Outlook from a phone being possible back then.
Point being, in the time when this figured out, you didn't have to worry about what kind of sensitive data was stored on a device with no storage capability.
I know I'm late to the discussion, but I thought I'd throw this in for thought.
As long as we're not talking about censorship, I really think this.xxx thing could work. Think about it: somebody looking for porn (he knows what he wants) will look in the.xxx part of the internet, while anybody else will avoid the.xxx. As long as nobody is evesdropping (blackmail, anyone?) or censoring by domain name, the porno website owners have no reason to use anything other than the.xxx domain. As a porn site operator, why would you go out of your way to try and reach people you know don't want what you're selling when you already have a niche market singled out for you?
Yes, I realize Goatse and the like will continue exist, but that's an obvious exception for obvious reasons.
Avira saw part of a program (called "Avira") that bombards the user with pop-ups, scaring them, and asking for money every year. It acted accordingly. The only shocking thing here is that it actually worked.
Think bigger -- Fox News, being so radically right wing as it is, represents a huge threat to public workers, safety nets, and generally anything that doesn't immediately benefit the elite class. Even if this ends up hurting News Corp's viewer base (the delusional), it will mean less of this blockading politics in the name of tax cuts for wealthy, less wars of conquest, and less of this anti-union vendetta being pushed on public employees. If they're as leftist as you say, then their workers would probably also like it if the propaganda machine were to die down.
Enough of us here complain about News Corp, Murdoch, Fox, etc. that it's probably relevant enough for our purposes. If this goes anywhere, it's really big news and it does matter. Besides, it's not like this was news-for-nerds(TM) either.
let me get this straight - now the government is actually paying people whose job description is to sit around on Facebook all day? And we're still trying to cut programs that benefit society...
The Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) project is "designed to track and monitor, among other inputs, body movements, voice pitch changes, prosody changes (alterations in the rhythm and intonation of speech), eye movements, body heat changes, and breathing patterns
It sounds like this is detecting signs of people's behavior changing as they sidestep their inhibitory mechanisms, or in basic terms that they're nervous doing something they know is wrong and the system is detecting their nervousness. Any ideas on how will this pre-screening work on sociopaths, who don't feel any remorse or commitment to societal morals or societal norms? Someone who doesn't experience the human inhibitory reflex? Someone with an anxiety disorder, or otherwise has a (non-criminal) reason to be nervous?
The Citizens United decision will be overturned? No? Didn't think so. Free speech is a corporation's right, but only a privilege for citizens. I always wondered why Oprah got sued for talking about beef, so I guess this explains a few things...
All you've said in the above is true. But it still conditions the children to believe that constant electronic surveillance by authority figures is normal.
First off, as the original article said, and I restated, this is not constant. It's a clip-on that the children wear while outside and under supervision of day care staff. I suppose if the parents become enthralled with the idea and decided to take the GPS devices home for their own 24/7 user it might be, but as of yet there is no indication that has happened.
As for the conditioning, that's debatable. Some types of Orwellian or authoritarian oversight will condition children to accept it as a normal part of society, much like Libyans accept oppression as normal. However, this seems rather benign so I think even if the children know what it is it probably won't brainwash them all that badly. Now airport security at the entrances to their schools...
The system is not in anyway meant to replace teachers or aids, but to simply enhance their watchful eyes and increase safety. Although it cannot prevent a child from running off, it can provide an alert to chaperones, who are outnumbered by their students.
I am the last person to defend GPS technology, or any of this other Orwellian bullshit that seems to be the norm, but this is a non-story loaded with buzzwords that the submitter knew would immediately rile us up (it was enough to get me to RTFA, at least...). The technology is being used to supplement the daycare staff's supervision, and alert them early on when a child takes off. This clip-on is not going to prevent the child from intentionally running off, and an abductor will just remove it (if he's not an idiot as some are). However, if the child wanders off -- which believe me it happens all the time -- they can find him/her more quickly and not risk another child getting lost in the time spend looking for the first one.
Looking after maybe 1 or 2 children and this is going to happen sometimes. Looking after several dozen and this kind of solution seems practical. It's not like they're implanting something in the children to monitor their every move at home or initiate them into our totalitarian surveillance state of fear or what have you. Yes it has controversies (what is the GPS company going to do with the data? how hard would it be for some predator to intercept the data stream?), but not on the scale that the submitter has everyone worried about. Congratulations, you all have been trolled.
TFA says it's LoJack. You may not have known, but LoJack is embedded in the BIOS so the backdoor program (which is whitelisted by most AVs) gets silently restored each time Windows is re-installed. Unless the buyer is installing Linux, it doesn't matter how many times you reinstall the OS because the loJack will re-install from the motherboard each time.
This is probably a screw-up more than censorship. Given the popularity of Blogspot, I suspect the people who did this just simply entered in a website, got an IP address, and added an iptables rule or equivalent, without looking or realizing what they were blocking. Hell, that could even be scripted, and I could easily see an intern or low-level staff having just entered "leakymails.blogspot.com" into a script without knowing what happened behind the scenes. I know ISPs hate net neutrality, but it's really not in their best interests to completely cut off access to blogspot.com; even if they have a monopoly they're just going to get flooded with complaints, with real competitive advantage in return to justify the added cost.
Barring a simple but stupid mistake like this from someone routing traffic, IANAL but it should not be the ISP's responsibility to not only screw with people's internet access at the request of the government, but go the extra mile and cut off access to the entire service provider. If we allow that kind of action, then we'll see a whole array of other sites getting blocked at a national level. Then, in an effort to keep themselves accessible around the world, we'll see hosting providers around the world bend over backwards to censor themselves and their users just because somebody, somewhere in the world, might object to some kind of political content one of their users posted.
Slashdot Mirror
The "Academy of Tobacco Studies" is a made-up industry trade group in the satirical film Thank You for Smoking. You're probably thinking of the Tobacco Institute.
Because some doctors are, as you said negligent, it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure their children are getting proper health care. Rather than legislate/litigate, the FDA is trying to raise awareness, so parents will actively participate in their children's health care, and use their "free market power" to demand proper health care with minimal X-rays.
I realize this may not be possible because they'd be costing Chertoff ^W^W sympathizing with terrorists, but the FDA should work on TSA body scanners too while they're at it. In medicine, doctors are at least remotely concerned about how much radiation people are exposed to. The TSA is only concerned with keeping people in line, maintaining a security theater, and spending/receiving lots of public money. Limiting children's exposure to X-rays is a respectable, important cause, and not all children will travel by air, but it will all be wasted if the kids run through too many body scanners with traveling parents. Plus, parents will probably not know anything about body scanners, and will believe the TSA agents when they say the scanners are "perfectly safe".
"How do I draw a circle? I CAN'T DRAW A CIRCLE WITH IT YET AFTER LIKE 30 YEARS" --lowuserid1997
I see this one asked all the time. First draw your circle in the ellipse selection tool. To make it a perfect circle, just hold shift while selecting, or check the "Fixed" (aspect ratio) option box in the toolbox.
Also works with paths (vectors), text, rectangles (with rounded corners), and arbitrary freehand/contiguous/cut-out selections.
In past years, autism was barely understood/defined, and often misdiagnosed as ADHD, mental retardation, or something similar. As awareness increases and the diagnostic criteria become more straightforward, autism is diagnosed more and more frequently. You can't call that increase in diagnosis an epidemic.
Of course I'm also sure that none of this has anything to do with the fact that YouTube gets a cut of those ad proceeds. And that a small user posting original content would probably opt not to insert ads, such that YouTube would be then getting a cut of zero.
That shouldn't matter. YouTube gets a cut of the ad revenue no matter who gets the other cut. It's just whether you make the extra profit or Rabblefish.
I'm also willing to venture that after going through the figleaf of a process of he-said, she-said, he-said, that there is little recourse. My guess is that any future attempt by a little guy to appeal/refute/re-dispute a big copyright holders' refutation of the original dispute will fall down some big black rabbit hole of non-responsiveness from YouTube corporate bureaucracy, complete with lack of any personal points of contact for trying to actually resolve this.
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of the DMCA was that if you dispute it, the company has to either sue you or let it slide. It's not just a you-say-it's-yours they-say-you're-wrong thing; they make an authoritative claim to own the content in question (stating formerly that they did their research), and you dispute it and refuse to comply with the takedown. At this point, liability for infringement is passed from the service provider to you, as you force their hand; if they want DMCA action, they have to take you to court.
From the summary here, I can't quite understand what the OP did or whether he did just that, or any of the other specific details, but I would expect YouTube to remove the ads once the company backed out of filing a lawsuit. Of course the company(ies) in question will keep doing it because there is a financial (and political) incentive and very little risk of any kind of repercussions, but that's how corporate legal departments operate and you just have to keep fighting back when they try to bully you.
Wait... do you really think politicians would actually research something? Something that requires reading? We are talking about America, right? I'm not saying this won't be effective -- if Wikipedia disappears, with the message that if SOPA/PIPA pass they'll be gone for good, every congressman's switchboard will be flooded -- but to think that congressmen actually do their own thinking, much less research something, is sorely mistaken. The ones who do are probably the ones who are opposed to this already. You must be new here.
I said phone, not cell phone or smart phone. You know, those ancient analog devices mounted on the wall from the day and age mentioned in GP, before cell phones were widespread. You speak into them, and they don't connect to the internet or remember your recent contacts. We are still talking about
decades ago when employees got home telephones and occasionally talked business on them
right? Maybe I'm naive, but I don't seem to remember Outlook from a phone being possible back then.
Point being, in the time when this figured out, you didn't have to worry about what kind of sensitive data was stored on a device with no storage capability.
You can't lose a phone and lose a few thousand customer social security numbers or credit card numbers stored on it.
I know I'm late to the discussion, but I thought I'd throw this in for thought.
As long as we're not talking about censorship, I really think this .xxx thing could work. Think about it: somebody looking for porn (he knows what he wants) will look in the .xxx part of the internet, while anybody else will avoid the .xxx. As long as nobody is evesdropping (blackmail, anyone?) or censoring by domain name, the porno website owners have no reason to use anything other than the .xxx domain. As a porn site operator, why would you go out of your way to try and reach people you know don't want what you're selling when you already have a niche market singled out for you?
Yes, I realize Goatse and the like will continue exist, but that's an obvious exception for obvious reasons.
And now they have your Slashdot UID. If they didn't have your name before, they probably have it now...
Avira saw part of a program (called "Avira") that bombards the user with pop-ups, scaring them, and asking for money every year. It acted accordingly. The only shocking thing here is that it actually worked.
Nah, it just can't stop touching itself.
Think bigger -- Fox News, being so radically right wing as it is, represents a huge threat to public workers, safety nets, and generally anything that doesn't immediately benefit the elite class. Even if this ends up hurting News Corp's viewer base (the delusional), it will mean less of this blockading politics in the name of tax cuts for wealthy, less wars of conquest, and less of this anti-union vendetta being pushed on public employees. If they're as leftist as you say, then their workers would probably also like it if the propaganda machine were to die down.
Enough of us here complain about News Corp, Murdoch, Fox, etc. that it's probably relevant enough for our purposes. If this goes anywhere, it's really big news and it does matter. Besides, it's not like this was news-for-nerds(TM) either.
let me get this straight - now the government is actually paying people whose job description is to sit around on Facebook all day? And we're still trying to cut programs that benefit society...
The Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) project is "designed to track and monitor, among other inputs, body movements, voice pitch changes, prosody changes (alterations in the rhythm and intonation of speech), eye movements, body heat changes, and breathing patterns
It sounds like this is detecting signs of people's behavior changing as they sidestep their inhibitory mechanisms, or in basic terms that they're nervous doing something they know is wrong and the system is detecting their nervousness. Any ideas on how will this pre-screening work on sociopaths, who don't feel any remorse or commitment to societal morals or societal norms? Someone who doesn't experience the human inhibitory reflex? Someone with an anxiety disorder, or otherwise has a (non-criminal) reason to be nervous?
The Citizens United decision will be overturned? No? Didn't think so. Free speech is a corporation's right, but only a privilege for citizens. I always wondered why Oprah got sued for talking about beef, so I guess this explains a few things...
All you've said in the above is true. But it still conditions the children to believe that constant electronic surveillance by authority figures is normal.
First off, as the original article said, and I restated, this is not constant. It's a clip-on that the children wear while outside and under supervision of day care staff. I suppose if the parents become enthralled with the idea and decided to take the GPS devices home for their own 24/7 user it might be, but as of yet there is no indication that has happened. As for the conditioning, that's debatable. Some types of Orwellian or authoritarian oversight will condition children to accept it as a normal part of society, much like Libyans accept oppression as normal. However, this seems rather benign so I think even if the children know what it is it probably won't brainwash them all that badly. Now airport security at the entrances to their schools...
The system is not in anyway meant to replace teachers or aids, but to simply enhance their watchful eyes and increase safety. Although it cannot prevent a child from running off, it can provide an alert to chaperones, who are outnumbered by their students.
I am the last person to defend GPS technology, or any of this other Orwellian bullshit that seems to be the norm, but this is a non-story loaded with buzzwords that the submitter knew would immediately rile us up (it was enough to get me to RTFA, at least...). The technology is being used to supplement the daycare staff's supervision, and alert them early on when a child takes off. This clip-on is not going to prevent the child from intentionally running off, and an abductor will just remove it (if he's not an idiot as some are). However, if the child wanders off -- which believe me it happens all the time -- they can find him/her more quickly and not risk another child getting lost in the time spend looking for the first one.
Looking after maybe 1 or 2 children and this is going to happen sometimes. Looking after several dozen and this kind of solution seems practical. It's not like they're implanting something in the children to monitor their every move at home or initiate them into our totalitarian surveillance state of fear or what have you. Yes it has controversies (what is the GPS company going to do with the data? how hard would it be for some predator to intercept the data stream?), but not on the scale that the submitter has everyone worried about. Congratulations, you all have been trolled.
You mean like those riots we did right after Osama bin Laden died?
TFA says it's LoJack. You may not have known, but LoJack is embedded in the BIOS so the backdoor program (which is whitelisted by most AVs) gets silently restored each time Windows is re-installed. Unless the buyer is installing Linux, it doesn't matter how many times you reinstall the OS because the loJack will re-install from the motherboard each time.
I'll bet Richard Stallman would have something to say about this...
This is probably a screw-up more than censorship. Given the popularity of Blogspot, I suspect the people who did this just simply entered in a website, got an IP address, and added an iptables rule or equivalent, without looking or realizing what they were blocking. Hell, that could even be scripted, and I could easily see an intern or low-level staff having just entered "leakymails.blogspot.com" into a script without knowing what happened behind the scenes. I know ISPs hate net neutrality, but it's really not in their best interests to completely cut off access to blogspot.com; even if they have a monopoly they're just going to get flooded with complaints, with real competitive advantage in return to justify the added cost.
Barring a simple but stupid mistake like this from someone routing traffic, IANAL but it should not be the ISP's responsibility to not only screw with people's internet access at the request of the government, but go the extra mile and cut off access to the entire service provider. If we allow that kind of action, then we'll see a whole array of other sites getting blocked at a national level. Then, in an effort to keep themselves accessible around the world, we'll see hosting providers around the world bend over backwards to censor themselves and their users just because somebody, somewhere in the world, might object to some kind of political content one of their users posted.
Just imagine how the lawyers will respond when some patent troll or monopolistic company tries to sue their favorite software out of existence.