It really only makes sense. If all porn was there, the people that want it can find it easily
Great firewall of Australia ring a bell? Their filtering list would be a heck of a lot easier to maintain if they just had to do "*.xxx" for the sex stuff. In fact, having a separate domain for anything makes it easier for any point in the chain to slap a filter in. Maybe your ISP decides it should protect minors. Something. All kinds of options for underhanded things to happen if you separate out parts of the 'net in such an obvious fashion.
When will people take a few minutes to get some reading comprehension and realize that's ASCAP's point. CC is, in ASCAP's point of view, corrupting copyright. You can't say something's being corrupted if it's not being used. ASCAP doesn't want people using copyright in such a fashion as to be giving stuff away. Copyright must be exercised to make a profit, contributing freely to society is to be abhorred and derided as unnatural.
This is why ASCAP is so dangerous. They want to make it so that any and every project must be either profit-oriented, or public domain, with no middle ground. And if you can't afford to monetize something, then you're stuck either keeping it under wraps, or losing complete control of it.
Once artists figure out they can make MORE money without these middlemen, then what happens?
The middlemen move to make themselves more necessary. But not through better services or value. That would take effort. Nope, it's all about strangling the market so that they're the only market portal. The way I see it, the organizations have decided that they've done a lot to work on the consumer side of the equation, now it's time to tighten up the artist side for a while.
I still believe that the taking of someone's life, no matter your stance on capital punishment, deserves a bit more than 140 characters in Twitter.
Why? I mean, I'm against capital punishment (not to argue the propriety of it, but so that you know which side I'm coming from when I say this), and I have to ask why? I mean, one, it was simply a due notification of a previously established sentence being carried out. It wasn't announcing that he was officially sentenced. It wasn't a eulogy for the man. It wasn't even announcing that he was dead. And lastly, it's not like this is the sole coverage the event will receive. Not every communique needs to be a grand pronouncement, even if it relates to a human life.
If it had been a tweet saying "RLG now dead. RIP." You might have a case. But it wasn't. Sorry, but it was a hyperbolic statement, and not at all warranted.
I would think that the point of HTML compliance would be so that the web page renders correctly for the viewing area used. I mean, I don't really need buttons for "forward" and "backward" to look the same, as long as I get the same functionality, so if someone uses a big honking button on the regular page, if I have a mobile device, it should be able to be dynamically replaced with something that indicates "this does X, this was placed here to improve functionality on this device." As long as a browser can correctly interpret where the headers, body, content, banners, etc. are, I don't know why that would be a bad thing. Well, besides "My artistic vision is RUINED!" cries from designers. (Sorry, I place functionality over pretty, so I'm kinda biased here)
Google is an advertising company and they should be treated as such when deciding how much to trust them.
Thank you. Ever since this whole thing started, I've been saying Google had no need for this data, and they wouldn't have been collecting it unless they intended to use it in their business somehow.
For some reason there seems to be this widespread opinion that it's "Saint Google" and they can do no wrong. People forget that it's a company, and it can make bad decisions, or decisions that are bad for the user base but good for Google. As an advertising company, they're not really worth trusting more or less than any other.
Responses like this have always struck me as moronic, and I hope that you were just joking. There's a difference between tolerant and fully permissive. Tolerance has limits.
Last I checked, that was about evolution and the place of animals in an ecosystem as a whole, not a governing concept for human behaviour within society. Attempts to apply it as such are usually disasters of anarchy, and lauded only by idiots.
Ooo, not quite. See, I actually live in Canada, and here's the law regarding hate speech:
Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319." Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group. Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda. Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Homosexuality was deemed an identifiable group, and thus were included under existing hate speech laws.
The lawyer isn't calling for murder. He's calling for the death penalty for a crime that Zuckerberg would only be guilty of in Pakistan. Basically, they want to get Mark Z. charged, extradited, and executed for something he did (well, something he let happen).
It'd be like you being charged with vandalism because you mailed a can of spray paint to Japan and the person you mailed it to used it to make a sign visible in China and it offended the Chinese. In this example, China would be asking for you to be sent to China for punishment.
I believe it's because while Judaism isn't particularly looking for converters, and Christianity is supposed to convert by example, Islam is more about forced conversion. Thus, even if they can't make you follow Islam in name, they will have you do it by deed.
Frankly, I'm rather nervous about the future as stories like this continue to crop up. Islam is one of the faster-growing religions, and so either they'll win just by force of numbers, or there's going to be a religious war that'll be worse than any World War, since pretty much every country will be divided internally, thus preventing a unified front, or they'll be fully Islamic. Unless something fairly revelatory happens, the best I'm hoping for is the moderates who can tolerate the existence of other religions and beliefs win out over those who would follow Islam strictly.
You speak like a person can't move around. I'm sure your post was meant to be some insightful, scathing commentary on war justification, or maybe a biting riposte on the GP's lack of world knowledge, or something like that, but really, your double use of ellipsis and lack of capitalization on "I" both just lead to the more likely proper assumption that you're a moron who doesn't realize a person can move around from country to country, and that it would be impossible for Pakistan to locate Bin Laden through allies, even if he wasn't in the country proper.
No, the value of Facebook is that all your friends use it. Your friends don't give a shit what random assholes are doing on Facebook. They just care that Farmville et al keep working. If your friends care enough about what other people using the same application are doing, I can guarantee that they wouldn't be using it in the first place.
No, Facebook doesn't need to care about people "doing mean things," since if you look around, there's some pretty nasty pages that persisted for a hell of a long time. A fan page literally dedicated to harassing cyclists while they're obeying traffic laws persisted for months, despite an organized group of people reporting it as offensive and illegal (the page even advocated doing physical harm to cyclists). What Facebook needs to care about is trying to be all things to all people. For some of their users, it's providing ways to stay in touch with people. For others, it's the games, or working on their privacy. For advertisers, it's getting them the most targeted ad base possible for maximum return. It's also their concern not to piss off an entire government and get the site banned from there, so that their ad-based revenue isn't limited. That's why you consistently see them bow to pressure from large organizations and groups, and flip policies monthly almost. It's so that they can try to keep people guessing and sticking around so that they can see if the situation improves. After all, no one wants to bail, just for next month's policy shift to be the one that makes the situation bearable. That's why when Diaspora became a real threat, Facebook started playing around with their privacy settings more.
No sir, Facebook doesn't need to worry about some people "being mean" so that "some" people leave. After all, when enough people start complaining, that's when they'll know it's time to do "policy changes."
Or, you pay $350 for a console that's good for 5+ years, and rent games from where ever, and buy any ones you really like when they hit bargain-bin status.
Seriously, someone tied to the company says "We're using a brand new technology, so shut up and take our word for it," and you claim that's an answer?
Oh, I'm sorry, the answer is "It's your equipment, so shut up and pay us." OnLive can go fuck themselves. I'm not paying a monthly fee, plus paying for games, and then I don't get to keep any of them if I stop paying them every month. That's why I don't use XBox Live Gold for online play, that's why I avoid DRM schemes like Ubisoft's, and it's why I don't play MMOs.
OnLive, however, has earned an extra heaping of "they can go fuck themselves" with this kind of shit. I hope the entire company goes down in flaming ruins.
I am *all* for cutting out college bookstores. Citing shipping and storage costs is pretty much bullshit for a bookstore. They don't pay any of that. The publishers do. And the publishers have deals where that cost, while not negligible, isn't really worth citing. In fact, shipping costs are built in to the cost of printing, if you're intelligent, since you can have the finished books sent straight to the distributor's warehouse as FOB (Freight on Board), which is free. It's only if you wanna get fancy with the shipping that the printer will charge you. Shipping 500 books, since they'd be sent with other books, would probably work out to be about $50 for those, assuming 50 cartons 10 books/carton.
And then they get to send back any unsold books after 90 days, again, free of charge to themselves. Bookstores are usually assholes.
Slashdot Mirror
Because then he can't cry about "Them damn nanny-state Democrats."
It really only makes sense. If all porn was there, the people that want it can find it easily
Great firewall of Australia ring a bell? Their filtering list would be a heck of a lot easier to maintain if they just had to do "*.xxx" for the sex stuff. In fact, having a separate domain for anything makes it easier for any point in the chain to slap a filter in. Maybe your ISP decides it should protect minors. Something. All kinds of options for underhanded things to happen if you separate out parts of the 'net in such an obvious fashion.
When will people take a few minutes to get some reading comprehension and realize that's ASCAP's point. CC is, in ASCAP's point of view, corrupting copyright. You can't say something's being corrupted if it's not being used. ASCAP doesn't want people using copyright in such a fashion as to be giving stuff away. Copyright must be exercised to make a profit, contributing freely to society is to be abhorred and derided as unnatural.
This is why ASCAP is so dangerous. They want to make it so that any and every project must be either profit-oriented, or public domain, with no middle ground. And if you can't afford to monetize something, then you're stuck either keeping it under wraps, or losing complete control of it.
Obviously this is a cover-up for a Metal Gear project. Those robots are just the Gear's protection.
It is about the only time Aquaman will ever be useful.
Once artists figure out they can make MORE money without these middlemen, then what happens?
The middlemen move to make themselves more necessary. But not through better services or value. That would take effort. Nope, it's all about strangling the market so that they're the only market portal. The way I see it, the organizations have decided that they've done a lot to work on the consumer side of the equation, now it's time to tighten up the artist side for a while.
Sounds about right.
Actually, you'd be coming up to the ad more slowly, so you wouldn't be able to see it as long. He never said anything about cars behind, after all.
No, the old Intellipoint mouse. That thing was gold-standard for optical mice.
I still believe that the taking of someone's life, no matter your stance on capital punishment, deserves a bit more than 140 characters in Twitter.
Why? I mean, I'm against capital punishment (not to argue the propriety of it, but so that you know which side I'm coming from when I say this), and I have to ask why? I mean, one, it was simply a due notification of a previously established sentence being carried out. It wasn't announcing that he was officially sentenced. It wasn't a eulogy for the man. It wasn't even announcing that he was dead. And lastly, it's not like this is the sole coverage the event will receive. Not every communique needs to be a grand pronouncement, even if it relates to a human life.
If it had been a tweet saying "RLG now dead. RIP." You might have a case. But it wasn't. Sorry, but it was a hyperbolic statement, and not at all warranted.
I would think that the point of HTML compliance would be so that the web page renders correctly for the viewing area used. I mean, I don't really need buttons for "forward" and "backward" to look the same, as long as I get the same functionality, so if someone uses a big honking button on the regular page, if I have a mobile device, it should be able to be dynamically replaced with something that indicates "this does X, this was placed here to improve functionality on this device." As long as a browser can correctly interpret where the headers, body, content, banners, etc. are, I don't know why that would be a bad thing. Well, besides "My artistic vision is RUINED!" cries from designers. (Sorry, I place functionality over pretty, so I'm kinda biased here)
Yeah, that WoW servers go down way too often for whatever reason.
Google is an advertising company and they should be treated as such when deciding how much to trust them.
Thank you. Ever since this whole thing started, I've been saying Google had no need for this data, and they wouldn't have been collecting it unless they intended to use it in their business somehow.
For some reason there seems to be this widespread opinion that it's "Saint Google" and they can do no wrong. People forget that it's a company, and it can make bad decisions, or decisions that are bad for the user base but good for Google. As an advertising company, they're not really worth trusting more or less than any other.
Science now knows that if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.
I think I'll be stealing this line and altering it slightly for future use.
Responses like this have always struck me as moronic, and I hope that you were just joking. There's a difference between tolerant and fully permissive. Tolerance has limits.
Last I checked, that was about evolution and the place of animals in an ecosystem as a whole, not a governing concept for human behaviour within society. Attempts to apply it as such are usually disasters of anarchy, and lauded only by idiots.
Ooo, not quite. See, I actually live in Canada, and here's the law regarding hate speech:
Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319." Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group. Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda. Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Homosexuality was deemed an identifiable group, and thus were included under existing hate speech laws.
The lawyer isn't calling for murder. He's calling for the death penalty for a crime that Zuckerberg would only be guilty of in Pakistan. Basically, they want to get Mark Z. charged, extradited, and executed for something he did (well, something he let happen).
It'd be like you being charged with vandalism because you mailed a can of spray paint to Japan and the person you mailed it to used it to make a sign visible in China and it offended the Chinese. In this example, China would be asking for you to be sent to China for punishment.
I believe it's because while Judaism isn't particularly looking for converters, and Christianity is supposed to convert by example, Islam is more about forced conversion. Thus, even if they can't make you follow Islam in name, they will have you do it by deed.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/013-forced-conversion.htm
Frankly, I'm rather nervous about the future as stories like this continue to crop up. Islam is one of the faster-growing religions, and so either they'll win just by force of numbers, or there's going to be a religious war that'll be worse than any World War, since pretty much every country will be divided internally, thus preventing a unified front, or they'll be fully Islamic. Unless something fairly revelatory happens, the best I'm hoping for is the moderates who can tolerate the existence of other religions and beliefs win out over those who would follow Islam strictly.
Yep, the corporate veil. Gotta love it. Free reign to break myriad laws and have no consequences beyond excessive profits.
You speak like a person can't move around. I'm sure your post was meant to be some insightful, scathing commentary on war justification, or maybe a biting riposte on the GP's lack of world knowledge, or something like that, but really, your double use of ellipsis and lack of capitalization on "I" both just lead to the more likely proper assumption that you're a moron who doesn't realize a person can move around from country to country, and that it would be impossible for Pakistan to locate Bin Laden through allies, even if he wasn't in the country proper.
No, the value of Facebook is that all your friends use it. Your friends don't give a shit what random assholes are doing on Facebook. They just care that Farmville et al keep working. If your friends care enough about what other people using the same application are doing, I can guarantee that they wouldn't be using it in the first place.
No, Facebook doesn't need to care about people "doing mean things," since if you look around, there's some pretty nasty pages that persisted for a hell of a long time. A fan page literally dedicated to harassing cyclists while they're obeying traffic laws persisted for months, despite an organized group of people reporting it as offensive and illegal (the page even advocated doing physical harm to cyclists). What Facebook needs to care about is trying to be all things to all people. For some of their users, it's providing ways to stay in touch with people. For others, it's the games, or working on their privacy. For advertisers, it's getting them the most targeted ad base possible for maximum return. It's also their concern not to piss off an entire government and get the site banned from there, so that their ad-based revenue isn't limited. That's why you consistently see them bow to pressure from large organizations and groups, and flip policies monthly almost. It's so that they can try to keep people guessing and sticking around so that they can see if the situation improves. After all, no one wants to bail, just for next month's policy shift to be the one that makes the situation bearable. That's why when Diaspora became a real threat, Facebook started playing around with their privacy settings more.
No sir, Facebook doesn't need to worry about some people "being mean" so that "some" people leave. After all, when enough people start complaining, that's when they'll know it's time to do "policy changes."
Or, you pay $350 for a console that's good for 5+ years, and rent games from where ever, and buy any ones you really like when they hit bargain-bin status.
Yeah, answered with TACHYONS!!!!
Seriously, someone tied to the company says "We're using a brand new technology, so shut up and take our word for it," and you claim that's an answer?
Oh, I'm sorry, the answer is "It's your equipment, so shut up and pay us." OnLive can go fuck themselves. I'm not paying a monthly fee, plus paying for games, and then I don't get to keep any of them if I stop paying them every month. That's why I don't use XBox Live Gold for online play, that's why I avoid DRM schemes like Ubisoft's, and it's why I don't play MMOs.
OnLive, however, has earned an extra heaping of "they can go fuck themselves" with this kind of shit. I hope the entire company goes down in flaming ruins.
I am *all* for cutting out college bookstores. Citing shipping and storage costs is pretty much bullshit for a bookstore. They don't pay any of that. The publishers do. And the publishers have deals where that cost, while not negligible, isn't really worth citing. In fact, shipping costs are built in to the cost of printing, if you're intelligent, since you can have the finished books sent straight to the distributor's warehouse as FOB (Freight on Board), which is free. It's only if you wanna get fancy with the shipping that the printer will charge you. Shipping 500 books, since they'd be sent with other books, would probably work out to be about $50 for those, assuming 50 cartons 10 books/carton.
And then they get to send back any unsold books after 90 days, again, free of charge to themselves. Bookstores are usually assholes.