That's a serious misrepresentation of what I said. What I said was that if you are poor, you are more likely to get caught committing crimes. Race has nothing to do with it. Which is why if you're trying to support the idea that black people are inherently more prone to crime, your supporting evidence needs to take the economic skew out of the data -- because that's a different cause than the one you're trying to prove.
So what you are basically saying is that it should be no problem for Domain Registrars and Hosting providers to terminate any internet access or service in the middle of the month without warning because the intermediary disagrees with something in the message.
First, registrars don't provide internet service, so they can't terminate internet service.
Second, no it would not be alright for a service provider to violate the contract in such a way.
It seems to me like you rent an apartment, and the landlord disagrees with something you wrote on Facebook, so they give you 1 hour notice and kick you out on the street:
But that's not what happened. What happened is that they lost their domain registration. So, it's more like you agreed to certain terms in order to be listed in the directly, violated those terms, and your listing was removed. Your apartment is still there, it's just harder for people to look you up.
For example, many corporate firewalls force you to use their DNS and block directip completely.
It doesn't bother me any more if people can't reach the site from work than it would bother me if they couldn't go to a porn site from work. It's the employer's equipment and service, the employer gets to decide what sort of use it's to be put to.
Did Godaddy and Google cancel the domain name registrations, or the hosting services? It matters. The articles aren't technical and they keep mixing the terms.
I've been trying to figure this out too. There's been a lot of incorrect and contradictory reporting.
Here's what I think happened (and I would love any corrections to this!): Godaddy was not, contrary to some reports, actually hosting the site. They simply decided they didn't want to be the registrar for the domain name. The admins asked Google to be the registrar, and Google said no.
That's pretty much it. As near as I can tell, the site never lost whatever host its using, it's purely a domain name registration thing. And, they were only rejected by two registrars. There's only several thousand more that can do the job.
Yeah, this is what I keep saying, but nobody cares. The neo-nazi website moving to Tor is nothing but a publicity stunt. There was literally nothing stopping them from keeping their site on the open web.
Why can't we handle these things like we always have.
That's the wrong question. We are handling things like we always have. Look at how these issues have been handled over the past 200 years or so, and I think the question you'll want to ask is "why can't we handle these things any better than we used to?"
Were you aware that you were making excellent arguments supporting the refusal by a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples?
Of course I'm aware of that. It's pretty irrelevant to the case at hand, though. Also, you (and others who keep bringing this up) seem to be ignoring some rather important distinctions between the two things.
Because people who are poor (of any race) are more likely to get caught committing crimes, and black people are more likely to be poor. So if you want to support the hypothesis that black people are inherently more crime-prone, then you need to take away the skew that economic effects introduce.
Way to miss the point. Are we committed to the US constitution with it's bill of rights or not here?
I am. But what about the right of free association?
I can see being upset at the crowdfunding sites. I can see boycotting them as a result. But their actions are well within their Constitutional rights, and they are not infringing on anyone else's rights.
They are not, as many commenters here are claiming, stopping people from offering financial support. They are just refusing to allow their platforms to be the mechanism. There are myriad other mechanisms still available to everyone.
That's only because that population is 10% of our population, but they are responsible for 40% of all crime.
You'll need to provide supporting evidence, as all of the stats that I've seen indicate that this is not true.
Just to preempt some of the bad "evidence" that is out there -- the evidence must cover actual crime, not arrests. It also must compensate for economic conditions.
My first thought: Will it be faster? Will it be lighter? No? Then it's not better.
The opposite of that is not automatically true, however. If it is (and all accounts say it is) faster and lighter, that may not make it better overall. It depends on how much worse the other aspects are.
What I was trying to say was that the important point isn't the per-day cost, but the cost as compared to the alternative products.
However, it is a common tactic to price expensive things on a per-day basis rather than their total cost, and that always raises a red flag to me. The reason is simple: it's manipulative when it's not applied to things that you're actually paying for on a per-day basis. Sure, it might cost $2/day over 5 years, but you still have to pony up $3650 all at once to get it.
But I'm not really arguing with you (and my prior comments aren't, either). If you get that much enjoyment out of the computer, more power to you. It'd be silly to say you're wrong.
Where conflicts tend to exist is when people manipulate wording and message instead of reading the actual words.
It seems fairly pointless, since you've signaled here what your refutation will be for anything I have to say that you disagree with: you're going to say that I'm not interpreting the Constitution properly.
But I'll toss a couple of easy ones out anyway. By the way, what I said is far from controversial -- it's accepted truth supported by logic (and the authors of the Constitution themselves have pointed out this same problem).
Equal protection vs free exercise of religion: if it's a matter of religious belief to discriminate against others (for example, refuse to hire homosexuals), these two rights are in competition.
Right to a fair trial vs free speech: When there is widespread discussion and speculation about an accused criminal, this often affects the ability to have a fair trial due to the pollution of the juror pool.
Freedom of speech vs freedom of religion: reading bible verses in schools, anyone?
I guess the next question is: is this different from other large tech companies?
This is highly variable. There are lots of big companies that don't have this problem at all. The last two I worked for had (my estimation from looking at my coworkers, not real data) median ages in the mid forties overall, and among senior developers, closer to the lower fifties.
Which seems about right to me, actually. Experience means a lot.
If you're deriving happiness from using a very expensive computer, I'll be the last person to say you're wrong.
But breaking things down into cost/day is a bit of a deception (that's why so many companies do exactly this in their advertising).
The important point isn't absolute cost, it's "value" per dollar. "Value" is a subjective thing, so what you consider valuable may not be the same as what I consider valuable. For instance, I'm unaware of any $2000 laptop that I think is actually worth $2000.
A few years back, there started to be more and more sites that require a specific browser to function correctly (Chrome, usually). I've taken to ignoring them. I also ignore sites that require Javascript in order to function.
Fortunately, the majority of these sorts of sites are of minimal value (to me) to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
That would only be true if there was no violation of GoDaddy's terms of service.
That's a serious misrepresentation of what I said. What I said was that if you are poor, you are more likely to get caught committing crimes. Race has nothing to do with it. Which is why if you're trying to support the idea that black people are inherently more prone to crime, your supporting evidence needs to take the economic skew out of the data -- because that's a different cause than the one you're trying to prove.
At what point does free speech, which is protected, become hate speech, which isn't?
In terms of US law, "hate speech" is not a thing that exists.
So what you are basically saying is that it should be no problem for Domain Registrars and Hosting providers to terminate any internet access or service in the middle of the month without warning because the intermediary disagrees with something in the message.
First, registrars don't provide internet service, so they can't terminate internet service.
Second, no it would not be alright for a service provider to violate the contract in such a way.
It seems to me like you rent an apartment, and the landlord disagrees with something you wrote on Facebook, so they give you 1 hour notice and kick you out on the street:
But that's not what happened. What happened is that they lost their domain registration. So, it's more like you agreed to certain terms in order to be listed in the directly, violated those terms, and your listing was removed. Your apartment is still there, it's just harder for people to look you up.
For example, many corporate firewalls force you to use their DNS and block directip completely.
It doesn't bother me any more if people can't reach the site from work than it would bother me if they couldn't go to a porn site from work. It's the employer's equipment and service, the employer gets to decide what sort of use it's to be put to.
And it's not even an internet prison. It's just in the countryside.
Did Godaddy and Google cancel the domain name registrations, or the hosting services? It matters. The articles aren't technical and they keep mixing the terms.
I've been trying to figure this out too. There's been a lot of incorrect and contradictory reporting.
Here's what I think happened (and I would love any corrections to this!): Godaddy was not, contrary to some reports, actually hosting the site. They simply decided they didn't want to be the registrar for the domain name. The admins asked Google to be the registrar, and Google said no.
That's pretty much it. As near as I can tell, the site never lost whatever host its using, it's purely a domain name registration thing. And, they were only rejected by two registrars. There's only several thousand more that can do the job.
My opinion, people don't care *that* much about their mobile platform to care so much about desktop usage or integration.
Or, the people who do care (like myself) have already accomplished the amount of integration that they find useful though other means.
You learn something new every day.
Yeah, this is what I keep saying, but nobody cares. The neo-nazi website moving to Tor is nothing but a publicity stunt. There was literally nothing stopping them from keeping their site on the open web.
Why can't we handle these things like we always have.
That's the wrong question. We are handling things like we always have. Look at how these issues have been handled over the past 200 years or so, and I think the question you'll want to ask is "why can't we handle these things any better than we used to?"
Were you aware that you were making excellent arguments supporting the refusal by a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples?
Of course I'm aware of that. It's pretty irrelevant to the case at hand, though. Also, you (and others who keep bringing this up) seem to be ignoring some rather important distinctions between the two things.
Because people who are poor (of any race) are more likely to get caught committing crimes, and black people are more likely to be poor. So if you want to support the hypothesis that black people are inherently more crime-prone, then you need to take away the skew that economic effects introduce.
Way to miss the point. Are we committed to the US constitution with it's bill of rights or not here?
I am. But what about the right of free association?
I can see being upset at the crowdfunding sites. I can see boycotting them as a result. But their actions are well within their Constitutional rights, and they are not infringing on anyone else's rights.
They are not, as many commenters here are claiming, stopping people from offering financial support. They are just refusing to allow their platforms to be the mechanism. There are myriad other mechanisms still available to everyone.
That's only because that population is 10% of our population, but they are responsible for 40% of all crime.
You'll need to provide supporting evidence, as all of the stats that I've seen indicate that this is not true.
Just to preempt some of the bad "evidence" that is out there -- the evidence must cover actual crime, not arrests. It also must compensate for economic conditions.
My first thought: Will it be faster? Will it be lighter? No? Then it's not better.
The opposite of that is not automatically true, however. If it is (and all accounts say it is) faster and lighter, that may not make it better overall. It depends on how much worse the other aspects are.
What I was trying to say was that the important point isn't the per-day cost, but the cost as compared to the alternative products.
However, it is a common tactic to price expensive things on a per-day basis rather than their total cost, and that always raises a red flag to me. The reason is simple: it's manipulative when it's not applied to things that you're actually paying for on a per-day basis. Sure, it might cost $2/day over 5 years, but you still have to pony up $3650 all at once to get it.
But I'm not really arguing with you (and my prior comments aren't, either). If you get that much enjoyment out of the computer, more power to you. It'd be silly to say you're wrong.
Where conflicts tend to exist is when people manipulate wording and message instead of reading the actual words.
It seems fairly pointless, since you've signaled here what your refutation will be for anything I have to say that you disagree with: you're going to say that I'm not interpreting the Constitution properly.
But I'll toss a couple of easy ones out anyway. By the way, what I said is far from controversial -- it's accepted truth supported by logic (and the authors of the Constitution themselves have pointed out this same problem).
Equal protection vs free exercise of religion: if it's a matter of religious belief to discriminate against others (for example, refuse to hire homosexuals), these two rights are in competition.
Right to a fair trial vs free speech: When there is widespread discussion and speculation about an accused criminal, this often affects the ability to have a fair trial due to the pollution of the juror pool.
Freedom of speech vs freedom of religion: reading bible verses in schools, anyone?
And so on.
That would matter if GoDaddy's decision was based on race. However, it looks pretty clear that it was not. It was based on violating the ToS.
I guess the next question is: is this different from other large tech companies?
This is highly variable. There are lots of big companies that don't have this problem at all. The last two I worked for had (my estimation from looking at my coworkers, not real data) median ages in the mid forties overall, and among senior developers, closer to the lower fifties.
Which seems about right to me, actually. Experience means a lot.
And yet, there are still people who say we aren't in the middle of another IT bubble.
If you're deriving happiness from using a very expensive computer, I'll be the last person to say you're wrong.
But breaking things down into cost/day is a bit of a deception (that's why so many companies do exactly this in their advertising).
The important point isn't absolute cost, it's "value" per dollar. "Value" is a subjective thing, so what you consider valuable may not be the same as what I consider valuable. For instance, I'm unaware of any $2000 laptop that I think is actually worth $2000.
"First they hate it, then they love it":
he was willing to do something to users that they hated, and they
put him in charge?
This sentiment is something I frequently hear from UX people, and read in UX blogs and publications.
The UX community seens to have collectively decided that users are the enemy, and it shows in their results.
I understand why they're changing it, and I don't have a problem with that.
My problem is the loss of functionality. I don't see how changing the API necessarily means that the browser has to become less capable.
Yep. The old becomes new again.
A few years back, there started to be more and more sites that require a specific browser to function correctly (Chrome, usually). I've taken to ignoring them. I also ignore sites that require Javascript in order to function.
Fortunately, the majority of these sorts of sites are of minimal value (to me) to begin with.