I'm sorry, I don't give a shit about your censored bullshit.
People cut the cord when the networks went overboard with it and went to YouTube for free information.
What makes you think that this won't happen again with another video provider? I heard Youku is pretty lenient as long as you don't deal with Chinese politics...
So the content is not offensive enough to actually slander someone or incite violence, which would justify taking it down, but just in the "we don't like your opinion" ballpark?
With the funding cut being the one that makes the least sense when the goal is, as stated, fighting hate speech and extremist videos. Does anyone really believe that fundamentalist, religious hate groups give half a shit about "monetizing" their videos?
If you want to see your Karma do a roller coaster ride, say anything about systemd. Whether good or bad doesn't matter, it will be the only comment with 10 underrated and 10 overrated without any other moderation.
Yes, it's bullshit. But even bullshit must be allowed to be said. Even the worst kind of it. But, and this is critical, I must also be allowed to say that it is bullshit and present my rebuttal.
Let the people talk. Only bad ideas need censorship to survive.
Do their bathrooms actually have toilets? I never heard one say "Hey, Jenny, gonna take a dump!", all the do is go and powder their nose. And usually they need the aid of a friend to do it (one more reason why I can't picture them taking a shit, I mean, would you invite a buddy to go with you when you're about to put Mr. Hanky into the White House?). So I'd picture the ladies room as one with a lot of sinks and even more mirrors, but devoid of those icky parts where we men shit and piss.
By definition we should see governments creating better services than any private corporation ever would. Simply due to logic. Corporations provide services as a means to an end, the service is the necessary evil for their actual goal, profit, while governments' primary concern is to actually provide a service, with the fees for it being often just an afterthought and way to direct demand rather than an actual attempt to generate revenue.
So why is it we don't observe this in reality, too?
Well, most of the time we actually do. The problem is that governments have fundamentally different goals than even its individual subjects. When a government provides a service, it has to take far more aspects into account than any corporation. If a government provides, e.g., WiFi internet, it would have to ensure that everyone gets equal service. From the packed downtown areas with 10,000 people per block to the rural areas where you have two farms and a pig sty in the same area. And less even because they want "equality" or "fairness", but because the government doesn't want people to move away from their farms and into downtown because they can't get any sensible service out in the rural areas. Then they'd have more unemployed people inside their town and fewer people out in the countryside working the land.
Corporations don't give a shit about that, they just simply don't service areas that aren't profitable. And of course they don't care about people moving away from there. Quite the opposite, more people in the downtown area means more potential customers.
Customers don't see these context. What they see is that the big corporation can offer WiFi cheaper (because they don't have to service unprofitable rural areas). What they don't see is that they pay for this with more people competing for flats and apartments and rents going up.
Same way Austria solved it. To get your campaign money back, you need (IIRC) 0.5% of the general vote. That ensures that pretty much everyone who really means it has a chance to recover his expenses while at the same time excluding people who just want some "free" advertising time.
They also have a cap on how much you may spend on your campaign based on the amount of voters that you can reach (i.e. for general elections you can spend more than on elections for mayor or governor, simply because there's fewer subjects), first of course to limit what the country has to spend on your campaign, but also to give smaller parties that cannot pump out billions on a campaign a chance to compete.
Most areas in Europe where the cables were put into ground by government monopolies. Usually the deal when the market was liberalized was that the infrastructure (that was paid for by tax money before the opening of the market) went into a holding company and every service provider who wanted to use it has to pay them on equal footing. Or put down their own if they so please.
Yes, I would probably be way further along today if I had had the internet instead of just a stack of books and whatever the library had to offer.
I would probably also have a way more "interesting" youth. And very likely not the job I have today, since having a police record kinda disqualifies you for it.;)
If you want 5 years experience in a field that exists for 6 months, I know that I do not want to work for you, since you don't even know what you want. How should you know what you can reasonably expect?
This is security, baby, not Webdesign. I can actually choose who I want to work for, I needn't take a job with a company that I KNOW is shit.
What exactly would have changed if said mom had had a problem with it? I mean, aside of the daughter learning how to hide it better and not tell her mom when something bad happens because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, I don't give a shit about your censored bullshit.
People cut the cord when the networks went overboard with it and went to YouTube for free information.
What makes you think that this won't happen again with another video provider? I heard Youku is pretty lenient as long as you don't deal with Chinese politics...
It's better to apologize than to ask for permission.
Good. Do you need directions or do you prefer to choose your targets yourself?
Too bad. I'd buy the crap from someone who supports the YouTubers I like to watch.
So the content is not offensive enough to actually slander someone or incite violence, which would justify taking it down, but just in the "we don't like your opinion" ballpark?
With the funding cut being the one that makes the least sense when the goal is, as stated, fighting hate speech and extremist videos. Does anyone really believe that fundamentalist, religious hate groups give half a shit about "monetizing" their videos?
So what purpose is that supposed to really serve?
If you want to see your Karma do a roller coaster ride, say anything about systemd. Whether good or bad doesn't matter, it will be the only comment with 10 underrated and 10 overrated without any other moderation.
That's not /., that's groupthink. And that works everywhere.
Go to a flat earth board. Debunk every single of their claims. Then wait to be railroaded out of town.
Being right is one thing. But at the end, what matters is who is left to continue speaking.
No! For exactly that reason.
Yes, it's bullshit. But even bullshit must be allowed to be said. Even the worst kind of it. But, and this is critical, I must also be allowed to say that it is bullshit and present my rebuttal.
Let the people talk. Only bad ideas need censorship to survive.
What? No. That can't be.
Do their bathrooms actually have toilets? I never heard one say "Hey, Jenny, gonna take a dump!", all the do is go and powder their nose. And usually they need the aid of a friend to do it (one more reason why I can't picture them taking a shit, I mean, would you invite a buddy to go with you when you're about to put Mr. Hanky into the White House?). So I'd picture the ladies room as one with a lot of sinks and even more mirrors, but devoid of those icky parts where we men shit and piss.
Not gonna fly.
Mostly 'cause the very people who want to take "offensive" videos down are exactly the people who disable comments on their own.
Who decides what is "correctly" identified?
That's Aloha Snackbar, please. At least learn to properly greet food providers.
You needn't side with that piece of human waste to oppose the other end of the insanity.
Is there any way to get out of that false dichotomy? Just because you don't really enjoy hanging doesn't mean that you prefer shooting.
By definition we should see governments creating better services than any private corporation ever would. Simply due to logic. Corporations provide services as a means to an end, the service is the necessary evil for their actual goal, profit, while governments' primary concern is to actually provide a service, with the fees for it being often just an afterthought and way to direct demand rather than an actual attempt to generate revenue.
So why is it we don't observe this in reality, too?
Well, most of the time we actually do. The problem is that governments have fundamentally different goals than even its individual subjects. When a government provides a service, it has to take far more aspects into account than any corporation. If a government provides, e.g., WiFi internet, it would have to ensure that everyone gets equal service. From the packed downtown areas with 10,000 people per block to the rural areas where you have two farms and a pig sty in the same area. And less even because they want "equality" or "fairness", but because the government doesn't want people to move away from their farms and into downtown because they can't get any sensible service out in the rural areas. Then they'd have more unemployed people inside their town and fewer people out in the countryside working the land.
Corporations don't give a shit about that, they just simply don't service areas that aren't profitable. And of course they don't care about people moving away from there. Quite the opposite, more people in the downtown area means more potential customers.
Customers don't see these context. What they see is that the big corporation can offer WiFi cheaper (because they don't have to service unprofitable rural areas). What they don't see is that they pay for this with more people competing for flats and apartments and rents going up.
Same way Austria solved it. To get your campaign money back, you need (IIRC) 0.5% of the general vote. That ensures that pretty much everyone who really means it has a chance to recover his expenses while at the same time excluding people who just want some "free" advertising time.
They also have a cap on how much you may spend on your campaign based on the amount of voters that you can reach (i.e. for general elections you can spend more than on elections for mayor or governor, simply because there's fewer subjects), first of course to limit what the country has to spend on your campaign, but also to give smaller parties that cannot pump out billions on a campaign a chance to compete.
Most areas in Europe where the cables were put into ground by government monopolies. Usually the deal when the market was liberalized was that the infrastructure (that was paid for by tax money before the opening of the market) went into a holding company and every service provider who wanted to use it has to pay them on equal footing. Or put down their own if they so please.
Yes, but when you're putting down new cables, why not use whatever is state of the art?
Could we add that opposing A doesn't equate endorsing B?
Yes, I would probably be way further along today if I had had the internet instead of just a stack of books and whatever the library had to offer.
I would probably also have a way more "interesting" youth. And very likely not the job I have today, since having a police record kinda disqualifies you for it. ;)
Get out while you can. The closer you're to the CISO chair, the sooner.
Such companies will sink. Get off the fire ship while you can.
If you want 5 years experience in a field that exists for 6 months, I know that I do not want to work for you, since you don't even know what you want. How should you know what you can reasonably expect?
This is security, baby, not Webdesign. I can actually choose who I want to work for, I needn't take a job with a company that I KNOW is shit.
PS/2 or even serial?
No cellphone up his ass. If you put it on vibrate, he just might enjoy it.
What exactly would have changed if said mom had had a problem with it? I mean, aside of the daughter learning how to hide it better and not tell her mom when something bad happens because of it.