I guess I misunderstood. When the OP said " Google should not be the entity deciding and enforcing what is correct speech!" I took that to mean they thought it was an illegal action. I was pointing out that not only is it legal, it is a legal action that we have aggressively protected over the centuries because it is their right to publish what they want to publish -- anything else would be enforcing speech on them. Indeed, I suggest they should be the ones deciding what is correct speech on their platform.
Hosting advertising is *Google's* speech. It's a protected part of the First Amendment for a publisher to decide what to publish and, by analogy, for a website to decide what content to host. If the bail bondsmen want their own speech, they need to own their own presses/tv stations/web portals. Otherwise, they're dependent upon another entity deciding to speak for them, and Google has decided not to speak for them.
This is a problem created by having a centralized Internet and a centralized ad platform, but it isn't illegal for Google. Indeed, it is a protected freedom of Google. Same as it was for Hearst and Pulitzer or for NBC/ABC/CBS.
The GDPR gave a year's notice before coming into effect. No, it isn't staggered implementation, but it still gave time for the companies to adjust. This isn't just appearing out of the blue.
No, we are not assuming correlation equals causation. We're reading research study after research study that demonstrates causation and therefore we're trying to fix a broken system. There was only correlation a decade ago when the disparity in tech first seriously got discussion (the disparity was known long before that), and many people raised the question, "Is it correlation or causation?" After a decade of asking that question, it turns out to be causation. There is plenty of research out there. "One would need to first prove that the under-representation is caused by discrimination, before corrective action is justified." Yes. And that proof is nowadays out there in abundance.
When you have one vendor that everyone turns to for the canonical "good security solution", it works fine until a hole is found because then everyone is at risk. The more diversity there is in security, the more likely there is to be a bug in any given implementation (bad), but at least when a hole is found, the entire system isn't at risk. Shuffle your attack surfaces. Have different key systems at different hotels. Or, better, on different floors, so that if a breach is found in one system, you can close that floor while you replace/repair the locks. Would that be more expensive? Yes. Security isn't cheap, but the bigger you make the target, the more tempting the target.
Blockchain is proposed just for the tracking of the assets, not to create a cryptocurrency. I don't know if the idea has merit or not, but I wanted to clarify the proposal is not for token generation.
In the USA, yes. Check around for a "compounding pharmacy" or "apothecary". Yes, we actually still have those. I thought it was a bit medieval when I went to one, but it was very helpful reformulating some medication into a more usable form when I was having trouble swallowing.
A jumble of wires and a block of clay would at least be a reasonable device. Reacting like this to "Remote Detonator" is dumb because it is not real evidence of anything. The only way this is reasonable is if you react this way to *any* unrecognized wifi network on your property (which implies you run a really high security site).
If an item costs X to make, is it immoral to charge X+N to make a profit but then charge X-M to someone you know cannot afford full price? Is a charitable discount immoral to you?
I actually agree with this, but my point was primarily about the bias against anonymous comments, not meant to debate how best to change the wider moderation system.:-)
Not a crime to be Islamic, on a plane, or even to be suspicious. Again -- FBI investigates crimes that have occurred. They aren't responsible for pre-emptive arrests. Until there is evidence of a crime, that's just something to put into the file for after-the-fact analysis. If the caller had said that he saw weapons, or if he said he spoke Arabic and heard the men discussing their plans, that would be very different.
Biasing toward named accounts creates a bias toward people whose authenticity can be corroborated over time. Real identities aren't generally known, but a history of posts goes a long way toward showing a post isn't an AC troll or even an account created for just that one post. The slashdot meta-moderation system also helps review posts, and does (in my opinion) a pretty good job of keeping the system geared toward actual information, despite the attempts to subvert it over the years.
A single anecdote does not constitute proof. You'd need a far greater body of evidence to back your assertion. Also, it isn't the FBI's job to investigate people BEFORE a crime is committed. I'd prefer that the FBI not move any further in that direction than it already has.
In the middle of the article, there's this marvelous link: [ Are you in danger of online addiction? Take the Big 5 test ]
So, in the middle of a story about how a company used quizzes to harvest data, we have a link to the quiz that would most help them. *sigh*
(I removed the hyperlink itself... you can go read the article if you want to click on it.)
You may appreciate this short story based on answering that question. It just won Scientific American Magazine's writing competition for stories based on quantum mechanics. http://shorts2017.quantumlah.o...
Not âoeI do not want to killâ but rather âoeit is wrong to kill.â It isnâ(TM)t an undesire to get my hands dirty... the question is whether the harm done by my death (or yours) is greater than the harm of escalating violence by me (or you) killing. A criminal commits a crime. Does a cop make it better by killing? How many innocent bystanders is that justice worth? If a vigilante kills the cop, is justice served then? How much mob anger is it worth?
In the military realm, how much of ISIS/Al Queda/Taliban is result of our violence towards the Mid East? Where does the tit-for-tat stop? And how many drone strikes on wedding parties are acceptable?
I have been in places where my life was at risk. I have felt the temptation of wanting a gun. I didnâ(TM)t have one. I was able to talk my way through it. As tech advances, the options for non-lethal force increase. I think it is a viable path. I wish more people would consider it an option.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I misunderstood. When the OP said " Google should not be the entity deciding and enforcing what is correct speech!" I took that to mean they thought it was an illegal action. I was pointing out that not only is it legal, it is a legal action that we have aggressively protected over the centuries because it is their right to publish what they want to publish -- anything else would be enforcing speech on them. Indeed, I suggest they should be the ones deciding what is correct speech on their platform.
Hosting advertising is *Google's* speech. It's a protected part of the First Amendment for a publisher to decide what to publish and, by analogy, for a website to decide what content to host. If the bail bondsmen want their own speech, they need to own their own presses/tv stations/web portals. Otherwise, they're dependent upon another entity deciding to speak for them, and Google has decided not to speak for them.
This is a problem created by having a centralized Internet and a centralized ad platform, but it isn't illegal for Google. Indeed, it is a protected freedom of Google. Same as it was for Hearst and Pulitzer or for NBC/ABC/CBS.
The GDPR gave a year's notice before coming into effect. No, it isn't staggered implementation, but it still gave time for the companies to adjust. This isn't just appearing out of the blue.
No, we are not assuming correlation equals causation. We're reading research study after research study that demonstrates causation and therefore we're trying to fix a broken system. There was only correlation a decade ago when the disparity in tech first seriously got discussion (the disparity was known long before that), and many people raised the question, "Is it correlation or causation?" After a decade of asking that question, it turns out to be causation. There is plenty of research out there. "One would need to first prove that the under-representation is caused by discrimination, before corrective action is justified." Yes. And that proof is nowadays out there in abundance.
When you have one vendor that everyone turns to for the canonical "good security solution", it works fine until a hole is found because then everyone is at risk. The more diversity there is in security, the more likely there is to be a bug in any given implementation (bad), but at least when a hole is found, the entire system isn't at risk. Shuffle your attack surfaces. Have different key systems at different hotels. Or, better, on different floors, so that if a breach is found in one system, you can close that floor while you replace/repair the locks. Would that be more expensive? Yes. Security isn't cheap, but the bigger you make the target, the more tempting the target.
A tax rebate? This is a government program, so they could just pay people to run the chain.
Blockchain is proposed just for the tracking of the assets, not to create a cryptocurrency. I don't know if the idea has merit or not, but I wanted to clarify the proposal is not for token generation.
In the USA, yes. Check around for a "compounding pharmacy" or "apothecary". Yes, we actually still have those. I thought it was a bit medieval when I went to one, but it was very helpful reformulating some medication into a more usable form when I was having trouble swallowing.
A jumble of wires and a block of clay would at least be a reasonable device. Reacting like this to "Remote Detonator" is dumb because it is not real evidence of anything. The only way this is reasonable is if you react this way to *any* unrecognized wifi network on your property (which implies you run a really high security site).
No. They definitely killed 3000 people. I'm just saying it wasn't the FBI's role to arrest them beforehand on someone's casual tip.
How old is granny that she got to be centuries old without observation?!
It breaks down the plastic... into ethylene glycol. Are we sure this is an improvement?
If an item costs X to make, is it immoral to charge X+N to make a profit but then charge X-M to someone you know cannot afford full price? Is a charitable discount immoral to you?
I actually agree with this, but my point was primarily about the bias against anonymous comments, not meant to debate how best to change the wider moderation system. :-)
Not a crime to be Islamic, on a plane, or even to be suspicious. Again -- FBI investigates crimes that have occurred. They aren't responsible for pre-emptive arrests. Until there is evidence of a crime, that's just something to put into the file for after-the-fact analysis. If the caller had said that he saw weapons, or if he said he spoke Arabic and heard the men discussing their plans, that would be very different.
Biasing toward named accounts creates a bias toward people whose authenticity can be corroborated over time. Real identities aren't generally known, but a history of posts goes a long way toward showing a post isn't an AC troll or even an account created for just that one post. The slashdot meta-moderation system also helps review posts, and does (in my opinion) a pretty good job of keeping the system geared toward actual information, despite the attempts to subvert it over the years.
A single anecdote does not constitute proof. You'd need a far greater body of evidence to back your assertion. Also, it isn't the FBI's job to investigate people BEFORE a crime is committed. I'd prefer that the FBI not move any further in that direction than it already has.
In the middle of the article, there's this marvelous link:
[ Are you in danger of online addiction? Take the Big 5 test ]
So, in the middle of a story about how a company used quizzes to harvest data, we have a link to the quiz that would most help them. *sigh*
(I removed the hyperlink itself... you can go read the article if you want to click on it.)
I'm not asking about that. I'm asking how an electric discharge changes gravity.
I missed something when reading that ... how would an electrical discharge alter the Earth's gravity?
Mod parent up!
Trust me... you'll want to be gone before that next Friday comes around.
> if proton decay exists.
You may appreciate this short story based on answering that question. It just won Scientific American Magazine's writing competition for stories based on quantum mechanics.
http://shorts2017.quantumlah.o...
Not âoeI do not want to killâ but rather âoeit is wrong to kill.â It isnâ(TM)t an undesire to get my hands dirty... the question is whether the harm done by my death (or yours) is greater than the harm of escalating violence by me (or you) killing. A criminal commits a crime. Does a cop make it better by killing? How many innocent bystanders is that justice worth? If a vigilante kills the cop, is justice served then? How much mob anger is it worth?
In the military realm, how much of ISIS/Al Queda/Taliban is result of our violence towards the Mid East? Where does the tit-for-tat stop? And how many drone strikes on wedding parties are acceptable?
I have been in places where my life was at risk. I have felt the temptation of wanting a gun. I didnâ(TM)t have one. I was able to talk my way through it. As tech advances, the options for non-lethal force increase. I think it is a viable path. I wish more people would consider it an option.
Surely there are old people's lawns to stand on. Playing "dodge the lawn rake" is a great game!