Twenty times that article says floating, but what is this?
"Each platform will be anchored to the ocean floor using biorock, a material that is harder than concrete and can be grown using minerals found in the ocean, which could make the anchor more secure over time. "
It's not even floating. It's just land-building. Bloody expensive, but hardly revolutionary.
And the talk of powering it all off renewable energy, not having any expensive housing and making everyone eat vegetarian? That sounds pretty ideological to me. History is littered with colonies started on ideology, and they seldom ended well. A community founded on ideological purity will always run into trouble as soon as members start to drift from it.
It can be politically awkward to admit it, but there's a very plausible explanation for this: Maybe political views just correlate with things which violate the usage policy? Check out a few conservative sites and you don't need to go far to find 'gays are plotting to rape your children' conspiracy theories, people calling for illegal immigrants to be treated as hostile invaders and shot at the border, and rumors of an Islamic takeover. Hardly surprising that they would sometimes get caught crossing the AUP line.
And that's before you read the comments sections. Never read the comments sections. It's not healthy.
That would require youtube to make some sort of value judgement. They really do not want to do that, because it exposes them to all sorts of legal issues, plus a lot of public outrage that will lead in turn to political backlash.
Christianity promotes or condemns whatever people want. There's enough flexibility that people are just drawn towards the verses they want to focus on, and ignore the awkward ones.
It's not just for those who don't buy in. AA gets court-ordered referrals - usually drunk drivers or similar offenders who are given the option of going to AA meetings to get a reduced sentence, or none at all. Right up until 1996, when one of those given such a court order challenged it in court*, on the grounds that the government telling someone they would be imprisoned if they didn't attend a government-mandated church is a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. Following this and some similar rulings AA and similar programs underwent a hasty secularisation for legal purposes - all references to God were replaced with vague ideas of 'a higher power' and suchlike. This is why AA went from being expressly and overtly Christian and became just sort of vaguely spiritual.
* It actually took some time for the challenge, and the inevitable appeal, and the appeal of the appeal to the supreme court... you know how US law works.
Authoritarians need someone to have authority over. Some sort of legitimate victim, who it is socially acceptable to persecute, and who their supporters feel little or no sympathy for. Prisoners are just about perfect for that. Most of society hates them already, and feels more confident in their own moral superiority because they feel such hate.
Because making prisoners suffer is a great way to win votes, but a terrible way to rehabilitate prisoners. The more you isolate them from the outside world, the most they will connect with their new friends inside. You just end up making a system where people can enter prison for petty theft or possession, and leave with an invitation to join one of the local gangs and no hope of a legitimate job.
Cell phones are high enough frequency to leak through holes. You'd need to retrofit the entire prison, which is going to mean lots of construction work. Expensive.
By punishing prisoners in the way you seem to propose, you worsen reoffending rates. Deliberately and intentionally making them suffer sends them a very clear message: "Society has no place for you, and we all want to see you in pain and misery." Eventually those prisoners usually get released. Do you expect them to feel any loyalty to a society which has made it quite clear they will never be accepted, and that actively wants to hurt them?
They don't have triangulation. They have cell identification. Easy enough if the prison is in the middle of nowhere, but a surprising amount are within cities* - cut them off that way and you also cut off all the surrounding buildings.
*Often they were build just outside of the city, and the city then grew.
"Superpredators?" How do you even define that? If such a thing is even a valid classification, it's going to be a tiny part of the prison population. We all like to think that the prisons are full of murderers, rapists and pedophiles, but it's just not true. Drug offenses make up the largest proportion.
It depends on country, but in the US it's common practice for prisons to charge seriously excessive prices for even those basic services. Phone calls can cost a few dollars per minute, depending on prison.
A matter that has been put before the courts many times, and their view is the only one that matters. They have concluded that speech may be regulated under certain narrowly defined circumstances. They also concluded that obscene material is not 'real' speech, though they never did manage to work out a consistent definition for it.
There is no country with 'absolute' free speech. Some are more free than others, but they always have some exceptions. The US, for example, has laws which allow for censorship and prosecution of the speaker on grounds of copyright infringeent, libel, national security, obscenity, and incitement to violence.
The only reason Facebook exists is to look at the content. That's how their business works: Look at content, use it to make inferences about individuals, use those inferences to target advertising.
I can't actually find any white supremacist tweets by him mentioned. Crude, yes. Transphobic, certainly. Politically extreme, I would say, given that he accuses 'the left' of promoting infanticide and appears to advocate for violence against them, though he later claimed that one was a joke. But no white supremacy that I can find. He's deleted a lot of tweets though, so I'm going on news coverage.
"Punch a commie. The only good commie is the one your fist is connecting with right this second. As soon as you're no longer in contact, they are bad again. Help them be good. " - Notch.
"How anyone is still on the left now that they're advocating infanticide and claim walls don't work is a mystery to me." - Notch
They can, but then the circumvention systems switch to modes which disguise their traffic as something legitimate. Eventually the only way to stop the people circumventing filtering is to make that filtering so strict that over-blocking becomes commonplace, at which point even those who do not care to view subversive material will start to complain that their perfectly legal activities are frequently being blocked.
Slashdot Mirror
Twenty times that article says floating, but what is this?
"Each platform will be anchored to the ocean floor using biorock, a material that is harder than concrete and can be grown using minerals found in the ocean, which could make the anchor more secure over time. "
It's not even floating. It's just land-building. Bloody expensive, but hardly revolutionary.
And the talk of powering it all off renewable energy, not having any expensive housing and making everyone eat vegetarian? That sounds pretty ideological to me. History is littered with colonies started on ideology, and they seldom ended well. A community founded on ideological purity will always run into trouble as soon as members start to drift from it.
Of course some of them are. But which has the greatest number of people making such calls?
It can be politically awkward to admit it, but there's a very plausible explanation for this: Maybe political views just correlate with things which violate the usage policy? Check out a few conservative sites and you don't need to go far to find 'gays are plotting to rape your children' conspiracy theories, people calling for illegal immigrants to be treated as hostile invaders and shot at the border, and rumors of an Islamic takeover. Hardly surprising that they would sometimes get caught crossing the AUP line.
And that's before you read the comments sections. Never read the comments sections. It's not healthy.
History is always written by the winners. Win, they are freedom fighters. Lose, they are terrorists.
That would require youtube to make some sort of value judgement. They really do not want to do that, because it exposes them to all sorts of legal issues, plus a lot of public outrage that will lead in turn to political backlash.
In those two examples, there was plenty of violence on both sides.
If the independence movement had failed, we'd be talking today about that time revolutionary terrorists conspired to attack shipping in Boston.
Christianity promotes or condemns whatever people want. There's enough flexibility that people are just drawn towards the verses they want to focus on, and ignore the awkward ones.
No-one cares what 'Marxist' actually means any more. It's just a convenient scary word which can be slapped upon anyone undesirable.
Mainstream media has an natural limit. You can only push so far before you face advertiser backlash.
It's not just for those who don't buy in. AA gets court-ordered referrals - usually drunk drivers or similar offenders who are given the option of going to AA meetings to get a reduced sentence, or none at all. Right up until 1996, when one of those given such a court order challenged it in court*, on the grounds that the government telling someone they would be imprisoned if they didn't attend a government-mandated church is a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. Following this and some similar rulings AA and similar programs underwent a hasty secularisation for legal purposes - all references to God were replaced with vague ideas of 'a higher power' and suchlike. This is why AA went from being expressly and overtly Christian and became just sort of vaguely spiritual.
* It actually took some time for the challenge, and the inevitable appeal, and the appeal of the appeal to the supreme court... you know how US law works.
Authoritarians need someone to have authority over. Some sort of legitimate victim, who it is socially acceptable to persecute, and who their supporters feel little or no sympathy for. Prisoners are just about perfect for that. Most of society hates them already, and feels more confident in their own moral superiority because they feel such hate.
Because making prisoners suffer is a great way to win votes, but a terrible way to rehabilitate prisoners. The more you isolate them from the outside world, the most they will connect with their new friends inside. You just end up making a system where people can enter prison for petty theft or possession, and leave with an invitation to join one of the local gangs and no hope of a legitimate job.
Cell phones are high enough frequency to leak through holes. You'd need to retrofit the entire prison, which is going to mean lots of construction work. Expensive.
By punishing prisoners in the way you seem to propose, you worsen reoffending rates. Deliberately and intentionally making them suffer sends them a very clear message: "Society has no place for you, and we all want to see you in pain and misery." Eventually those prisoners usually get released. Do you expect them to feel any loyalty to a society which has made it quite clear they will never be accepted, and that actively wants to hurt them?
They don't have triangulation. They have cell identification. Easy enough if the prison is in the middle of nowhere, but a surprising amount are within cities* - cut them off that way and you also cut off all the surrounding buildings.
*Often they were build just outside of the city, and the city then grew.
"Superpredators?" How do you even define that? If such a thing is even a valid classification, it's going to be a tiny part of the prison population. We all like to think that the prisons are full of murderers, rapists and pedophiles, but it's just not true. Drug offenses make up the largest proportion.
It depends on country, but in the US it's common practice for prisons to charge seriously excessive prices for even those basic services. Phone calls can cost a few dollars per minute, depending on prison.
A matter that has been put before the courts many times, and their view is the only one that matters. They have concluded that speech may be regulated under certain narrowly defined circumstances. They also concluded that obscene material is not 'real' speech, though they never did manage to work out a consistent definition for it.
There is no country with 'absolute' free speech. Some are more free than others, but they always have some exceptions. The US, for example, has laws which allow for censorship and prosecution of the speaker on grounds of copyright infringeent, libel, national security, obscenity, and incitement to violence.
The only reason Facebook exists is to look at the content. That's how their business works: Look at content, use it to make inferences about individuals, use those inferences to target advertising.
Congenital insensitivity to pain. It's pretty rare.
Commie, nazi... either way, not something that a multinational mega-corp wants to be seen endorsing.
I can't actually find any white supremacist tweets by him mentioned. Crude, yes. Transphobic, certainly. Politically extreme, I would say, given that he accuses 'the left' of promoting infanticide and appears to advocate for violence against them, though he later claimed that one was a joke. But no white supremacy that I can find. He's deleted a lot of tweets though, so I'm going on news coverage.
"Punch a commie. The only good commie is the one your fist is connecting with right this second. As soon as you're no longer in contact, they are bad again. Help them be good. " - Notch.
"How anyone is still on the left now that they're advocating infanticide and claim walls don't work is a mystery to me." - Notch
They can, but then the circumvention systems switch to modes which disguise their traffic as something legitimate. Eventually the only way to stop the people circumventing filtering is to make that filtering so strict that over-blocking becomes commonplace, at which point even those who do not care to view subversive material will start to complain that their perfectly legal activities are frequently being blocked.