Facebook's process is actually quite simple: 1. Users flag images. 2. If enough users flag an image, it goes to a drone - a human employee who works according to a very strict checklist that is designed to avoid all subjective judgements, so that drones are interchangeable. Picture shows exposed genitalia or female nipples? Check, banned. 3. If enough outrage results, the decision gets reviewed by someone higher up the chain, or has the authority to authorise exceptions. This is where the decision is made that it can't be porn if it's by a famous artist, or that a photograph of a naked child is ok if it's s famous war photo.
Nymphs doesn't have the same insulting connotations as larvae, and as someone who works around children professionally I want to give them all the insulting connotations I can achieve.
That's the way it's been for a great many years. It can't be porn if it's by someone really famous. Even though the exact same work, if made by someone not so well-known, would be restricted.
You can't call organs a fee when they have zero value to the donor, on account of the donor being dead. It's just taking from them something that they no longer have any use for, and giving it to someone who has a very dire need.
If you have the ability to save the life of one person, possibly more, and you refuse to do so for no other reason than sentimental attachment or superstition, then you bear responsibility for the consequences of this inaction. So I am entirely wiling to see any number of corpses mangled in order to benefit those still alive. At the end of the day, they are just bags of spare parts.
A check of medical records, and standard blood tests for all the testable diseases that might be transmitted. You can't be absolutely sure - it's always possible the donor picked up HIV on a one-night-stand a month ago and didn't tell anyone, and isn't yet carrying enough virus to show on the test. But you can get the risk down to an acceptable level: That is, the risk of dying from disease via donation is less than the risk of dying through not having an organ.
And yet somewhere, there will be a crowd of well-intentioned protesters and a pressure group working to keep the meat-sack alive as long as possible, because doing otherwise is murder, even though this usually means withdrawing water and allowing dehydration and 'natural' death to ruin the organs.
Anyone can use a vanity publisher - it's very affordable now that eBooks have cut the distribution cost to almost nothing. They'll publish pretty much anything, no matter how awful.
Governments can do that, but not nearly so easily. If they use bulk interception that way, the site operator may well notice eventually - it's trivial to check for. Just contact a few random site users and ask them what cert hash they are seeing. It also destroys trust in the CA, which means people switch to another on that cannot be so easily compromised by that specific government.
SSL and a CA system doesn't make it impossible to monitor individuals, just makes it impossible to monitor entire populations without a substantial risk of detection.
There's a more extreme version: Presumed consent. Rather than require the deceased's permission, just assume they are ok with it so long as they haven't registered their objection in advance. After all, they aren't using that organ any more.
Most people have a very difficult time confronting their own death. It's just not something humans find easy to think about.
Embryonic stem cells are really difficult to use clinically - they are delicate, and tend to form tumors very easily. Research is continuing to address this issue so they might one day be used for growing organs directly. Right now, they are proving to be very valuable research tools. Embryonic cell research has produced some very useful cell lines for in vitro drugs testing, and study of these cells and the differentiation process lead directly to some workable treatments utilizing adult stem cell transplants. So it hasn't yet delivered on the promise of lab-grown organs, but it's still been worthwhile.
You remind me of a certain character from Atlas Shrugged, who was so dedicated to the idea of private property that when the government passed a law allowing compulsory purchase of his oil fields as an asset of strategic national importance he set the wells alight and destroyed it all.
The somewhat dubious ethics of the book showed these as the actions of a hero, who would rather destroy his wealth than see it stolen from him by an overreaching government.
I think most people would see him as a selfish ass who would willingly hurt other people out of pure spite, and feel superior for doing so.
We have something of a problem then, in the media-driven modern world: Politicians can't be allowed to plot secret deals behind closed doors, but they are also unable to do the business of government in public because they have to be constantly performing to the crowd. A crowd which largely sees even suggesting giving any ground as treason to the party, if not the country. Secret closed-door meetings are where things actually get decided. Don't blame congress for that: Blame the voters, and America's fundamentally broken political culture that seems to regard politics as some form of team sport.
Walkers are not practical for combat, but there may be a few niches. Cargo handling, for one. Not all cargo comes in convenient containerised forms and with enough space around it for forklifts. Or construction. Or disaster response, excavating collapsed buildings. Basically any time it would be handy for someone to be able to heft half-ton objects around.
No it doesn't. Just look at this case - it took eight months, and that was remarkably quick. It's likely to go on some time longer yet, as appeal is inevitable. They've had to hold an additional round of fundraising just to handle the legal costs - and vidangel are not the little guy, they are the medium guy, still dealing with millions of dollars in funding. Law is an expensive business, and even if an individual or small business wins in court they will often be crippled by the legal costs afterwards. Some lawsuits can go on for decades.
I've yet to work out what Gamergate actually is. As far as I can tell it started out with an incident involving a games reviewer giving a glowing review to a game that happened to be written by his partner, even though by all other accounts the game was terrible, and from there escalated into a flamewar of epic proportions that engulfed a hundred other subjects into one big ball of confusing anger involving a lot of death threats, rape accusations, accusations of fabricated death threats and false rape accusations, ridiculously easily-offended people, people who set out to offend them for amusement, and generally all the things we love to hate about online political culture.
You are quite right. Are we expecting cable companies to just willingly foot the distribution costs for a service that competes with them? So long as BitTorrent Live is a niche little thing, they will ignore it - but if it takes off, you can bet that 'traffic management' will become suddenly a much bigger concern for them.
Maybe if the election had gone the other way the FCC might have been able to make them play nice for a time, but eventually they would find a way around any regulation.
The big joke to me is that, if someone were willing to foot the bill, it would be possible to establish an open distributed caching infrastructure would would bring the distribution cost down to practically nothing for everyone - base it off something like IPFS, or even usenet, where every ISP runs a cache server of content-addressed data. But that'll never happen, because 1. No company will pay to run a server that their competitors can benefit from and 2. No ISP wants to run a server that will host anything people want because of the legal considerations. There's a reason that most ISPs have now dropped USENET service, and it isn't cost.
Media - all media - has a number of biases. Perhaps the biggest is sensationalism bias, and the quest for ratings. "Nothing of interest revealed" is not news. No-one buys a paper or watches a story for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's process is actually quite simple:
1. Users flag images.
2. If enough users flag an image, it goes to a drone - a human employee who works according to a very strict checklist that is designed to avoid all subjective judgements, so that drones are interchangeable. Picture shows exposed genitalia or female nipples? Check, banned.
3. If enough outrage results, the decision gets reviewed by someone higher up the chain, or has the authority to authorise exceptions. This is where the decision is made that it can't be porn if it's by a famous artist, or that a photograph of a naked child is ok if it's s famous war photo.
Nymphs doesn't have the same insulting connotations as larvae, and as someone who works around children professionally I want to give them all the insulting connotations I can achieve.
That's the way it's been for a great many years. It can't be porn if it's by someone really famous. Even though the exact same work, if made by someone not so well-known, would be restricted.
You can't call organs a fee when they have zero value to the donor, on account of the donor being dead. It's just taking from them something that they no longer have any use for, and giving it to someone who has a very dire need.
If you have the ability to save the life of one person, possibly more, and you refuse to do so for no other reason than sentimental attachment or superstition, then you bear responsibility for the consequences of this inaction. So I am entirely wiling to see any number of corpses mangled in order to benefit those still alive. At the end of the day, they are just bags of spare parts.
A check of medical records, and standard blood tests for all the testable diseases that might be transmitted. You can't be absolutely sure - it's always possible the donor picked up HIV on a one-night-stand a month ago and didn't tell anyone, and isn't yet carrying enough virus to show on the test. But you can get the risk down to an acceptable level: That is, the risk of dying from disease via donation is less than the risk of dying through not having an organ.
And yet somewhere, there will be a crowd of well-intentioned protesters and a pressure group working to keep the meat-sack alive as long as possible, because doing otherwise is murder, even though this usually means withdrawing water and allowing dehydration and 'natural' death to ruin the organs.
Idiots.
I will join the chorus too: Citation needed.
Anyone can use a vanity publisher - it's very affordable now that eBooks have cut the distribution cost to almost nothing. They'll publish pretty much anything, no matter how awful.
Governments can do that, but not nearly so easily. If they use bulk interception that way, the site operator may well notice eventually - it's trivial to check for. Just contact a few random site users and ask them what cert hash they are seeing. It also destroys trust in the CA, which means people switch to another on that cannot be so easily compromised by that specific government.
SSL and a CA system doesn't make it impossible to monitor individuals, just makes it impossible to monitor entire populations without a substantial risk of detection.
There's a more extreme version: Presumed consent. Rather than require the deceased's permission, just assume they are ok with it so long as they haven't registered their objection in advance. After all, they aren't using that organ any more.
Most people have a very difficult time confronting their own death. It's just not something humans find easy to think about.
Embryonic stem cells are really difficult to use clinically - they are delicate, and tend to form tumors very easily. Research is continuing to address this issue so they might one day be used for growing organs directly. Right now, they are proving to be very valuable research tools. Embryonic cell research has produced some very useful cell lines for in vitro drugs testing, and study of these cells and the differentiation process lead directly to some workable treatments utilizing adult stem cell transplants. So it hasn't yet delivered on the promise of lab-grown organs, but it's still been worthwhile.
Oh, those poor, poor multi-millionaires living under the threat of persecution!
No, somehow I can't seem to summon up any sympathy.
You remind me of a certain character from Atlas Shrugged, who was so dedicated to the idea of private property that when the government passed a law allowing compulsory purchase of his oil fields as an asset of strategic national importance he set the wells alight and destroyed it all.
The somewhat dubious ethics of the book showed these as the actions of a hero, who would rather destroy his wealth than see it stolen from him by an overreaching government.
I think most people would see him as a selfish ass who would willingly hurt other people out of pure spite, and feel superior for doing so.
We have something of a problem then, in the media-driven modern world: Politicians can't be allowed to plot secret deals behind closed doors, but they are also unable to do the business of government in public because they have to be constantly performing to the crowd. A crowd which largely sees even suggesting giving any ground as treason to the party, if not the country. Secret closed-door meetings are where things actually get decided. Don't blame congress for that: Blame the voters, and America's fundamentally broken political culture that seems to regard politics as some form of team sport.
Walkers are not practical for combat, but there may be a few niches. Cargo handling, for one. Not all cargo comes in convenient containerised forms and with enough space around it for forklifts. Or construction. Or disaster response, excavating collapsed buildings. Basically any time it would be handy for someone to be able to heft half-ton objects around.
No it doesn't. Just look at this case - it took eight months, and that was remarkably quick. It's likely to go on some time longer yet, as appeal is inevitable. They've had to hold an additional round of fundraising just to handle the legal costs - and vidangel are not the little guy, they are the medium guy, still dealing with millions of dollars in funding. Law is an expensive business, and even if an individual or small business wins in court they will often be crippled by the legal costs afterwards. Some lawsuits can go on for decades.
It's happened before and life has survived.
I've yet to work out what Gamergate actually is. As far as I can tell it started out with an incident involving a games reviewer giving a glowing review to a game that happened to be written by his partner, even though by all other accounts the game was terrible, and from there escalated into a flamewar of epic proportions that engulfed a hundred other subjects into one big ball of confusing anger involving a lot of death threats, rape accusations, accusations of fabricated death threats and false rape accusations, ridiculously easily-offended people, people who set out to offend them for amusement, and generally all the things we love to hate about online political culture.
You are quite right. Are we expecting cable companies to just willingly foot the distribution costs for a service that competes with them? So long as BitTorrent Live is a niche little thing, they will ignore it - but if it takes off, you can bet that 'traffic management' will become suddenly a much bigger concern for them.
Maybe if the election had gone the other way the FCC might have been able to make them play nice for a time, but eventually they would find a way around any regulation.
The big joke to me is that, if someone were willing to foot the bill, it would be possible to establish an open distributed caching infrastructure would would bring the distribution cost down to practically nothing for everyone - base it off something like IPFS, or even usenet, where every ISP runs a cache server of content-addressed data. But that'll never happen, because 1. No company will pay to run a server that their competitors can benefit from and 2. No ISP wants to run a server that will host anything people want because of the legal considerations. There's a reason that most ISPs have now dropped USENET service, and it isn't cost.
I view it in generations:
Generation zero: Pre-p2p. Dump sites, BBSs, FTP servers.
Generation one: Fully centralised control/search, distributed hosting: Napster, early bittorrent, kazaa/fasttrack, ED2K
Generation two: Decentralised or fully distributed: Kad, bittorrent with DHT, gnutella.
Enriching, or infuriating.
Perhaps a study is needed to investigate how well online contact can substitute for physical contact?
Law enforcement has many different divisions. It can focus on more than one issue at a time.
It's not perpetual. It's just ninety-five years*, with a twenty year extension passed every twenty years.
*US term for works-for-hire. If it's an individually authored work, it's the life of the artist plus an additional seventy years.
Media - all media - has a number of biases. Perhaps the biggest is sensationalism bias, and the quest for ratings. "Nothing of interest revealed" is not news. No-one buys a paper or watches a story for that.