That's wrong, the rules do allow different countries to have different content available. The EU even made an FAQ explaining this here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...
The issue is that if someone takes out a Netflix subscription in their country of residence and then goes to a different EU country for work or a holiday, they need to have access to all the content from their home country.
That's not what TFA is about though, TFA is talking about the ability to buy games from other regions and have them work in your country. In the single market you should be able to buy a game cheaper from Romania and play it in Germany. Same for online services etc.
It's not just about content availability, although that is part of it. It's about prince discrimination. I've bought stuff from Amazon France before because it was much cheaper than the same item on Amazon UK. No extra taxes or duty to pay due to the EU single market and customs union.
Really, they have been silenced? Their web site was taken down, they have been banned from promoting their policies, no-one can listen to them any more?
You need to learn the difference between not being invited to something and being silenced.
What would have been better in the 1930s: being intolerant of Hitler's speech and preventing the Nazis rising to power, or waiting until violence was the only solution?
How the fuck do you get from "someone made a persuasive argument in an email" to "you adhere to the one opinion philosophy"?
This is the kind of thing that chills free speech. Any criticism is attacked not on its merits, but merely on the basis of criticism being some kind of censorship.
If the council member's ethics are irrelevant to the decisions made by the council, then why appoint these people in the first place? Sling the janitor a few bucks to tell you right from wrong.
Clearly the ethics of the people on the council are going to shape the decisions of the council. That's extremely obvious.
Interesting conspiracy but you give Blair too much credit. Modern UK politics has been about the centre ground since the 80s. If you want to get into power, you need to occupy the centre. Blair did that, that's all. No evil scheme to oppress people, he was just the right kind of centre-right politician at the right time.
The fact that you have to assume Blair always wants the exact opposite of what he says he wants doesn't exactly make a strong argument.
Blair fucked up in three major ways. First he went along with the US into Iraq, which was very unpopular in the UK. Then he didn't do enough to manage migration from newly joining EU member states, and allowed newspapers and the far right to demonize the Polish and blame them for everything. Finally he did little to prevent the financial crash from happening, because he continued Thatcherite policies.
On the contrary, we live in a golden age of peace. There was a huge migrant crisis in Europe and we managed to deal with it peacefully, without going to war, and without completely losing sight of our values. Europe rose to the challenge, and although it was hard we got through it.
The future is the future we are building, welcoming diverse groups of people in to our union and spreading our values as we do so. Democracy, human rights, equality. Those are our strengths and our heritage and our future.
We already have that law in the UK. If you can prove that, say, the Home Secretary authorized your torture you can sue him personally and the government for compensation. That's why they are so careful not to leave any direct, incriminating evidence.
What will they do when they feel nostalgic for that game from their youth?
Same thing they do now, pay for it again on the Virtual Console and get a half baked emulated version.
Just look at how crap things like Playstation Mini are, and they still sell. No way they are going to give up that easy money by building a system that you can still play in 20 years time.
"The new research, published today in Scientific Advances, doesn't mean cats understand the human conception of a name, but it does show that at least some cats can distinguish their names from other words."
Popper had a pretty good point. WW2 was just ending in Europe, and the policy of appeasement was widely blamed for allowing Hitler to build up his military and start it. By being tolerant of Nazis a lot of people ended up dead, and in the end we had to be intolerant of them in order to preserve freedom for everyone else. In fact we had to punch more than a few of them.
Problem is that the cheap unlocked Android sticks don't support Netflix at anything above SD resolution. Doubtless other streaming apps are the same - I can't imagine Disney will allow HD video streaming on rooted devices either.
I too use a Pi, but I also have a smart TV. The key is to have options so that if one goes sour you are not stuck with it.
There are benefits to buying a proper TV over a dumb monitor too. TVs do a lot of image processing that monitors don't. Even with high quality content it helps to remove/hide artefacts and to improve things like motion resolution. Also they don't make plasma or OLED monitors, and there are not many monitors that go up to TV sizes (50+ inches). Most only have one or max 2 HDMI ports and no ARC support too.
Some people have to been trained to have a Pavolvian response to any mention of discrimination. They immediately deny it and pile in with the usual arguments (it's just personal/racial/gender preference, it's the discriminated groups's fault, it's too small/trivial to matter, what about straight white men, it's justified by crime stats etc.)
They set up am AI ethics council. Some people write emails pointing out that some of the people on the council were unsuitable. Google realized they screwed up and abandoned the idea.
I did wonder if my cats were just responding to my voice. Ignoring everything I say, merely taking note of the fact that the help had returned from wherever the fresh chicken comes from.
Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. In order to preserve freedom, we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
If someone is working to take away your rights, you should not just accept that as "diversity of opinion", you should fight hard to protect yourself and those like you.
Hypothetically, if Google did decide to relocate to China and somehow wasn't instantly wiped out by a stock price crash and key staff quitting, what you you suggest was the best course of action?
Restrict free speech so as not to offend them or make them feel uncomfortable due to criticism?
Give in to their demands just to keep them in the US?
Slashdot Mirror
That's wrong, the rules do allow different countries to have different content available. The EU even made an FAQ explaining this here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...
The issue is that if someone takes out a Netflix subscription in their country of residence and then goes to a different EU country for work or a holiday, they need to have access to all the content from their home country.
That's not what TFA is about though, TFA is talking about the ability to buy games from other regions and have them work in your country. In the single market you should be able to buy a game cheaper from Romania and play it in Germany. Same for online services etc.
It's not just about content availability, although that is part of it. It's about prince discrimination. I've bought stuff from Amazon France before because it was much cheaper than the same item on Amazon UK. No extra taxes or duty to pay due to the EU single market and customs union.
Really, they have been silenced? Their web site was taken down, they have been banned from promoting their policies, no-one can listen to them any more?
You need to learn the difference between not being invited to something and being silenced.
What would have been better in the 1930s: being intolerant of Hitler's speech and preventing the Nazis rising to power, or waiting until violence was the only solution?
How the fuck do you get from "someone made a persuasive argument in an email" to "you adhere to the one opinion philosophy"?
This is the kind of thing that chills free speech. Any criticism is attacked not on its merits, but merely on the basis of criticism being some kind of censorship.
If the council member's ethics are irrelevant to the decisions made by the council, then why appoint these people in the first place? Sling the janitor a few bucks to tell you right from wrong.
Clearly the ethics of the people on the council are going to shape the decisions of the council. That's extremely obvious.
Except that refuting those views is precisely what they did so, and Google found their arguments convincing.
You don't think there was an actual mob, do you?
Interesting conspiracy but you give Blair too much credit. Modern UK politics has been about the centre ground since the 80s. If you want to get into power, you need to occupy the centre. Blair did that, that's all. No evil scheme to oppress people, he was just the right kind of centre-right politician at the right time.
The fact that you have to assume Blair always wants the exact opposite of what he says he wants doesn't exactly make a strong argument.
Blair fucked up in three major ways. First he went along with the US into Iraq, which was very unpopular in the UK. Then he didn't do enough to manage migration from newly joining EU member states, and allowed newspapers and the far right to demonize the Polish and blame them for everything. Finally he did little to prevent the financial crash from happening, because he continued Thatcherite policies.
On the contrary, we live in a golden age of peace. There was a huge migrant crisis in Europe and we managed to deal with it peacefully, without going to war, and without completely losing sight of our values. Europe rose to the challenge, and although it was hard we got through it.
The future is the future we are building, welcoming diverse groups of people in to our union and spreading our values as we do so. Democracy, human rights, equality. Those are our strengths and our heritage and our future.
We already have that law in the UK. If you can prove that, say, the Home Secretary authorized your torture you can sue him personally and the government for compensation. That's why they are so careful not to leave any direct, incriminating evidence.
What will they do when they feel nostalgic for that game from their youth?
Same thing they do now, pay for it again on the Virtual Console and get a half baked emulated version.
Just look at how crap things like Playstation Mini are, and they still sell. No way they are going to give up that easy money by building a system that you can still play in 20 years time.
I expect it will be like Netflix where if you stop paying it deletes your save data and resets to default the next time you sign up.
"The new research, published today in Scientific Advances, doesn't mean cats understand the human conception of a name, but it does show that at least some cats can distinguish their names from other words."
Exactly, you can't have an ethics council made up of people whose job it is to promote unethical policies. That with be an unethics council.
Popper had a pretty good point. WW2 was just ending in Europe, and the policy of appeasement was widely blamed for allowing Hitler to build up his military and start it. By being tolerant of Nazis a lot of people ended up dead, and in the end we had to be intolerant of them in order to preserve freedom for everyone else. In fact we had to punch more than a few of them.
Problem is that the cheap unlocked Android sticks don't support Netflix at anything above SD resolution. Doubtless other streaming apps are the same - I can't imagine Disney will allow HD video streaming on rooted devices either.
DRM screws us again.
I too use a Pi, but I also have a smart TV. The key is to have options so that if one goes sour you are not stuck with it.
There are benefits to buying a proper TV over a dumb monitor too. TVs do a lot of image processing that monitors don't. Even with high quality content it helps to remove/hide artefacts and to improve things like motion resolution. Also they don't make plasma or OLED monitors, and there are not many monitors that go up to TV sizes (50+ inches). Most only have one or max 2 HDMI ports and no ARC support too.
You are begging the question. Your assumption is that the discrimination does not cause the behaviour, that there is no feedback mechanism.
Some people have to been trained to have a Pavolvian response to any mention of discrimination. They immediately deny it and pile in with the usual arguments (it's just personal/racial/gender preference, it's the discriminated groups's fault, it's too small/trivial to matter, what about straight white men, it's justified by crime stats etc.)
For all we know, they think "Tiddles" means "I'm opening up a tin of meat for you".
It actually says that right in the summary. I know not reading TFA is standard, but not reading the summary is cat levels of laziness.
Didn't RTFA I see.
They set up am AI ethics council. Some people write emails pointing out that some of the people on the council were unsuitable. Google realized they screwed up and abandoned the idea.
30 years ago was 1989. Blackface was widely seen as "politically incorrect", to put it mildly, in the late 80s.
I did wonder if my cats were just responding to my voice. Ignoring everything I say, merely taking note of the fact that the help had returned from wherever the fresh chicken comes from.
Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. In order to preserve freedom, we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
If someone is working to take away your rights, you should not just accept that as "diversity of opinion", you should fight hard to protect yourself and those like you.
Hypothetically, if Google did decide to relocate to China and somehow wasn't instantly wiped out by a stock price crash and key staff quitting, what you you suggest was the best course of action?
Restrict free speech so as not to offend them or make them feel uncomfortable due to criticism?
Give in to their demands just to keep them in the US?
Start a rival service to fill the vacuum?