No, professor, it is you who does that. I call Chinese "Fascist" because that is, what they are — by the very definition of the term. Unlike the Communist/Socialist China of the late 20th century, today's China is Fascist: capitalist markets exist — and move the economy — but they are tightly controlled by the government. The secondary indications — like rising nationalism and persecution of minorities (complete with ethnic cleansing) are there too. And — and this is the point most important to this discussion — neither a person nor a company can survive after displeasing the government in general and the Dear Leader in particular.
Up until Trump's election, the US was going in that same direction (and not fast enough for some people). One hopes, he'd be able to survive politically long enough to cripple the creep towards Fascism for a few generations — by nominating judges with a similar pessimism over the government's power.
But, whether he succeeds in that or not, his very attempts make him anti-Fascist. That Google's CEO dislikes Trump for his imaginary Fascism, while willingly cooperating with the actual Fascists of China is a sign of deep malaise of this country's elites — both real, like this very bright Mr. Brin, and the wannabes, like a certain much dimmer teacher who is so wanting in education.
Who cares what Google's top management thinks of Trump?
It is important to the point I was making, that the same people, who call an American President and his supporters "Fascist", are happy to cooperate with the actual Fascists.
Second, in what way were Google's top management wrong about Trump and his supporters?
There-there, don't get triggered, let's not change the topic, shall we?
In the United States, you are FREE to have that opinion about the government
... which automatically invalidates that particular opinion... As in, a regime can not be truly Fascist, if citizens are free to call it names and otherwise dis...
Which was the point. Meanwhile, upon encountering an actually oppressive government — such as that of China — Google bends over backwards to accommodate them.
Did you really need this explained, intellectually-challenged spouter of cliches?
Google built a prototype of a censored search engine for China that links users' searches to their personal phone numbers, thus making it easier for the Chinese government to monitor people's queries
Evidently, some Fascist regimes are easier to #RESIST than others...
What better way to keep a population compliant and docile, than by conditioning them to believe, that government — and its officially-sanctioned monopolies — is the source of all the important things: food, shelter, electricity and other utilities, healthcare, and now the Internet service?
At what point did we collectively swallow the patent falsehood, that without the benevolent and omniscient government officials none of those things would've been available — and that any self-evident problems encountered are due to a particular official being insufficiently benevolent or omniscient, rather simply that whatever government does is done poorly?
Seems like a great device for watching the general public
To watch the "general public", you need to install this in places, where this public resides — and sleeps. Not only is it difficult, it is also pointless — what purchase is there in knowing, Joe Shmoe is not really asleep?
In prisons the population is already under surveillance and has no right to privacy. It is also assumed to be up to no good at all times. These two factors make the prison use-case easier to explain and justify than even that of the hospital...
They tried to help the other candidate so hard — by getting the Latino voters (but not other minorities) to the voting places... And achieved so much... Only to be disappointed:
"Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us... We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did."
The quote (whoever Niel Gaiman is) amounts to "Political correctness is simply treating other people with respect", and it is a bullshit argument from you, rsilvergun.
Because the computing (and engineering in general) concepts of "master" and "slave" aren't disrespectful to any person. Once again, you've posted crap — and are being called on it. Remember to logout.
While we are at this, when will the sexist man command be renamed?..
I'd say, let's name it doc, but that's not very egalitarian either, as it implies a level of education unattainable to so many of the less fortunate. Plus, to some it also invokes the horribly racist imagery of Looney Tunes.
If you've read this far and aren't outraged, you are a racist too — buy some racism credits to atone for the incorrect thoughts.
Beware of "philanthropy" from billionaires [...] genocide
That's true, so true! The only true philanthropy is that by the kind, benevolent, and omniscient government officials redistributing the wealth confiscated at gunpoint from captive taxpayers. Right?
Half of the recipients probably will be Amazon employees.
In 2017 Amazon had a total of 566K employees. Various estimates claim, as many as 10% of them are on Food Stamps — or living with someone, who is. That makes for 56.6K people.
Dividing half of the $2 billion pledged by Bezos over the 56600 amounts to a rather generous $17+K per person...
So long as the usage of this is not mandated by the government — neither directly nor indirectly, such as, for example: "must sign up to get unemployment benefits" — it is Ok. May be a good thing even.
It wasn't good that more than one author could write Robin Hood stories?
I don't believe, the legislation being discussed threatens the fanfic genre...
It wasn't good that multiple musicians could play and modify folk tunes?
It certainly was not good, that the original composer was not compensated. History — and the literature — is full of heart-rending stories of starving artists. People enjoyed their tunes, but — short of winning support of a rich sponsor — there was no way for them to earn a living off of their talent. Modern times — and the concept of Intellectual Property — finally gave these people such means. That's an improvement over the past, a big improvement...
But the greater point of my posting is, whether you want Intellectual Property rights to be stronger or weaker, any changes in that regard will most certainly not "wreck the Internet".
Any group with disproportional representation of any race is — by the progressive definition racist. Blacks in the US comprise about 12% of the population, so it may be excusable for a group of fewer than 10 to not have any. But Whites are a majority, so any group of two or more without a single White person is racist. Case closed.
this limit should not be forever, or even a 'long' time.
I disagree rather strongly on this one, but that's a different topic.
With the current trend these people will be less equiped to be able to consume and evaluate quality sources of information
Why?! Suppose, the discussed bill is actually successful in reducing the amount of "derivations", how would that reduce the unfortunate's access to the original content — informational and entertaining alike? Yes, it may become harder for us all — yearning to be educated and entertained, whatever our station and creed — to find the "derivations", but easier to find the originals. And for the original author(s) to be both properly recognized and compensated.
allowed access and under fair use were even permitted to make copies of books, journals, etc. available there.
There is no threat to "fair use" of anything published online. As you could make a copy of the book you legally found in the library, you can print out an article — or a picture — you find online, as well as copy-paste it into an e-mail to a friend, etc.
There may be some threat to unfair use, but that's a good thing...
Changing the goal-posts, huh? After the highly-moderated claim, that a mere restriction of copying data "breaks the whole thing", was demonstrated to be a grade-A idiocy, the argument has changed...
it would be illegal for Google to provide a link to bbc.co.uk
Slashdot Mirror
No, professor, it is you who does that. I call Chinese "Fascist" because that is, what they are — by the very definition of the term. Unlike the Communist/Socialist China of the late 20th century, today's China is Fascist: capitalist markets exist — and move the economy — but they are tightly controlled by the government. The secondary indications — like rising nationalism and persecution of minorities (complete with ethnic cleansing) are there too. And — and this is the point most important to this discussion — neither a person nor a company can survive after displeasing the government in general and the Dear Leader in particular.
Up until Trump's election, the US was going in that same direction (and not fast enough for some people). One hopes, he'd be able to survive politically long enough to cripple the creep towards Fascism for a few generations — by nominating judges with a similar pessimism over the government's power.
But, whether he succeeds in that or not, his very attempts make him anti-Fascist. That Google's CEO dislikes Trump for his imaginary Fascism, while willingly cooperating with the actual Fascists of China is a sign of deep malaise of this country's elites — both real, like this very bright Mr. Brin, and the wannabes, like a certain much dimmer teacher who is so wanting in education.
It is important to the point I was making, that the same people, who call an American President and his supporters "Fascist", are happy to cooperate with the actual Fascists.
There-there, don't get triggered, let's not change the topic, shall we?
Ok, so now that the validity of the video has been established, do you still have a point to make?
... which automatically invalidates that particular opinion... As in, a regime can not be truly Fascist, if citizens are free to call it names and otherwise dis...
Which was the point. Meanwhile, upon encountering an actually oppressive government — such as that of China — Google bends over backwards to accommodate them.
Did you really need this explained, intellectually-challenged spouter of cliches?
Because they broke this particular piece of news — all other sites carrying it call it "video obtained by Breitbart".
Few other news-sources would go for this kind of guerilla reporting risking Google's displeasure.
So, you'd like to dispute the fact, that Google's top management — including Mr. Brin himself — referred to Trump supporters as "Fascists"?
And it is important to the discussion because, in your opinion, Brin would not do that. Please, confirm.
Evidently, some Fascist regimes are easier to #RESIST than others...
What better way to keep a population compliant and docile, than by conditioning them to believe, that government — and its officially-sanctioned monopolies — is the source of all the important things: food, shelter, electricity and other utilities, healthcare, and now the Internet service?
At what point did we collectively swallow the patent falsehood, that without the benevolent and omniscient government officials none of those things would've been available — and that any self-evident problems encountered are due to a particular official being insufficiently benevolent or omniscient, rather simply that whatever government does is done poorly?
This is all to ask, why do we need FCC at all?
To watch the "general public", you need to install this in places, where this public resides — and sleeps. Not only is it difficult, it is also pointless — what purchase is there in knowing, Joe Shmoe is not really asleep?
In prisons the population is already under surveillance and has no right to privacy. It is also assumed to be up to no good at all times. These two factors make the prison use-case easier to explain and justify than even that of the hospital...
Seems like a great device for watching the imprisoned... Who is really asleep, and who is faking it. Sigh...
Say, this reminds me of an old Soviet joke... It is about a Soviet and an American arguing, which country has better Freedom of Speech protections.
The American says: "I can openly shout: 'Reagan is an asshole!' — and I will not be prosecuted".
To this the Soviet answers: "Big deal, I can call Reagan an asshole too — and I'll even be praised for it!".
I see you find my ideas intriguing. Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
They tried to help the other candidate so hard — by getting the Latino voters (but not other minorities) to the voting places... And achieved so much ... Only to be disappointed:
The quote (whoever Niel Gaiman is) amounts to "Political correctness is simply treating other people with respect", and it is a bullshit argument from you, rsilvergun.
Because the computing (and engineering in general) concepts of "master" and "slave" aren't disrespectful to any person. Once again, you've posted crap — and are being called on it. Remember to logout.
While we are at this, when will the sexist man command be renamed?..
I'd say, let's name it doc, but that's not very egalitarian either, as it implies a level of education unattainable to so many of the less fortunate. Plus, to some it also invokes the horribly racist imagery of Looney Tunes.
If you've read this far and aren't outraged, you are a racist too — buy some racism credits to atone for the incorrect thoughts.
That's true, so true! The only true philanthropy is that by the kind, benevolent, and omniscient government officials redistributing the wealth confiscated at gunpoint from captive taxpayers. Right?
In 2017 Amazon had a total of 566K employees. Various estimates claim, as many as 10% of them are on Food Stamps — or living with someone, who is. That makes for 56.6K people.
Dividing half of the $2 billion pledged by Bezos over the 56600 amounts to a rather generous $17+K per person...
Has anyone ever?
So long as the usage of this is not mandated by the government — neither directly nor indirectly, such as, for example: "must sign up to get unemployment benefits" — it is Ok. May be a good thing even.
I don't believe, the legislation being discussed threatens the fanfic genre...
It certainly was not good, that the original composer was not compensated. History — and the literature — is full of heart-rending stories of starving artists. People enjoyed their tunes, but — short of winning support of a rich sponsor — there was no way for them to earn a living off of their talent. Modern times — and the concept of Intellectual Property — finally gave these people such means. That's an improvement over the past, a big improvement...
But the greater point of my posting is, whether you want Intellectual Property rights to be stronger or weaker, any changes in that regard will most certainly not "wreck the Internet".
Ok, from shifting the goal posts, to personal attack, to ad hominem. A truly classical sequence. Stay anonymous, coward...
Any group with disproportional representation of any race is — by the progressive definition racist. Blacks in the US comprise about 12% of the population, so it may be excusable for a group of fewer than 10 to not have any. But Whites are a majority, so any group of two or more without a single White person is racist. Case closed.
Now, as we also know from the same progressive teachers of the people, denial of racism is in itself racist. Yes, I'm looking sternly at you, racist, you have been exposed.
America's top "mathletes" have won the first place once again this year in the international Math Olympiad.
The team's group picture, however, is as racist as it gets...
I disagree rather strongly on this one, but that's a different topic.
Why?! Suppose, the discussed bill is actually successful in reducing the amount of "derivations", how would that reduce the unfortunate's access to the original content — informational and entertaining alike? Yes, it may become harder for us all — yearning to be educated and entertained, whatever our station and creed — to find the "derivations", but easier to find the originals. And for the original author(s) to be both properly recognized and compensated.
There is no threat to "fair use" of anything published online. As you could make a copy of the book you legally found in the library, you can print out an article — or a picture — you find online, as well as copy-paste it into an e-mail to a friend, etc.
There may be some threat to unfair use, but that's a good thing...
Changing the goal-posts, huh? After the highly-moderated claim, that a mere restriction of copying data "breaks the whole thing", was demonstrated to be a grade-A idiocy, the argument has changed...
This idiocy does not even merit a grade...