Years after Bill Gates started doing charity work and Jobs started locking down all his new platforms, who is it that's still villainized on/. ? You don't see Steve Jobs as a Borg, do you?
Wikileaks have always claimed to work by receiving information from sources who were privileged with access to the information, and who elected to leak it to Wikileaks out of duty to their conscience.
Oh, well as long as they claim to not hack systems, I see no reason not to trust them. I hereby proclaim Wikileaks to be an honest company because that's my opinion so it must be fact!
I would rather see rioting in the streets, than to see the millions of
I thought it was an interesting rant, but you cut off right at the good part. Are you planning to sell the sequel?
For every redneck idiot out there, there is a white lab coat idiot out there.
I agree with you that propaganda finds a lot more buyers when people are discussing politics, but I imagine there is a smaller proportion of "white lab coat idiots" than "redneck idiots". Politics is quite similar to religion (people don't need evidence, have faith in your party) and you also see a difference in proportions between different demographics. In general though, if someone thinks their party is so great (even if they admit some small problems), then they might just want to reevaluate the evidence
If someone does a Google search, they may, just possibly, find out the truth about something.
Doubtful. People will search for things by typing in what they believe (not the counter-opinion). There is a website on the internet in support of any opinion, whether they are blogs or more "authoritative" sources. The people that would actually believe something without personally researching it are also the people that would believe these sources without digging deeper. The people that listen to his advice not to use google wouldn't bother searching for evidence anyway.
One additional factor is that people don't like to admit they're wrong and especially don't like to change their minds. Even if they are provided evidence contrary to their opinion, that just reinforces their opinion (again, I'm talking about only a certain sort of people; ?Glenn Beck's listeners? might be a subset).
1. The right tends to put atheists on the same level as rapid bears in the city.
That's making light of the situation. People don't understand that rapid bears are very dangerous because not only do you need to outrun the slowest runner, but you also need to outrun the bear itself (which is difficult, them being rapid and all).
OT: PS to Slashdot coders: I'd really like to be able to use Firefox's spellchecker in here again. It highlights misspelled words but I can't correct them with it ever since you forced this dumb new layout on us. Same with italic tags not working anymore. Have you ever heard the phrase "if it aint broken don't fix it"?
OT: Spelling correction works fine for me on Ubuntu + Firefox. Right-click and it shows a list of suggestions. Maybe your problem is something else?
Well, they can't find people who didn't pay, so it's basically just a donation box. If you want to clear your guilty conscience (yeah, right) or get a certificate or something, you can donate to the government.
I agree. He definitely said that. It's not true that quotes are frequently misquoted and misattributed. We should definitely believe he said that. No evidence necessary.
I suppose dividing humans into arbitrary factions is better than providing a two party system where each party represents such a wide conglomeration of beliefs that nobody is satisfied. Of all the combinations of political opinions, there are two that are consistently voted for, never mind the fact that many party principles are completely separable.
Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.
Democrats did better in this case, but don't give them too much credit. "Almost every" in my mind means 90-99%. Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, but so did 35% of democrats. I just want to point out that if each party had half the house and 1/3 of democrats supports a bill: 1/2 + 1/3*1/2 = 2/3 (enough to pass). The bill only lost by rounding error.
Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?
Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions....
Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)].
If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)].
The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].
Question: What is third-party liability, also known as "secondary liability"?
Answer: The concept of third party liability refers, as the name implies, to situations in which responsibility for harm can be placed on a party in addition to the one that actually caused the injury. The most common example comes from tort law: a customer in a grocery store drops a bottle of wine and another customer slips on the puddle and injures himself; he may bring an action for negligence against the customer who dropped the bottle and against the owner of the grocery store. Under the common law doctrine of third-party liability, a plaintiff must show not only that an injury actually occurred, but also (in most cases) that some sort of connection existed between the third party and the person who actually caused the injury.
As such the concept of third-party liability is often divided into two different types: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.
Typically, contributory infringement exists when the third party either assists in the commission of the act which causes the injury, or simply induces the primary party to do so commit the act which caused the injury.
Vicarious liability often requires the third party to have exerted some form of control over the primary party's actions.
In copyright law, vicarious liability may be established if the third party had the "right and ability to control" the infringer's activities, and if the third party received some financial benefit from the acts of infringement.
If you know you are hosting infringing content and do nothing about it you are dead.
You can't let things slide until someone rats you out.
If you are aiding the infringer in any way - or rewarding him for posting infringing content - you are dead. If you penalize the legitimate content provider you are dead.
If you are making money on the infringement you are dead.
And if you die of old age, you are dead.
I almost died of old age scrolling down. You didn't have to quote the entire post.
People in general (mac users more so?) have a high opinion of themselves and believe they make good decisions. Macs cost 4 (or more?) times the cost of an equivalent PC. In order to avoid cognitive dissonance, they convince themselves they made a great decision when in reality they are getting ripped off.
Slashdot Mirror
Jobs isn't exactly Borg though.
How about Raven, the elitist asshole for the icon?
I agree. The borg assimilate, Jobs is more interested in controlling fanatics. Give him the pope's hat.
Wikileaks have always claimed to work by receiving information from sources who were privileged with access to the information, and who elected to leak it to Wikileaks out of duty to their conscience.
Oh, well as long as they claim to not hack systems, I see no reason not to trust them. I hereby proclaim Wikileaks to be an honest company because that's my opinion so it must be fact!
The strawman industry is booming in Trollsville.
xkcd
Also missing: users who have installed Adblock Plus and don't even see the ads.
They don't see the ads, but they still see the inconvenience of imitating the limitations of a paper format.
I would rather see rioting in the streets, than to see the millions of
I thought it was an interesting rant, but you cut off right at the good part. Are you planning to sell the sequel?
For every redneck idiot out there, there is a white lab coat idiot out there.
I agree with you that propaganda finds a lot more buyers when people are discussing politics, but I imagine there is a smaller proportion of "white lab coat idiots" than "redneck idiots". Politics is quite similar to religion (people don't need evidence, have faith in your party) and you also see a difference in proportions between different demographics. In general though, if someone thinks their party is so great (even if they admit some small problems), then they might just want to reevaluate the evidence
If someone does a Google search, they may, just possibly, find out the truth about something.
Doubtful. People will search for things by typing in what they believe (not the counter-opinion). There is a website on the internet in support of any opinion, whether they are blogs or more "authoritative" sources. The people that would actually believe something without personally researching it are also the people that would believe these sources without digging deeper. The people that listen to his advice not to use google wouldn't bother searching for evidence anyway.
One additional factor is that people don't like to admit they're wrong and especially don't like to change their minds. Even if they are provided evidence contrary to their opinion, that just reinforces their opinion (again, I'm talking about only a certain sort of people; ?Glenn Beck's listeners? might be a subset).
1. The right tends to put atheists on the same level as rapid bears in the city.
That's making light of the situation. People don't understand that rapid bears are very dangerous because not only do you need to outrun the slowest runner, but you also need to outrun the bear itself (which is difficult, them being rapid and all).
OT: PS to Slashdot coders: I'd really like to be able to use Firefox's spellchecker in here again. It highlights misspelled words but I can't correct them with it ever since you forced this dumb new layout on us. Same with italic tags not working anymore. Have you ever heard the phrase "if it aint broken don't fix it"?
OT: Spelling correction works fine for me on Ubuntu + Firefox. Right-click and it shows a list of suggestions. Maybe your problem is something else?
Meet the new media, same as the old media.
That's funny. My car is essentially crap in the street.
And considering that you can make ethanol from hay, then I'll be looking for your car at the next Kentucky Derby.
Well, they can't find people who didn't pay, so it's basically just a donation box. If you want to clear your guilty conscience (yeah, right) or get a certificate or something, you can donate to the government.
a massive suit for monitoring and logging of data for purposes not stipulated in the contract
Which contract? You mean the one nobody reads?
Don't ride the yellow unicorns.
I have heard about fetishes with inanimate objects, but those people probably wouldn't visit (human) prostitutes in the first place.
Salute Sir, I am releasing a new game next week. In your honor I will price it at .99 cents, enjoy.
He tried to write "DIA", but it came out "IDA" for some reason.
I'm shocked and amazed, if even an amateur historian hasn't heard about this, it must be an amazing discovery
You might be right if we were being pedantic.
I agree. He definitely said that. It's not true that quotes are frequently misquoted and misattributed. We should definitely believe he said that. No evidence necessary.
I suppose dividing humans into arbitrary factions is better than providing a two party system where each party represents such a wide conglomeration of beliefs that nobody is satisfied. Of all the combinations of political opinions, there are two that are consistently voted for, never mind the fact that many party principles are completely separable.
That makes me wonder why your blinding hatred is focused on only the Tea Party and not the Two Party(R+D) in general.
Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.
Democrats did better in this case, but don't give them too much credit. "Almost every" in my mind means 90-99%. Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, but so did 35% of democrats. I just want to point out that if each party had half the house and 1/3 of democrats supports a bill: 1/2 + 1/3*1/2 = 2/3 (enough to pass). The bill only lost by rounding error.
They could still only legally have their own content up.
Well if they're anything like the RIAA, that means all content to them.
Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?
Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions. ...
Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)].
If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)].
The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].
Question: What is third-party liability, also known as "secondary liability"?
Answer: The concept of third party liability refers, as the name implies, to situations in which responsibility for harm can be placed on a party in addition to the one that actually caused the injury. The most common example comes from tort law: a customer in a grocery store drops a bottle of wine and another customer slips on the puddle and injures himself; he may bring an action for negligence against the customer who dropped the bottle and against the owner of the grocery store. Under the common law doctrine of third-party liability, a plaintiff must show not only that an injury actually occurred, but also (in most cases) that some sort of connection existed between the third party and the person who actually caused the injury.
As such the concept of third-party liability is often divided into two different types: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.
Typically, contributory infringement exists when the third party either assists in the commission of the act which causes the injury, or simply induces the primary party to do so commit the act which caused the injury.
Vicarious liability often requires the third party to have exerted some form of control over the primary party's actions.
In copyright law, vicarious liability may be established if the third party had the "right and ability to control" the infringer's activities, and if the third party received some financial benefit from the acts of infringement.
Frequently Asked Questions (And Answers) about DMCA Safe Harbor
If you know you are hosting infringing content and do nothing about it you are dead.
You can't let things slide until someone rats you out.
If you are aiding the infringer in any way - or rewarding him for posting infringing content - you are dead. If you penalize the legitimate content provider you are dead.
If you are making money on the infringement you are dead.
And if you die of old age, you are dead.
I almost died of old age scrolling down. You didn't have to quote the entire post.
People in general (mac users more so?) have a high opinion of themselves and believe they make good decisions. Macs cost 4 (or more?) times the cost of an equivalent PC. In order to avoid cognitive dissonance, they convince themselves they made a great decision when in reality they are getting ripped off.