ACTA is just a proposal though. So at the moment this is a civil matter.
I mean I'm not saying this is a good thing. I'll join you in denouncing ACTA, and also I'm pretty certain the DMCA is a pretty crappy piece of legislation weighted way too far in the favour of the media cartels. I'm just saying that this particular instance isn't quite as terrible as everyone is making it out to be.
This is a civil matter. What you suggested was a criminal investigation possibly including entrapment. The two are very different in terms of level of proof required and requirements on the investigator.
There are other search engines. Bing has improved over the last year or so so it's competitive at least. And nobody would switch back if Google pulled a hissy fit if it disapproved of laws.
If you genuinely believe that they are then go ahead. They'll remove links to the specific pages you specify and not all of foxnews.com. If you're just trying to get Google to block Fox news, then Fox can legitimately sue you, and possibly (IANAL) have you charged with perjury.
Look, what we're using is the reasonable man test. Do you think the sites are hosting infringing content? If not what's the BPI's motive for complaint.
Well, based on the information they have, it's reasonable to assume that it is illicitly hosted.
This is the mistake that TPB made. You have to make it clear that the purpose of your site is not to provide links to illicit material. Google provide a legitimate service and so they're acting that way.
Now it may well be that the law can be interpreted that they don't have to do this. So they can simply respond and tell the BPI that they aren't providing this under the DMCA. Then the BPI can choose to or not to sue them and Google can spend vast amounts of money on court defending someone else's right to post copyright infringing information online.
Because we don't need that. My media needs are handled by a dedicated network media player, gaming by a Wii, and development by the machine at my office.
Re:What are these people smoking? I want some.
on
Flight of the Desktops
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But most people need neither portable use it anywhere, or heavy power. Laptops will sit on a desk quite happily, and can take an external mouse.
Common tasks are email, word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing. Any games are likely to be budget games aimed at low end systems or systems from a few years back.
Atom core processor, 1GB of RAM, 30GB of Disk pace used,mused primarily for web and email. (Actually this is a laptop). I'm probably a more typical user.
I've noticed for a while. Most of my friends with laptops don't even carry them about. The advantage is that they don't need their own entire desk. Just a bit of space on a shelf or in a cupboard. And you can use it while watching television, or show people something without going to the machine. They're better in so many ways that the price, keyboard and monitor position aren't a big issue.
Hey,I was just pointing out that it's widely accepted in various circles. Language is defined by usage. I've demonstrated splashdown is widely used as a verb.
You got any evidence that I'm wrong. I mean it's all well and good to dismiss my arguments. They're pretty weak. However, I'll take a weak argument over the none whatsoever that you've presented so far. And I'll advise you that insults just make you look stupid - at least to 50% of the people still paying attention to this thread.
I see censoring as more of a blacklisting than a selection process. You refuse material for a specific, moral reason rather than a simple categorisation. I also don't automatically see it as a bad thing. If someone wants me to clean toilets, or for that matter, do electronic engineering, I'll decline. I only do software. That's not censorship because I'm opting in. If they want me to work on a guidance system for a missile, then I'll decline and that's opting out, and would probably not be censorship per se but something akin to it.
I wouldn't expect a children's bookshop to sell porn magazines. Nor would I expect them to sell complex psychological thrillers. I don't see either of these as censorship any more than their failure to sell motorcycle parts. However, if it was a more general purpose bookshop, then refusal to stock porn is censorship. And there's nothing wrong with that in general. They're offering a choice. Some people want a "safe" place. Other bookshop are available.
So it only becomes a problem when there's no real choice. And there isn't with the app store. You can technically go for a completely different platform, and then abandon all the benefits of your iPhone. That's not really offering a choice. More of an ultimatum.
Why indeed? I think it's pretty irritating that it's so damn hard to develop for these consoles.
Mind you, in my experience, MS and Sony are a lot more helpful about explaining what can be done to fix the problems. Apple seems to offer the brick wall response.
If I run a store, I'll actively censor porn. I'll let you complain about my censorship all you want. I'll even quite happily explain to you why I'm censoring you. If you want to organise a mass campaign to reverse my censorship, or just use your persuasive skills to change my mind, I'll consider your opinion.
But the justification is subjective. The "spam" could be opt-in. The ISP could deal with a spamming customer in a slower manner that happens to be more effective. The amount of spam could be just that more spam that hits spamtraps originates from those IPs. I'm sure no RBL lists IP addresses for a single spam.
Slashdot Mirror
ACTA is just a proposal though. So at the moment this is a civil matter.
I mean I'm not saying this is a good thing. I'll join you in denouncing ACTA, and also I'm pretty certain the DMCA is a pretty crappy piece of legislation weighted way too far in the favour of the media cartels. I'm just saying that this particular instance isn't quite as terrible as everyone is making it out to be.
This is a civil matter. What you suggested was a criminal investigation possibly including entrapment. The two are very different in terms of level of proof required and requirements on the investigator.
In other words, "fair representation" means non-whites lording it over white people.
So, you believe it's right that 51% of the people can have 100% of the representation.
There is only ONE secure voting system, The Robinson Voting Method.
Apart from the way it's counted, how is this different from first past the post?
But everything's better than FPTP. It seems strange to consider alternatives and choose one of the more flawed versions.
There are other search engines. Bing has improved over the last year or so so it's competitive at least. And nobody would switch back if Google pulled a hissy fit if it disapproved of laws.
If you genuinely believe that they are then go ahead. They'll remove links to the specific pages you specify and not all of foxnews.com. If you're just trying to get Google to block Fox news, then Fox can legitimately sue you, and possibly (IANAL) have you charged with perjury.
Look, what we're using is the reasonable man test. Do you think the sites are hosting infringing content? If not what's the BPI's motive for complaint.
Well, based on the information they have, it's reasonable to assume that it is illicitly hosted.
This is the mistake that TPB made. You have to make it clear that the purpose of your site is not to provide links to illicit material. Google provide a legitimate service and so they're acting that way.
Now it may well be that the law can be interpreted that they don't have to do this. So they can simply respond and tell the BPI that they aren't providing this under the DMCA. Then the BPI can choose to or not to sue them and Google can spend vast amounts of money on court defending someone else's right to post copyright infringing information online.
Because we don't need that. My media needs are handled by a dedicated network media player, gaming by a Wii, and development by the machine at my office.
But most people need neither portable use it anywhere, or heavy power. Laptops will sit on a desk quite happily, and can take an external mouse.
Common tasks are email, word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing. Any games are likely to be budget games aimed at low end systems or systems from a few years back.
Atom core processor, 1GB of RAM, 30GB of Disk pace used,mused primarily for web and email. (Actually this is a laptop). I'm probably a more typical user.
I've noticed for a while. Most of my friends with laptops don't even carry them about. The advantage is that they don't need their own entire desk. Just a bit of space on a shelf or in a cupboard. And you can use it while watching television, or show people something without going to the machine. They're better in so many ways that the price, keyboard and monitor position aren't a big issue.
Theory means something a little different in science.
Heliocentrism is just a theory. So is plate tectonics. So is the idea that microorganisms cause illness.
That is a good question and something that disturbs me as well.
Hey,I was just pointing out that it's widely accepted in various circles. Language is defined by usage. I've demonstrated splashdown is widely used as a verb.
You got any evidence that I'm wrong. I mean it's all well and good to dismiss my arguments. They're pretty weak. However, I'll take a weak argument over the none whatsoever that you've presented so far. And I'll advise you that insults just make you look stupid - at least to 50% of the people still paying attention to this thread.
MEh. Most of the practitioners are peaceful.
The fact that this guy's a dangerous nutcase isn't the religion's fault. He'd find another excuse to demand blood if Islam didn't exist.
Well, I guess I can do a trivial Google search. I found a couple of articles on wikipedia where it's been used as a verb without the editors fixing it, space.com seems happy to use the verb in their 2.25pm update, and I have a PDF of a letter from a guy who appears to know what he's talking about.
A google search for "will splashdown" gives a lot more hits. Even "Splashdowned" gives a few.
Well, it is a living language.
And all words have been used first somewhere.
Most people accept splashdown as a verb. Live with it.
I see censoring as more of a blacklisting than a selection process. You refuse material for a specific, moral reason rather than a simple categorisation. I also don't automatically see it as a bad thing. If someone wants me to clean toilets, or for that matter, do electronic engineering, I'll decline. I only do software. That's not censorship because I'm opting in. If they want me to work on a guidance system for a missile, then I'll decline and that's opting out, and would probably not be censorship per se but something akin to it.
I wouldn't expect a children's bookshop to sell porn magazines. Nor would I expect them to sell complex psychological thrillers. I don't see either of these as censorship any more than their failure to sell motorcycle parts. However, if it was a more general purpose bookshop, then refusal to stock porn is censorship. And there's nothing wrong with that in general. They're offering a choice. Some people want a "safe" place. Other bookshop are available.
So it only becomes a problem when there's no real choice. And there isn't with the app store. You can technically go for a completely different platform, and then abandon all the benefits of your iPhone. That's not really offering a choice. More of an ultimatum.
Censorship is (in this case) means the deletion or removal of material on moral grounds. Seems to fit.
Why indeed? I think it's pretty irritating that it's so damn hard to develop for these consoles.
Mind you, in my experience, MS and Sony are a lot more helpful about explaining what can be done to fix the problems. Apple seems to offer the brick wall response.
If I run a store, I'll actively censor porn. I'll let you complain about my censorship all you want. I'll even quite happily explain to you why I'm censoring you. If you want to organise a mass campaign to reverse my censorship, or just use your persuasive skills to change my mind, I'll consider your opinion.
To an extent, yes. The extent increases depending on market share of the store.
So do Apple's policies permit or not permit nudity?
If so was this nudity or not?
If it is, why are Apple violating their own policies?
And if it isn't then how many other pieces have been misclassified as nudity?
If you could get that on chatroulette I'd certainly start using it.
But the justification is subjective. The "spam" could be opt-in. The ISP could deal with a spamming customer in a slower manner that happens to be more effective. The amount of spam could be just that more spam that hits spamtraps originates from those IPs. I'm sure no RBL lists IP addresses for a single spam.