I have an agenda that the police don't slaughter innocent citizens.
I'd be honest, that leaves a massive loop hole that allows the police to murder 90% of the population because we've all done something at some point. My agenda is that the police shouldn't be slaughtering anyone unless there really is no alternative because someone will (not might, will, or at least almost certainly will) be killed if they don't.
I don't know how DARE is received in the US, but in the UK the anti-drugs campaigns were ineffectual for the most part because even 10 year olds know most of the claims being made about drugs are lies. We didn't know must of the stuff about Heroin, which was the big evil at the time, was bullshit, but we definitely knew that pot wasn't the terrible drug the people who visited our schools made it out to be.
Obviously it's going to be different if the person in front of you says "I lied to a SWAT team, and they killed someone."
The rights to K&R are part of the wider Unix IP package, and they definitely, via Sun, have full rights to that. C was developed as part of Unix, and K&R (at least, the first edition) was literally just a description of C under Unix.
I'm really surprised Facebook (and eBay) doesn't have a cloud service offering like the other big tech companies. They should have the hardware experience and infrastructure for it.
I'm not, would you trust them with your data?
Google vacuums up data about Internet users but it has a good record on not sharing it with third parties. Their cloud offerings are limited and you know exactly how they could be abused.
Amazon has little incentive to violate your business's privacy, yes, they use your purchase and Amazon browsing history to make recommendations, but they have never - to the best of my knowledge - strayed out of that zone, so third parties have little reason to believe they'd be abusive.
Facebook has a record of selling extremely confidential data to the highest bidder, and has shown zero scruples when it comes to privacy. No corporation in their right mind is going to trust them to host anything.
But what if I find flat-earth conspiracy videos HILARIOUS!? Does it even occur to the censors-that-be that some people find conspiracy theories entertaining?
1. How is this new policy censorship?
2. How will it prevent you in any way from watching these videos?
This is about recommendations, you know, the videos that autoplay after the one you selected if you opened it in a new browser and hadn't had a chance to turn autoplay off. It's not about what YouTube will or will not allow on its platform.
Periodic reminder that patents, copyrights, and trademarks are different things.
Patents: "I came up with this technology myself. I'm going to stop you from using it for 20 years without my permission by registering it with the patent office, who might refuse to grant a patent. It doesn't matter if you invent the same thing independently without knowing how I did it, you can't do it for 20 years." (There's also stuff called "Design patents")
Copyrights: "This creative work may not be copied, without my permission, until 70 years after my death. If you somehow manage to create the same thing yourself, don't worry, it's only if you copy my ideas that you're in trouble." (There are also special rules for recordings of specific performances, and each element of a performance of someone else's work. Also corporately owned copyrights have a different time limit, as do older works.)
Trademarks: "You can't call yourself 'Disney Trademark Lawyers' without our permission. This will be the case until we decide to stop using the trademark, or our company ceases to exist and nobody buys the trademark, or if people keep using it to describe something generic related to our business. You may use it in cases where there's no confusion, for example you can write "Oracle sucks" or start an IBM Grocery chain. My application for a trademark may sometimes be rejected but it's rare."
I know you're joking but you ended up triggering my thought train on this anyway.
As far as Unix and C goes, I think Oracle would be in the clear. They bought Sun, which gives them full rights to Solaris/SunOS. Even if that isn't enough to give them full rights to the Unix and GNU/Linux eco-system, their business is hardly dependent upon Unix technologies. Most of the stuff they sell is multiplatform.
The more interesting one is SQL. That was created by IBM as part of System R. I suspect even if this case succeeds, and APIs like SQL turn out to be copyrightable, and IBM wanted to assert its IP at this stage, it couldn't collect much in damages because it left it too long, but it might - depending on whether it's put out language in the past claiming SQL doesn't need licensing - be able to force Oracle to stop using it. Or get a license.
Would that kill Oracle? Alas, probably not. They'd probably just get a license. Bastards.
This post is about APIs, so in theory if Oracle prevails then given the Linux kernel incorporates a clean room implementation of the Unix APIs the current owner of the Unix IP would have a claim against Linux. The *BSDs might also be in the same position, depending on how the AT&T lawsuit settlement went. Scarily, C, which was also developed by Bell Labs as part of Unix, might also have the same issues.
(Whether this is possible is another question, as the creation of the POSIX standard may itself have changed things. But I see the OP's logic and it's sound.)
The problem here is that Oracle doesn't have much incentive to back down due to this argument. Technically they distribute "a" GNU/Linux distribution, but nothing they do is dependent upon it, and it's a tiny part of their business. Also as part of their purchase of Sun, they have full rights to the Unix APIs via SunOS/Solaris.
The very reason why we consider Obama a better President is that he wouldn't promise unlimited funding for someone so unnecessary. Hell, he didn't even promise unlimited funding for infrastructure, and that's still urgently needed.
It's bad enough when Trump defenders come up with "Oh, so it's bad when Trump does it but I don't hear any complaints when Obama did something that's not actually the same thing at all and was widely criticized at the time by the left", but "Oh, you'd support something completely stupid and reckless if it were proposed by someone you support precisely because he wouldn't do anything stupid and reckless" line is a whole new level of stupid.
Well, kinda. Elon would have said "I'll do it by 2018!" and then in 2020 he'd have landed a "craft", probably a Tesla Model X, in New Jersey, and everyone would clap and say "Hooray for Elon Musk, he did it!" and would have forgotten the original promise was to fly a spaceship to Mars.
I suggest you Google that because it's not true. Red hair can lead to: increased change of getting Parkinsons, and increased risk of melanoma. On a slightly less important, but none the less quality of life issue, redheads are also likely to suffer increased pain sensitivity (anesthesiologists actually use more drugs on redheads for that reason) and increased temperature sensitivity.
God Slashdot really sucks these days. Even long timers, people who (presumably) aren't Russian trolls, are convinced every time someone says "Wouldn't it be great if women and minorities didn't keep being shat on" they really are trying to attack them.
Your interpretation of the video is stupid, paranoid, and childish. I've seen you on here long enough to know you are NOT that pathetic. Ask yourself seriously how you got here.
And yes, THIS is an attack on you, but it's a supportive attack. I want the Superkendall I once knew, not this pathetic alt-rightish has-been who's mad at the world and thinks everyone's out to get him. SNAP THE FUCK OUT OF IT.
The first comment may contradict what I said, I'm not certain because it sounds to me like it refers to content negotiated before a certain date and the Hulu library has been refreshed multiple times since.
The second does not. Live TV is the service with live streams, DVR recordings, etc, and is unrelated to Hulu (No Ads). They're saying subscribing to a no-ads thing with their core service doesn't affect an unrelated service they also operate that shows what's on TV. Well duh.
I repeat again: I have never seen an ad on Hulu since I subscribed to the $11.99 service. It is in reality ad free. If I ever come across one, I'll review whether I want to keep subscribing or not.
Hulu is really shooting themselves in the foot by not making the ad-free plan the one you sign up for by default (ie is the free trial, and people only get the cheaper but with ads plan if they downgrade to it.)
Unless you're talking about product placement or something similar, then you're completely wrong on this. Hulu's $11.99 plan is ad free. I know because I subscribe to it and I've never been shown an ad since I subscribed.
I could pay for ad-free, but just don't trust that they won't pull a bait and switch.
Wait? What?
Hulu has TWO subscription plans. The distinguishing point between the two is one has ads, and one doesn't. The more expensive one doesn't.
Now (1) if you subscribe to the more expensive one, and they say "Hahah! Let's show them ads!" then what is the selling point of the more expensive one? There isn't one.
(2) You can cancel at any time. Hulu is not part of Verizon. You are not locked into a ten year contract with a $1,000 early termination fee. YOU CAN CANCEL IF THEY SHOW ADS.
If you don't like Hulu's content, then that's one thing, but saying you refuse to select the more expensive ad-free plan because they might show ads is just ridiculous.
That's true of every industry. In theory I could screw up my company by giving them substandard software. In practice my job is to do something that'll help my employer, and that's true of advertising people too.
Like software engineers most advertising people do, actually, help their employers. Even Vonage's advertising people. Yes, even them.
Back when I lived in Britain there were five TV stations in most regions (BBC1, BBC2, the local ITV "affiliate", Channel 4 (or S4C if you were unlucky enough to be Welsh), and Channel 5.
Some people also had cable.
Only the BBC channels were ad-free, and even then the gaps between shows were used for a lot of internal advertising, the BBC advertising forthcoming shows and stuff.
As I understand it, there are a few more BBC channels since everything went digital, but there are many, many, more ad-supported channels too. So people in the UK are used to watching TV with ads. In fact, assuming an even split, most would watch more content with ads than without.
The major difference between the US and UK on this is ads are regulated in the UK, one of the impacts being that generally there are fewer ad breaks. A typical 30 minute show can be interrupted once, a one hour show twice, for example. Getting ads every 3-5 minutes as you get in many cases in the US never happens in the UK. But that's very different from not having ads at all.
Correct, he could, at any time, just choose to set up his own national high bandwidth high security reliable wireless network, and create a hundred a million user friendly wireless devices that allows users to make and receive calls and exchange other data via this network without letting the operator know where they are, but nooooooooooooooooooooooooo, he'd rather just complain about it.
Or not. As the case may be.
I've never come across a person who makes Slashdotters lose their collective marbles as much as Stallman. He's to Slashdot like AOC is to conservatives, the media, and the establishment.
A corporation has a clear motivation to provide high quality service in order to keep my business. The government has no such incentive.
Neither statement is true. Corporations only have a motivation to provide the minimum service to you in order to keep your business. Comcast and Walmart are two examples of companies that are significantly worse than, say, my local DMV. In both cases they know that I'm using their services for reasons that have little or nothing to do with quality of service. Comcast is usually part of a duopoly with a similarly bad business. Walmart frequently puts local retailers out of business or makes it harder to do business with them.
And the government does have an incentive, just a different one - it's answerable to elected politicians.
Even when quality of service is "better" under private rather than public operation, it doesn't always mean the results are better. If I'm hit by a car in the US, the chances are I'll be taken care of with a higher level of service than in the UK.
But I'll go bankrupt as a result. I'd rather take my chances with the NHS.
I don't know, is the entire point of USB that it requires plugs that have to be turned 180 degrees three times to plug in correctly? How are you going to replicate that wirelessly? Is the "pair" button going to need to be pressed three times?
Or now that we have USB-C is this no longer a joke and I'm being laughed at by GenZers who never lived in a world full of five dimensional USB plugs and sockets?
This has worked for RedHat and other enterprise oriented companies with their support contract offerings. It also worked nice for existing companies -- including even Microsoft -- which uses open source partially. However if you only have a single offering, like MongoDB the situation was not as clear.
Now go through that sentence and replace "MongoDB" with literally any open source/free software project, from GCC to KDE, and you'll see the problem with it. Indeed, just restricting yourself to DBMSes from MySQL to PostgreSQL still shows that it doesn't hold up. MongoDB could rely upon contributions and maintenance from interested parties, including donations of code from parties dedicated to MongoDB via consultancy, software aggregators like RedHat, projects that use MongoDB like... uh, whoever does, and so on.
But it doesn't, and instead it goes for a "It's free (libre & gratis) until you use it" model, which just plain isn't going to work for any other company in the free software and open source communities.
I understand the concerns. But the "solution" they're talking about doesn't work with the needs of the rest of the community even if it appears to help them, so while they adopt it, they can't really expect the rest of the community to contribute to and support their project.
I'm worried about watering down the definition of "Rape" with definitions like this. Generally coercion when applied to a definition of rape refers to physical coercion, whether that's the threat of force or using an incapacitated victim.
(FWIW I don't like the use of "rape" to describe underage sex either, as it is, albeit qualified with the term "statutory", in the US.) I feel that the term gets debased as an "Anything that's evil" wildcard term, which is wrong, and what leads Slashdot idiots to claim that George Lucas "raped" them because he released some shitty recuts of his Star Wars movies, or that the RIAA "raped" them because they charged a whole $20 for a CD they wanted.)
We can say something is monstrous and evil without resorting to calling it rape. Calling it rape is just holocausting the word.
(I would hope you know me enough to know this comment is not intended to be read as suggesting that Weinstein is anything but a deeply evil person. Forcing people to choose between ending their careers and having sex with them is beyond repugnant.)
However, my gut impression is that a fake tan is usually considered a sub-category of "tan".
No dog in this fight, and don't give a shit either way, but I wouldn't be a Slashdotter if I didn't immediately jump in here and say I hope you meant to write "spray tan" not "fake tan" because a fake anything is by definition not whatever it is a fake thing of.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be honest, that leaves a massive loop hole that allows the police to murder 90% of the population because we've all done something at some point. My agenda is that the police shouldn't be slaughtering anyone unless there really is no alternative because someone will (not might, will, or at least almost certainly will) be killed if they don't.
I don't know how DARE is received in the US, but in the UK the anti-drugs campaigns were ineffectual for the most part because even 10 year olds know most of the claims being made about drugs are lies. We didn't know must of the stuff about Heroin, which was the big evil at the time, was bullshit, but we definitely knew that pot wasn't the terrible drug the people who visited our schools made it out to be.
Obviously it's going to be different if the person in front of you says "I lied to a SWAT team, and they killed someone."
The rights to K&R are part of the wider Unix IP package, and they definitely, via Sun, have full rights to that. C was developed as part of Unix, and K&R (at least, the first edition) was literally just a description of C under Unix.
I'm not, would you trust them with your data?
Google vacuums up data about Internet users but it has a good record on not sharing it with third parties. Their cloud offerings are limited and you know exactly how they could be abused.
Amazon has little incentive to violate your business's privacy, yes, they use your purchase and Amazon browsing history to make recommendations, but they have never - to the best of my knowledge - strayed out of that zone, so third parties have little reason to believe they'd be abusive.
Facebook has a record of selling extremely confidential data to the highest bidder, and has shown zero scruples when it comes to privacy. No corporation in their right mind is going to trust them to host anything.
1. How is this new policy censorship?
2. How will it prevent you in any way from watching these videos?
This is about recommendations, you know, the videos that autoplay after the one you selected if you opened it in a new browser and hadn't had a chance to turn autoplay off. It's not about what YouTube will or will not allow on its platform.
Periodic reminder that patents, copyrights, and trademarks are different things.
Patents: "I came up with this technology myself. I'm going to stop you from using it for 20 years without my permission by registering it with the patent office, who might refuse to grant a patent. It doesn't matter if you invent the same thing independently without knowing how I did it, you can't do it for 20 years." (There's also stuff called "Design patents")
Copyrights: "This creative work may not be copied, without my permission, until 70 years after my death. If you somehow manage to create the same thing yourself, don't worry, it's only if you copy my ideas that you're in trouble." (There are also special rules for recordings of specific performances, and each element of a performance of someone else's work. Also corporately owned copyrights have a different time limit, as do older works.)
Trademarks: "You can't call yourself 'Disney Trademark Lawyers' without our permission. This will be the case until we decide to stop using the trademark, or our company ceases to exist and nobody buys the trademark, or if people keep using it to describe something generic related to our business. You may use it in cases where there's no confusion, for example you can write "Oracle sucks" or start an IBM Grocery chain. My application for a trademark may sometimes be rejected but it's rare."
I know you're joking but you ended up triggering my thought train on this anyway.
As far as Unix and C goes, I think Oracle would be in the clear. They bought Sun, which gives them full rights to Solaris/SunOS. Even if that isn't enough to give them full rights to the Unix and GNU/Linux eco-system, their business is hardly dependent upon Unix technologies. Most of the stuff they sell is multiplatform.
The more interesting one is SQL. That was created by IBM as part of System R. I suspect even if this case succeeds, and APIs like SQL turn out to be copyrightable, and IBM wanted to assert its IP at this stage, it couldn't collect much in damages because it left it too long, but it might - depending on whether it's put out language in the past claiming SQL doesn't need licensing - be able to force Oracle to stop using it. Or get a license.
Would that kill Oracle? Alas, probably not. They'd probably just get a license. Bastards.
Not the OP but:
This post is about APIs, so in theory if Oracle prevails then given the Linux kernel incorporates a clean room implementation of the Unix APIs the current owner of the Unix IP would have a claim against Linux. The *BSDs might also be in the same position, depending on how the AT&T lawsuit settlement went. Scarily, C, which was also developed by Bell Labs as part of Unix, might also have the same issues.
(Whether this is possible is another question, as the creation of the POSIX standard may itself have changed things. But I see the OP's logic and it's sound.)
The problem here is that Oracle doesn't have much incentive to back down due to this argument. Technically they distribute "a" GNU/Linux distribution, but nothing they do is dependent upon it, and it's a tiny part of their business. Also as part of their purchase of Sun, they have full rights to the Unix APIs via SunOS/Solaris.
The very reason why we consider Obama a better President is that he wouldn't promise unlimited funding for someone so unnecessary. Hell, he didn't even promise unlimited funding for infrastructure, and that's still urgently needed.
It's bad enough when Trump defenders come up with "Oh, so it's bad when Trump does it but I don't hear any complaints when Obama did something that's not actually the same thing at all and was widely criticized at the time by the left", but "Oh, you'd support something completely stupid and reckless if it were proposed by someone you support precisely because he wouldn't do anything stupid and reckless" line is a whole new level of stupid.
Well, kinda. Elon would have said "I'll do it by 2018!" and then in 2020 he'd have landed a "craft", probably a Tesla Model X, in New Jersey, and everyone would clap and say "Hooray for Elon Musk, he did it!" and would have forgotten the original promise was to fly a spaceship to Mars.
Or just a Tesla. They can launch a Tesla into space with four space suited astronauts (two in the front, two in the back.) Easy-peasy.
I suggest you Google that because it's not true. Red hair can lead to: increased change of getting Parkinsons, and increased risk of melanoma. On a slightly less important, but none the less quality of life issue, redheads are also likely to suffer increased pain sensitivity (anesthesiologists actually use more drugs on redheads for that reason) and increased temperature sensitivity.
God Slashdot really sucks these days. Even long timers, people who (presumably) aren't Russian trolls, are convinced every time someone says "Wouldn't it be great if women and minorities didn't keep being shat on" they really are trying to attack them.
Your interpretation of the video is stupid, paranoid, and childish. I've seen you on here long enough to know you are NOT that pathetic. Ask yourself seriously how you got here.
And yes, THIS is an attack on you, but it's a supportive attack. I want the Superkendall I once knew, not this pathetic alt-rightish has-been who's mad at the world and thinks everyone's out to get him. SNAP THE FUCK OUT OF IT.
The first comment may contradict what I said, I'm not certain because it sounds to me like it refers to content negotiated before a certain date and the Hulu library has been refreshed multiple times since.
The second does not. Live TV is the service with live streams, DVR recordings, etc, and is unrelated to Hulu (No Ads). They're saying subscribing to a no-ads thing with their core service doesn't affect an unrelated service they also operate that shows what's on TV. Well duh.
I repeat again: I have never seen an ad on Hulu since I subscribed to the $11.99 service. It is in reality ad free. If I ever come across one, I'll review whether I want to keep subscribing or not.
Hulu is really shooting themselves in the foot by not making the ad-free plan the one you sign up for by default (ie is the free trial, and people only get the cheaper but with ads plan if they downgrade to it.)
Unless you're talking about product placement or something similar, then you're completely wrong on this. Hulu's $11.99 plan is ad free. I know because I subscribe to it and I've never been shown an ad since I subscribed.
Wait? What?
Hulu has TWO subscription plans. The distinguishing point between the two is one has ads, and one doesn't. The more expensive one doesn't.
Now (1) if you subscribe to the more expensive one, and they say "Hahah! Let's show them ads!" then what is the selling point of the more expensive one? There isn't one.
(2) You can cancel at any time. Hulu is not part of Verizon. You are not locked into a ten year contract with a $1,000 early termination fee. YOU CAN CANCEL IF THEY SHOW ADS.
If you don't like Hulu's content, then that's one thing, but saying you refuse to select the more expensive ad-free plan because they might show ads is just ridiculous.
That's true of every industry. In theory I could screw up my company by giving them substandard software. In practice my job is to do something that'll help my employer, and that's true of advertising people too.
Like software engineers most advertising people do, actually, help their employers. Even Vonage's advertising people. Yes, even them.
Back when I lived in Britain there were five TV stations in most regions (BBC1, BBC2, the local ITV "affiliate", Channel 4 (or S4C if you were unlucky enough to be Welsh), and Channel 5.
Some people also had cable.
Only the BBC channels were ad-free, and even then the gaps between shows were used for a lot of internal advertising, the BBC advertising forthcoming shows and stuff.
As I understand it, there are a few more BBC channels since everything went digital, but there are many, many, more ad-supported channels too. So people in the UK are used to watching TV with ads. In fact, assuming an even split, most would watch more content with ads than without.
The major difference between the US and UK on this is ads are regulated in the UK, one of the impacts being that generally there are fewer ad breaks. A typical 30 minute show can be interrupted once, a one hour show twice, for example. Getting ads every 3-5 minutes as you get in many cases in the US never happens in the UK. But that's very different from not having ads at all.
Correct, he could, at any time, just choose to set up his own national high bandwidth high security reliable wireless network, and create a hundred a million user friendly wireless devices that allows users to make and receive calls and exchange other data via this network without letting the operator know where they are, but nooooooooooooooooooooooooo, he'd rather just complain about it.
Or not. As the case may be.
I've never come across a person who makes Slashdotters lose their collective marbles as much as Stallman. He's to Slashdot like AOC is to conservatives, the media, and the establishment.
I kinda like him.
Neither statement is true. Corporations only have a motivation to provide the minimum service to you in order to keep your business. Comcast and Walmart are two examples of companies that are significantly worse than, say, my local DMV. In both cases they know that I'm using their services for reasons that have little or nothing to do with quality of service. Comcast is usually part of a duopoly with a similarly bad business. Walmart frequently puts local retailers out of business or makes it harder to do business with them.
And the government does have an incentive, just a different one - it's answerable to elected politicians.
Even when quality of service is "better" under private rather than public operation, it doesn't always mean the results are better. If I'm hit by a car in the US, the chances are I'll be taken care of with a higher level of service than in the UK.
But I'll go bankrupt as a result. I'd rather take my chances with the NHS.
I don't know, is the entire point of USB that it requires plugs that have to be turned 180 degrees three times to plug in correctly? How are you going to replicate that wirelessly? Is the "pair" button going to need to be pressed three times?
Or now that we have USB-C is this no longer a joke and I'm being laughed at by GenZers who never lived in a world full of five dimensional USB plugs and sockets?
Now go through that sentence and replace "MongoDB" with literally any open source/free software project, from GCC to KDE, and you'll see the problem with it. Indeed, just restricting yourself to DBMSes from MySQL to PostgreSQL still shows that it doesn't hold up. MongoDB could rely upon contributions and maintenance from interested parties, including donations of code from parties dedicated to MongoDB via consultancy, software aggregators like RedHat, projects that use MongoDB like... uh, whoever does, and so on.
But it doesn't, and instead it goes for a "It's free (libre & gratis) until you use it" model, which just plain isn't going to work for any other company in the free software and open source communities.
I understand the concerns. But the "solution" they're talking about doesn't work with the needs of the rest of the community even if it appears to help them, so while they adopt it, they can't really expect the rest of the community to contribute to and support their project.
I'm worried about watering down the definition of "Rape" with definitions like this. Generally coercion when applied to a definition of rape refers to physical coercion, whether that's the threat of force or using an incapacitated victim.
(FWIW I don't like the use of "rape" to describe underage sex either, as it is, albeit qualified with the term "statutory", in the US.) I feel that the term gets debased as an "Anything that's evil" wildcard term, which is wrong, and what leads Slashdot idiots to claim that George Lucas "raped" them because he released some shitty recuts of his Star Wars movies, or that the RIAA "raped" them because they charged a whole $20 for a CD they wanted.)
We can say something is monstrous and evil without resorting to calling it rape. Calling it rape is just holocausting the word.
(I would hope you know me enough to know this comment is not intended to be read as suggesting that Weinstein is anything but a deeply evil person. Forcing people to choose between ending their careers and having sex with them is beyond repugnant.)
No dog in this fight, and don't give a shit either way, but I wouldn't be a Slashdotter if I didn't immediately jump in here and say I hope you meant to write "spray tan" not "fake tan" because a fake anything is by definition not whatever it is a fake thing of.