Yeah, this really seems like they're stretching for something to criticize Wikileaks over. Or, maybe more accurately: they're looking for something to criticize Wikileaks' methods over. This stuff feels like they're trying to promote the position that having secrets is good, rather than trying to discredit Wikileaks specifically.
Well... according to the study it works for submerging your hand in an ice water bath. If that's what you were using the aspirin for then you're in luck (provided you're male).
HW Statistics is only part of what Unity collects. There was a question about this in the Unity forums at one point (now missing...) and a Unity rep said specifically that the only way to avoid collecting data on end users was to use an older version of Unity. They didn't specify how old, but the person had asked about 4.7.2 and the rep said something like, "Definitely older than that."
I wish I could find that post, but they've shuffled around the forums and I guess it was in one of the ones that they removed.
You're certainly correct, but I find this case to be particularly egregious for the reason that it steps in-between the developer and the customer. And yes, you might point out again that everyone wants to be a middle man as well, from Apple to Google to Valve, that direct producer-customer relationship has been eaten away at. Everyone wants a piece of what other people are making.
It feels like a new thing though, another step that hasn't yet been taken, when even the tools that I use to make a thing are claiming a stake in the product, and dictating to me what my relationship with my customers will be.
Ugh, I'm blowing mods to post this but it has to be known more broadly: Unity is already spyware and has been for a while. Analytics is integrated into the editor, and while it used to be opt-out ever since Unity 5.0 it's been impossible for free users to disable. (Pro users still? have that option) Additionally, any games that you make with Unity also spy on your customers, even if you don't include Unity analytics or Unity ads. Naturally, if you do include those things your games will collect even more information, and Unity will graciously share some of that information with you, but it's not possible to make a spyware-free game with Unity.
In that respect, this seems like a savvy pairing between companies.
Nintendo is under no obligation to shut down fan projects. Someone started a rumor at one point that companies act like dicks all the time then they lose all protection under the law - this is not the case. However, in this instance I don't see that Nintendo is doing anything wrong. Making a fan game is all well and good, but soliciting donations for it is a giant breech of conduct.
Notable: judging from the number of upvotes and downvotes on this one, this (or the parent comment anyway) is apparently the most contentious post I've ever made.
The idea of being stuck in a MS walled garden may sound bad to you (it does to me) but I love the idea of its existence. With viable competition, developers may look around and build for for multiple gardens instead of just doing a Steam release and thinking that's enough. And some of them, a few, are going to look around and say, "Bah, that's too much trouble." and do the the one release which works everywhere - DRM free.
Yeah, maybe I'm being overly optimistic. I'm not expecting most of the big publishers to give up their much-beloved software activation, but there have been more and more DRM-free releases over time and any move away from a single Steam monopoly can only help that trend.
The revelation appears to contradict officials' previous assurances that despite the emerald hue, which first appeared Tuesday, the waters were safe.
How does this work? You don't want tons of algae growing in your pool, but there's nothing particularly dangerous about it. It reduces the ability of chlorine to sanitize the water, which still doesn't make the pools "unsafe", and since they reportedly dumped in a bunch of extra chlorine anyway (that's what was irritating the athletes' eyes)... Again, how does this contradict the officials' previous statements?
I'm not a pool expert, maybe there's something I don't know here, but you can't just throw in a sentence like that and offer nothing to back it up. I even checked the article and everything (going above and beyond here) - nada.
"their words are taking away my freedom, so they must be muzzled" are likely to be, by co-incidence, those who identify as left.
This is just false, everyone makes the freedom argument for every single issue. "What, they're teaching science in schools? This impinges on my freedom of religion, they must be muzzled." Etc. It's one of those rules: when people talk about politics it is inevitable that, giving enough time, all parties will make the claim that their position is necessary for supporting freedom and spreading democracy and stopping terrorists and stopping child pornography and promoting small government and it's what the founders really intended anyway, isn't it?
I'm not following the rest of what you're saying here. I made the claim that someone who does not support free speech is less far to the left than someone who does.... So what? The left doesn't have a tone. The only thing which defines the left is an anti-establishment drive. Does that qualify as a tone? There's no unity of purpose in that.
This is really a good point. The left is anti-establishment, by definition, and free speech exists in order to enable the challenge of established norms. The idea that "the left" would be opposed to free speech is antithetical.
The grandparent's claim that the left has started to "view free speech as being a bad thing" is false for the obvious reason that these people are, at most, a small subset of the left. But it's further challenged by the notion that opposing free speech necessarily means that you are not as far left as you would otherwise be.
To answer the grandparent's implied question of, "How can someone who otherwise identifies with left-leaning issues oppose free speech?" the answer is probably that speech can also be used to stifle dissent and that these people have double-thought themselves into believing the notion that it's possible to censor just that speech, while retaining all of the important freedom that good, useful, anti-establishment speech requires.
It seems silly that they would believe this, but if they get insulted a lot and they say something like, "Hey, stop insulting me." and the other person says, "Nuh uh, free speech!" then they might start thinking negative things about free speech. Anyone from the US who's reading this has probably experienced someone doing something really asinine and, when challenged on it, had them barf out the response of, "It's a free country!" and gone right on being an ass. Same deal.
What is the massive data gathering that Firefox does? This is a serious question, the fact that they seem to be the only browser maker who's cares about privacy, even a little, is the whole reason why I use Firefox.
Need I point out the irony in myself making an unsubstantiated claim about the lack of need for substantiation, you asking for substantiation, and then making your own unsubstantiated claim and getting modded up to +5 for it? Yeah, I think I do.
Here's an article about CNN firing another group of reporters, despite making more than enough money to pay them. They've had several rounds of this in recent years, firing their investigative staff, with the stated reason being a realization that they just weren't necessary anymore.
That's Reddit. Their moderation system ensures that anything controversial gets buried - seems like something that a campaign could manipulate fairly easily. They might not even have to. Reddit has lost a lot of points lately for censorship, but even so I wouldn't assume that's what happened in that case.
There was a time when the audience cared more about the honesty and accuracy of the journalists, or at least there was a belief that the audience felt this way. What has changed is the realization that a "news organization" can reap greater profits by keeping the money which they would otherwise spend on investigative reporting, and instead retain and in fact grow their audience through pandering.
People talk all kinds of shit about Obama too, all the time. That's basically what Twitter is for. But if Trump did a high-profile Q&A on Twitter, you can bet it would be censored. At least it would have been prior to this story being published, now it's going to depend on this reaction.
Well yes they've never seen the benefit, that's the whole problem - these sorts of benefits are invisible. It's a very common issue: is it really worth investing in rehabilitation and crime prevention? No one expects to get robbed, it's not a surprising day when a mugger doesn't hold you up. When people hear about crime they think, "We need more police to go get that criminal." not, "How can we convince this criminal to stop committing crimes?" Both approaches work, but the second option is way more effective. Same for international relations: "Spend more on aid?" or, "Buy a few more tanks?" Or how about: is it really worth investing in IT? No one throws a party for not losing the company's data.
Or investing in infrastructure or education: even though the benefits are well documented, they're mostly invisible. Tanks and police are something you can see.
From my understanding of driving conditions in China, it would take a pretty miraculous AI to prevent accidents there. It seems as though these driving assists and self-driving cars are going to have to be region-specific.
Do you seriously believe that that's in the bill as it's been written? You see that and think to yourself: "This confirms my worldview of stupid evil lawmakers. I believe this 100%, it couldn't possibly just be lazy reporting."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, this really seems like they're stretching for something to criticize Wikileaks over. Or, maybe more accurately: they're looking for something to criticize Wikileaks' methods over. This stuff feels like they're trying to promote the position that having secrets is good, rather than trying to discredit Wikileaks specifically.
Well... according to the study it works for submerging your hand in an ice water bath. If that's what you were using the aspirin for then you're in luck (provided you're male).
If you call them out on it then they can refute it. This is SCO tactics, and Oracle is going to milk it for as long as they can.
There couldn't have been a worse company to buy Sun, even Microsoft would have been preferable.
HW Statistics is only part of what Unity collects. There was a question about this in the Unity forums at one point (now missing...) and a Unity rep said specifically that the only way to avoid collecting data on end users was to use an older version of Unity. They didn't specify how old, but the person had asked about 4.7.2 and the rep said something like, "Definitely older than that."
I wish I could find that post, but they've shuffled around the forums and I guess it was in one of the ones that they removed.
You're certainly correct, but I find this case to be particularly egregious for the reason that it steps in-between the developer and the customer. And yes, you might point out again that everyone wants to be a middle man as well, from Apple to Google to Valve, that direct producer-customer relationship has been eaten away at. Everyone wants a piece of what other people are making.
It feels like a new thing though, another step that hasn't yet been taken, when even the tools that I use to make a thing are claiming a stake in the product, and dictating to me what my relationship with my customers will be.
Ugh, I'm blowing mods to post this but it has to be known more broadly: Unity is already spyware and has been for a while. Analytics is integrated into the editor, and while it used to be opt-out ever since Unity 5.0 it's been impossible for free users to disable. (Pro users still? have that option) Additionally, any games that you make with Unity also spy on your customers, even if you don't include Unity analytics or Unity ads. Naturally, if you do include those things your games will collect even more information, and Unity will graciously share some of that information with you, but it's not possible to make a spyware-free game with Unity.
In that respect, this seems like a savvy pairing between companies.
Nintendo is under no obligation to shut down fan projects. Someone started a rumor at one point that companies act like dicks all the time then they lose all protection under the law - this is not the case. However, in this instance I don't see that Nintendo is doing anything wrong. Making a fan game is all well and good, but soliciting donations for it is a giant breech of conduct.
Notable: judging from the number of upvotes and downvotes on this one, this (or the parent comment anyway) is apparently the most contentious post I've ever made.
Weird.
The idea of being stuck in a MS walled garden may sound bad to you (it does to me) but I love the idea of its existence. With viable competition, developers may look around and build for for multiple gardens instead of just doing a Steam release and thinking that's enough. And some of them, a few, are going to look around and say, "Bah, that's too much trouble." and do the the one release which works everywhere - DRM free.
Yeah, maybe I'm being overly optimistic. I'm not expecting most of the big publishers to give up their much-beloved software activation, but there have been more and more DRM-free releases over time and any move away from a single Steam monopoly can only help that trend.
The revelation appears to contradict officials' previous assurances that despite the emerald hue, which first appeared Tuesday, the waters were safe.
How does this work? You don't want tons of algae growing in your pool, but there's nothing particularly dangerous about it. It reduces the ability of chlorine to sanitize the water, which still doesn't make the pools "unsafe", and since they reportedly dumped in a bunch of extra chlorine anyway (that's what was irritating the athletes' eyes)... Again, how does this contradict the officials' previous statements?
I'm not a pool expert, maybe there's something I don't know here, but you can't just throw in a sentence like that and offer nothing to back it up. I even checked the article and everything (going above and beyond here) - nada.
God damn criminals, coming to the US illegally, what the hell were they thinking? We should get rid of all of those people. Also their decedents.
George Washington = anchor baby
"their words are taking away my freedom, so they must be muzzled" are likely to be, by co-incidence, those who identify as left.
This is just false, everyone makes the freedom argument for every single issue. "What, they're teaching science in schools? This impinges on my freedom of religion, they must be muzzled." Etc. It's one of those rules: when people talk about politics it is inevitable that, giving enough time, all parties will make the claim that their position is necessary for supporting freedom and spreading democracy and stopping terrorists and stopping child pornography and promoting small government and it's what the founders really intended anyway, isn't it?
I'm not following the rest of what you're saying here. I made the claim that someone who does not support free speech is less far to the left than someone who does.... So what? The left doesn't have a tone. The only thing which defines the left is an anti-establishment drive. Does that qualify as a tone? There's no unity of purpose in that.
This is really a good point. The left is anti-establishment, by definition, and free speech exists in order to enable the challenge of established norms. The idea that "the left" would be opposed to free speech is antithetical.
The grandparent's claim that the left has started to "view free speech as being a bad thing" is false for the obvious reason that these people are, at most, a small subset of the left. But it's further challenged by the notion that opposing free speech necessarily means that you are not as far left as you would otherwise be.
To answer the grandparent's implied question of, "How can someone who otherwise identifies with left-leaning issues oppose free speech?" the answer is probably that speech can also be used to stifle dissent and that these people have double-thought themselves into believing the notion that it's possible to censor just that speech, while retaining all of the important freedom that good, useful, anti-establishment speech requires.
It seems silly that they would believe this, but if they get insulted a lot and they say something like, "Hey, stop insulting me." and the other person says, "Nuh uh, free speech!" then they might start thinking negative things about free speech. Anyone from the US who's reading this has probably experienced someone doing something really asinine and, when challenged on it, had them barf out the response of, "It's a free country!" and gone right on being an ass. Same deal.
What is the massive data gathering that Firefox does? This is a serious question, the fact that they seem to be the only browser maker who's cares about privacy, even a little, is the whole reason why I use Firefox.
Apparently because they can't even get the other platforms working right. I imagine this is why you don't often see big games coming from small teams.
Need I point out the irony in myself making an unsubstantiated claim about the lack of need for substantiation, you asking for substantiation, and then making your own unsubstantiated claim and getting modded up to +5 for it? Yeah, I think I do.
Here's an article about CNN firing another group of reporters, despite making more than enough money to pay them. They've had several rounds of this in recent years, firing their investigative staff, with the stated reason being a realization that they just weren't necessary anymore.
That's Reddit. Their moderation system ensures that anything controversial gets buried - seems like something that a campaign could manipulate fairly easily. They might not even have to. Reddit has lost a lot of points lately for censorship, but even so I wouldn't assume that's what happened in that case.
Ha! Oh, that's sad...
There was a time when the audience cared more about the honesty and accuracy of the journalists, or at least there was a belief that the audience felt this way. What has changed is the realization that a "news organization" can reap greater profits by keeping the money which they would otherwise spend on investigative reporting, and instead retain and in fact grow their audience through pandering.
People talk all kinds of shit about Obama too, all the time. That's basically what Twitter is for. But if Trump did a high-profile Q&A on Twitter, you can bet it would be censored. At least it would have been prior to this story being published, now it's going to depend on this reaction.
Well yes they've never seen the benefit, that's the whole problem - these sorts of benefits are invisible. It's a very common issue: is it really worth investing in rehabilitation and crime prevention? No one expects to get robbed, it's not a surprising day when a mugger doesn't hold you up. When people hear about crime they think, "We need more police to go get that criminal." not, "How can we convince this criminal to stop committing crimes?" Both approaches work, but the second option is way more effective. Same for international relations: "Spend more on aid?" or, "Buy a few more tanks?" Or how about: is it really worth investing in IT? No one throws a party for not losing the company's data.
Or investing in infrastructure or education: even though the benefits are well documented, they're mostly invisible. Tanks and police are something you can see.
From my understanding of driving conditions in China, it would take a pretty miraculous AI to prevent accidents there. It seems as though these driving assists and self-driving cars are going to have to be region-specific.
Unfortunately, politicians may get elected based on their entertainment value but then they do make decisions. Important, influential decisions.
Despite all of that apparently there's already been a shootout over a busload of basketball reporters, with six fatalities. Link
Do you seriously believe that that's in the bill as it's been written? You see that and think to yourself: "This confirms my worldview of stupid evil lawmakers. I believe this 100%, it couldn't possibly just be lazy reporting."