I... might agree with you on something else, but this is the difference between forcing someone to do something and forcing someone not to do something. That's not a minor difference, that's a big deal. To my knowledge it hasn't been tested in court, so you may be right there, but a judge would have to bend pretty far backwards in order to make that work.
Well, the way the canary works is that you don't remove it yourself. It's removed automatically if you don't periodically reconfirm that you haven't been served with a warrant (or National Security Letter).
I would like to read those laws. I'm familiar with gag orders, but not with anything that can require you to say something you don't want to say. That would invalidate that whole warrent canary thing that a lot of privacy-minded groups are doing.
Can you tell me where I might find the text of these laws? Or maybe just a name so I can find it for myself?
The specific limitations of commentary platforms encourage certain types of communication. Twitter's 140 character limit allows for no nuance and seems to only support only the kind of jingoism which leads to extreme positions online, coming out in the form of endless flame wars, and I can certainly see how it could play some role in promoting extreme positions offline as well.
I blame Twitter for a large share of Gamergate, for example.
Well I didn't read all your links, but I did read the first one: the senator is drawing a parallel between the RICO lawsuit which was successfully filed against the tobacco companies, showing that they deceived the public and compromised public health in pursuit of greater profits, and the oil companies who are doing the same thing today. This is a perfectly reasonable comparison to make.
Despite what you say, the senator is not calling for anyone to be imprisoned. He is suggesting the filing of a civil lawsuit.
I hope that the rest of your links are less deceitful, it can't be that hard to find some nut who's saying something outrageous.
NY, NJ, and ILL do not have the most corrupt politicians in the country, they're just populous enough that you hear about it when their politicians go bad. Mining companies essentially own Idaho and Montana, so much that Montana had a law specifically trying to reign that in (removed by the Citizens United decision).
Really, if you accept corruption as a given, the fact that people still hear about it and get up in arms over it in some places should be a little encouraging - those people aren't so beaten down yet that they just shrug and move on when they hear about one of their politicians doing something bad.
The Reddit thing is the notable part, and bizarre. A very odd choice. It seems likely they're doing it for publicity - no different from Facebook integration. It's just a workshop after all, and doing something weird like this can draw people in.
Amazon's app asks every time it wants to access something? That's not how apps work on my phone - they just ask for blanket permissions once at install and then they do whatever they want after that. If you don't grant them permission to do whatever they want then they don't install. Here, I downloaded the Amazon Appstore App just to see what you're talking about. Thought maybe I had misjudged it for a second there. This is from the AndroidManifest. I see it demands your location, ability to send SMS, network access (this is expected, but is notable when combined with reading your location), and the ominous COLLECT_METRICS, but I don't know exactly what that one means:
Google's not okay, but Amazon is just fine? I'm not sure I follow that. I just firewall my phone and don't let anything through except the web browser and the Humble Bundle app (for games). Games that I get through the Humble Bundle are ostensibly DRM-free (they're not doing as well with this as they used to) so it's not a problem that none of them have network access.
He's constantly befuddled by how hard it is to deal with people that have hundreds upon hundreds of years of war and bloodshed between them with a sizable percentage that only know hatred for everyone who isn't one of them.
This kind of language is counter-productive. There has been discontent in the middle east for a long time, but the current groups have been in open conflict only since 1945 and have been hostile for less than one hundred years. A peaceful resolution is certainly possible, given some significant changes in leadership. Those changes are coming - the people maintaining this conflict are primarily the old guard, the same people who started this conflict.
What? Of course that stuff has bearing on policy. How much land your house sits on, how much people move around in the country, how feasible it is for the population to cook their own meals, how many people are employed and what they do... How could that not impact policy making?
Don't answer that, I already know how and why it doesn't impact policy making.::sigh:: I don't need to hear it again.
That's a link to that annoying "Let me Google that for you" site, for anyone who hasn't already clicked on it.
I'm posting to undo my upmod, this kind of asshole snark contributes nothing to a conversation. If you disagree with the GP's comment about Kotaku then by all means disagree. There's no need to be a jerk about it.
The point of keeping the fire extinguisher as single-purpose is to insure its reliability. If you use it to club a burgler you don't know that it hasn't been damaged somehow.
They're actually only good for one fire each, even if you don't use up all the CO2 - once you've it once, a little residue will get into the valve and the rest will slowly leak over time.
This is one of those things that's gotten too far out of hand. Now is not the time to have a rational conversation, that's impossible, now is the time to sit on it for a while so that we can come back to it later without quite so much yelling.
That's certainly true, this has a long history. We are even now engaged in a public debate over whether gay people should be allowed to get married where the principle argument is, "Why should someone else get to decide who is allowed to fall in love?" Prohibiting relationships that certain people don't like is a longstanding tradition.
Uh huh. You're saying two separate things there. One: "The imbalance of power between an academic adviser and a student is too large for there to be any reasonable concept of consent." and two: "He can take years from her life, possibly ruin her academic future."
The second thing is possibly true, and we can all agree that that situation is very bad if and when it happens. When you say the first thing all that I hear is, "I am the one who decides who can and can not be a couple. People must ask me for permission before they are allowed to fall in love, and woe onto they who defy me."
Are you deliberately misreading that? It's not like "playing hard to get" was a phrase that some rapist just made up one day, it's a real thing that really happens. A lot. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, it's still a real thing that really happens. A lot.
The recycling argument is a weak one, especially when it comes to plastic. New plastic is cheap enough that recycling plastic isn't sufficiently profitable to put a lot of effort into it. Unlike aluminum. So plastic recycling options aren't as readily available and companies which collect the trash don't put as much effort into fishing out the plastics for recycling. Ultimately, disposable plastic bottles just shouldn't be used at all.
This is what the poster up towards the top of the thread was saying, then another person chipped in with that, "What? You just want to put companies out of business?" nonsense, etc.
To answer your question: there are many ways that the profusion of plastic bottles in our oceans is the drink companies' fault. Most are pretty benign, just one aspect of that business. For example: why do we have plastic bottles in the first place? Most countries still use glass bottles for their soda. Reason: Americans treat their sodas as drinks rather than as snacks. If you go someplace and buy a soda and drink it there, on the spot, and return the bottle, then it can be washed and reused. This is cheaper and more environmentally friendly and really better in every respect than plastic. Americans aren't willing to do this though, they want to take the bottles with them and glass would make that more expensive.
Why do Americans want to do this? It has a lot to do with how we look at labor and time, which makes it possible here and not in many other places, but it's also about marketing: encouraging this lead to more sales.
This does not mean that the entirety of the blame rests on the drink companies. Obviously that person should have recycled their plastic bottle, but it would be better for everyone (except drink company shareholders) if that plastic bottle didn't exist in the first place.
Yes, he's getting special treatment. Yes, that's bad. Responding with the suggestion that he should be brought down to your level makes the problem worse, not better. The constructive response is: "They should not have done that to him, or to anyone else."
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
I... might agree with you on something else, but this is the difference between forcing someone to do something and forcing someone not to do something. That's not a minor difference, that's a big deal. To my knowledge it hasn't been tested in court, so you may be right there, but a judge would have to bend pretty far backwards in order to make that work.
Well, the way the canary works is that you don't remove it yourself. It's removed automatically if you don't periodically reconfirm that you haven't been served with a warrant (or National Security Letter).
I would like to read those laws. I'm familiar with gag orders, but not with anything that can require you to say something you don't want to say. That would invalidate that whole warrent canary thing that a lot of privacy-minded groups are doing.
Can you tell me where I might find the text of these laws? Or maybe just a name so I can find it for myself?
The specific limitations of commentary platforms encourage certain types of communication. Twitter's 140 character limit allows for no nuance and seems to only support only the kind of jingoism which leads to extreme positions online, coming out in the form of endless flame wars, and I can certainly see how it could play some role in promoting extreme positions offline as well.
I blame Twitter for a large share of Gamergate, for example.
Well I didn't read all your links, but I did read the first one: the senator is drawing a parallel between the RICO lawsuit which was successfully filed against the tobacco companies, showing that they deceived the public and compromised public health in pursuit of greater profits, and the oil companies who are doing the same thing today. This is a perfectly reasonable comparison to make.
Despite what you say, the senator is not calling for anyone to be imprisoned. He is suggesting the filing of a civil lawsuit.
I hope that the rest of your links are less deceitful, it can't be that hard to find some nut who's saying something outrageous.
NY, NJ, and ILL do not have the most corrupt politicians in the country, they're just populous enough that you hear about it when their politicians go bad. Mining companies essentially own Idaho and Montana, so much that Montana had a law specifically trying to reign that in (removed by the Citizens United decision).
Really, if you accept corruption as a given, the fact that people still hear about it and get up in arms over it in some places should be a little encouraging - those people aren't so beaten down yet that they just shrug and move on when they hear about one of their politicians doing something bad.
The Reddit thing is the notable part, and bizarre. A very odd choice. It seems likely they're doing it for publicity - no different from Facebook integration. It's just a workshop after all, and doing something weird like this can draw people in.
Amazon's app asks every time it wants to access something? That's not how apps work on my phone - they just ask for blanket permissions once at install and then they do whatever they want after that. If you don't grant them permission to do whatever they want then they don't install. Here, I downloaded the Amazon Appstore App just to see what you're talking about. Thought maybe I had misjudged it for a second there. This is from the AndroidManifest. I see it demands your location, ability to send SMS, network access (this is expected, but is notable when combined with reading your location), and the ominous COLLECT_METRICS, but I don't know exactly what that one means:
permission android:name="com.amazon.mShop.android.permission.C2D_MESSAGE" android:protectionLevel="signature"/
uses-permission android:name="com.amazon.mShop.android.permission.C2D_MESSAGE"/
uses-permission android:name="com.android.launcher.permission.INSTALL_SHORTCUT"/
uses-permission android:name="com.android.launcher.permission.READ_SETTINGS"/
uses-permission android:name="amazon.permission.COLLECT_METRICS"/
uses-permission android:name="android.permission.READ_CONTACTS"/
uses-feature android:glEsVersion="0x20000" android:required="true"/
permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.settings.provider.CONTENT_PROVIDER_ACCESS" android:protectionLevel="signature"/
uses-permission android:name="android.permission.SEND_SMS"/
uses-permission android:name="android.permission.INSTALL_PACKAGES"/
uses-permission android:name="android.permission.DELETE_PACKAGES"/
permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.GLOBAL_BROADCAST_com.amazon.mShop.android" android:protectionLevel="signature"/
uses-permission android:name="com.android.launcher.permission.UNINSTALL_SHORTCUT"/
uses-permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.GLOBAL_BROADCAST_com.amazon.mShop.android"/
permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.settings.SETTING_CHANGE_BROADCAST_PERMISSION" android:protectionLevel="signature"/
uses-permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.settings.SETTING_CHANGE_BROADCAST_PERMISSION"/
permission android:name="com.amazon.dcp.settings.permission.READ_SETTINGS" android:protectionLevel="signature"/
uses-permission android:name="com.amazon.dcp.sso.permission.account.changed"/
permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.download.CONTENT_PROVIDER_WRITE_com.amazon.mShop.android" android:protectionLevel="signature"/
uses-permission android:name="android.permission.INTERNET"/
uses-permission android:name="android.permission.WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE"/
uses-permission android:name="android.permission.ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE"/
uses-permission android:name="android.permission.WAKE_LOCK"/
uses-permission android:name="com.android.amazon.dcp.ota.permission.INSTALL_PACKAGES"/
permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.install.INSTALL_com.amazon.mShop.android" android:protectionLevel="signature"/
uses-permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.install.INSTALL_com.amazon.mShop.android"/
permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.install.CONTENT_PROVIDER_WRITE_com.amazon.mShop.android" android:protectionLevel="signature"/
uses-permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.install.CONTENT_PROVIDER_WRITE_com.amazon.mShop.android"/
permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.install.KICKOFF_INSTALL_com.amazon.mShop.android" android:protectionLevel="signature"/
uses-permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.install.KICKOFF_INSTALL_com.amazon.mShop.android"/
permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.install.RECEIVE_INSTALL_STATE_com.amazon.mShop.android" android:protectionLevel="signature"/
uses-permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.install.RECEIVE_INSTALL_STATE_com.amazon.mShop.android"/
permission android:name="com.amazon.mas.client.CONTENT_PROVIDER_READ
Google's not okay, but Amazon is just fine? I'm not sure I follow that. I just firewall my phone and don't let anything through except the web browser and the Humble Bundle app (for games). Games that I get through the Humble Bundle are ostensibly DRM-free (they're not doing as well with this as they used to) so it's not a problem that none of them have network access.
Probably not much. If the name that you had picked in 1986 had been xXFuckwitXx you probably would have changed it by now.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The total eradication of all opposition, i.e.: death from old age.
He's constantly befuddled by how hard it is to deal with people that have hundreds upon hundreds of years of war and bloodshed between them with a sizable percentage that only know hatred for everyone who isn't one of them.
This kind of language is counter-productive. There has been discontent in the middle east for a long time, but the current groups have been in open conflict only since 1945 and have been hostile for less than one hundred years. A peaceful resolution is certainly possible, given some significant changes in leadership. Those changes are coming - the people maintaining this conflict are primarily the old guard, the same people who started this conflict.
What? Of course that stuff has bearing on policy. How much land your house sits on, how much people move around in the country, how feasible it is for the population to cook their own meals, how many people are employed and what they do... How could that not impact policy making?
::sigh:: I don't need to hear it again.
Don't answer that, I already know how and why it doesn't impact policy making.
sources [bfy.tw].
That's a link to that annoying "Let me Google that for you" site, for anyone who hasn't already clicked on it.
I'm posting to undo my upmod, this kind of asshole snark contributes nothing to a conversation. If you disagree with the GP's comment about Kotaku then by all means disagree. There's no need to be a jerk about it.
The point of keeping the fire extinguisher as single-purpose is to insure its reliability. If you use it to club a burgler you don't know that it hasn't been damaged somehow.
They're actually only good for one fire each, even if you don't use up all the CO2 - once you've it once, a little residue will get into the valve and the rest will slowly leak over time.
How much longer do you want to wait
Well, "at all" would be a start. If we waited at all, rather than yelling continuously for over a year, something might come out of it.
Most people have something to gain from a reduction in yelling. The only people who are otherwise are those who really like to yell.
This is one of those things that's gotten too far out of hand. Now is not the time to have a rational conversation, that's impossible, now is the time to sit on it for a while so that we can come back to it later without quite so much yelling.
Or Youtube.
That's certainly true, this has a long history. We are even now engaged in a public debate over whether gay people should be allowed to get married where the principle argument is, "Why should someone else get to decide who is allowed to fall in love?" Prohibiting relationships that certain people don't like is a longstanding tradition.
Uh huh. You're saying two separate things there. One: "The imbalance of power between an academic adviser and a student is too large for there to be any reasonable concept of consent." and two: "He can take years from her life, possibly ruin her academic future."
The second thing is possibly true, and we can all agree that that situation is very bad if and when it happens. When you say the first thing all that I hear is, "I am the one who decides who can and can not be a couple. People must ask me for permission before they are allowed to fall in love, and woe onto they who defy me."
Are you deliberately misreading that? It's not like "playing hard to get" was a phrase that some rapist just made up one day, it's a real thing that really happens. A lot. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, it's still a real thing that really happens. A lot.
The recycling argument is a weak one, especially when it comes to plastic. New plastic is cheap enough that recycling plastic isn't sufficiently profitable to put a lot of effort into it. Unlike aluminum. So plastic recycling options aren't as readily available and companies which collect the trash don't put as much effort into fishing out the plastics for recycling. Ultimately, disposable plastic bottles just shouldn't be used at all.
This is what the poster up towards the top of the thread was saying, then another person chipped in with that, "What? You just want to put companies out of business?" nonsense, etc.
To answer your question: there are many ways that the profusion of plastic bottles in our oceans is the drink companies' fault. Most are pretty benign, just one aspect of that business. For example: why do we have plastic bottles in the first place? Most countries still use glass bottles for their soda. Reason: Americans treat their sodas as drinks rather than as snacks. If you go someplace and buy a soda and drink it there, on the spot, and return the bottle, then it can be washed and reused. This is cheaper and more environmentally friendly and really better in every respect than plastic. Americans aren't willing to do this though, they want to take the bottles with them and glass would make that more expensive.
Why do Americans want to do this? It has a lot to do with how we look at labor and time, which makes it possible here and not in many other places, but it's also about marketing: encouraging this lead to more sales.
This does not mean that the entirety of the blame rests on the drink companies. Obviously that person should have recycled their plastic bottle, but it would be better for everyone (except drink company shareholders) if that plastic bottle didn't exist in the first place.
This kind of jealous attitude is destructive.
Yes, he's getting special treatment. Yes, that's bad. Responding with the suggestion that he should be brought down to your level makes the problem worse, not better. The constructive response is: "They should not have done that to him, or to anyone else."