So what is the crime? All they did was providing a link to a banned site. Despite their similar ideologies they are not associated in any way with Piratebay.
To be as fair as possible to your point, are you suggesting that linking to illegal/banned/infringing content is so indirect that is becomes too easy to accidentally break the law?
With the number of fake torrents (many of them uploaded by copyright holders) this is actually quite possible. Even without any mischief, there are genuine misunderstandings: some time ago I was searching for Eclipse (free software, distributed on torrent), but most of the results contained some lousy movie about teenage vampires.
But that's not what I was suggesting. The real problem is that these rules apply recursively, making a page containing a link to illegal material illegal, then making everything linking to that page illegal etc., and in the end the whole Internet becomes guilty. Just look at the times Google has been accused with piracy, and how extensively they have to censor search results just to evade lawsuits. They are a neutral search engine operating in good faith but they still get legal threats from time to time. And a party that links to a site that tracks torrents for it's users some of which link to infringing material is even more indirect.
In any case there is exactly one person committing infringement, the one who uploaded the infringing material. Holding the whole Internet responsible for the actions of one is unjust.
If the latter, I would argue it is similar to rich individuals or companies evading tax; if they find a loophole in the current laws then the government moves to close it, because their end goal is for people and corporations to pay their 'fair share' of tax. Similarly here, the end goal is to remove access to pirated content.
Are you suggesting that tracker/storage sites upload infringing materials themselves and claim it wasn't them? Those are certainly accusations that rightsholders like to make, for example it's one of the things they accuse Megaupload with. But even if the connections can't be proven (and it's much easier to prove that provided that they have access to all their data), the fines for such an act are far too big for anyone to volunteer as a strawman. Warez sites tend to be shut down quickly and firmly, but that is another business model.
So you define free speech as being free to speak anything unless it's illegal? Because that definition fits almost any activity, and does not provide any protection for free speech.
No, after user_a.age have been assigned 18, the assignment will return 18, which is true. The problem in this case is that the algorithm is overzealous, and will also flag 18- user_a males as predators.
With the media coverage the protests will hardly get forgotten. Let's leave history to the historians of the future, they will be the ones to know what events were important to worth mentioning.
Why not spend the money on education materials, or web sites explaining the sexual predators techniques so at risk populations can be smarter, rather than helping governments build Skynet?
My bet is that they are not spending money but earning it, planning to sell this tool to all sorts of paranoids over the world.
He is right, we know too little about asteroids today to be able to predict a collision, let alone think of deflection. Before trying to come up with a plan to deflect one, we need to study them much more.
Many people like Java and it's not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. But Java applets are a different story, they will die a well-deserved death.
My high school used a web interface to track grades and other information instead of the papertrail. My old elementary school has just started the same move to digital. Many schools have class mailing lists where teachers, students and parents can communicate. Of course, transition is slow, partly because schools are heavily infested with the paper-based bureaucracy, but it is already happening, at least here in Europe.
Well I can imagine positions where one player can win without a rook, in fact chess puzzles are full of scenarios like that. I'm not saying they appear often in a real game, but their mere existence means that there are problems with this assumption.
You mean what's the difference between math and science? Mathematical truths are known for sure, scientific models are just approximations based on experiments and may or may not hold up under a certain set of specific conditions.
They didn't calculate all possible moves, but skipped every branch where analysation showed an advantage high enough for one party to be "absolutely sure" to win. So while the algorithm is very sophisticated, it technically didn't solve King's Gambit.
Slashdot Mirror
The crime is not simply linking.
So what is the crime? All they did was providing a link to a banned site. Despite their similar ideologies they are not associated in any way with Piratebay.
To be as fair as possible to your point, are you suggesting that linking to illegal/banned/infringing content is so indirect that is becomes too easy to accidentally break the law?
With the number of fake torrents (many of them uploaded by copyright holders) this is actually quite possible. Even without any mischief, there are genuine misunderstandings: some time ago I was searching for Eclipse (free software, distributed on torrent), but most of the results contained some lousy movie about teenage vampires.
But that's not what I was suggesting. The real problem is that these rules apply recursively, making a page containing a link to illegal material illegal, then making everything linking to that page illegal etc., and in the end the whole Internet becomes guilty. Just look at the times Google has been accused with piracy, and how extensively they have to censor search results just to evade lawsuits. They are a neutral search engine operating in good faith but they still get legal threats from time to time. And a party that links to a site that tracks torrents for it's users some of which link to infringing material is even more indirect.
In any case there is exactly one person committing infringement, the one who uploaded the infringing material. Holding the whole Internet responsible for the actions of one is unjust.
If the latter, I would argue it is similar to rich individuals or companies evading tax; if they find a loophole in the current laws then the government moves to close it, because their end goal is for people and corporations to pay their 'fair share' of tax. Similarly here, the end goal is to remove access to pirated content.
Are you suggesting that tracker/storage sites upload infringing materials themselves and claim it wasn't them? Those are certainly accusations that rightsholders like to make, for example it's one of the things they accuse Megaupload with. But even if the connections can't be proven (and it's much easier to prove that provided that they have access to all their data), the fines for such an act are far too big for anyone to volunteer as a strawman. Warez sites tend to be shut down quickly and firmly, but that is another business model.
But every person has different interests. And the intersection of news that interest nerds is nerdy news.
Isn't this already covered under stalking? Or does this law makes it illegal to say anything bad about anyone even on a public channel?
When linking is a crime then everyone becomes a criminal.
Clearly showing how ridiculous the idea of internet censorship is.
It's funny how you can predict the opinion of the masses before anyone has posted.
So you define free speech as being free to speak anything unless it's illegal? Because that definition fits almost any activity, and does not provide any protection for free speech.
No, after user_a.age have been assigned 18, the assignment will return 18, which is true. The problem in this case is that the algorithm is overzealous, and will also flag 18- user_a males as predators.
The joke was that all 18+ males are considered predators by some. Not that funny, I admit.
With the media coverage the protests will hardly get forgotten. Let's leave history to the historians of the future, they will be the ones to know what events were important to worth mentioning.
Why not spend the money on education materials, or web sites explaining the sexual predators techniques so at risk populations can be smarter, rather than helping governments build Skynet?
My bet is that they are not spending money but earning it, planning to sell this tool to all sorts of paranoids over the world.
Which is why he used an OR between the ages.
Because it's almost as old as the Internet.
I think many of us here could find such an algorithm useful to detect when a female is hitting on us.
He is right, we know too little about asteroids today to be able to predict a collision, let alone think of deflection. Before trying to come up with a plan to deflect one, we need to study them much more.
Many people like Java and it's not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. But Java applets are a different story, they will die a well-deserved death.
The roofs also have to be strong enough to support the weight, which means they have to be built with that purpose in mind.
I thought it referred to San Andreas.
My high school used a web interface to track grades and other information instead of the papertrail. My old elementary school has just started the same move to digital. Many schools have class mailing lists where teachers, students and parents can communicate. Of course, transition is slow, partly because schools are heavily infested with the paper-based bureaucracy, but it is already happening, at least here in Europe.
I can't say I ever heard something worth it. Long live classic rock!
Or any music played with actual instruments, for that matter.
Well I can imagine positions where one player can win without a rook, in fact chess puzzles are full of scenarios like that. I'm not saying they appear often in a real game, but their mere existence means that there are problems with this assumption.
You mean what's the difference between math and science? Mathematical truths are known for sure, scientific models are just approximations based on experiments and may or may not hold up under a certain set of specific conditions.
Or Fischer chess.
They didn't calculate all possible moves, but skipped every branch where analysation showed an advantage high enough for one party to be "absolutely sure" to win. So while the algorithm is very sophisticated, it technically didn't solve King's Gambit.
This is neither about science, nor technology. It's not even a political article that at least has some tiny connection to one of them.