Tech geeks by and large totally ignore copyright laws, have no idea how they work, have wishy-washy hand-wavy ideas they'd never accept in a math proof about it being okay to copy stuff, and go so far as to casually commit felony conspiracy copyright infringement.
Actually it's more the other way around. Copyright laws and those who control them ignore technology and have no idea how it works. these people have wishy washy hand-wavy ideas they'd never accept in a math proof about it being ok to prosecute people for doing things that are perfectly reasonable^1 and go so far as to casually accused people of felony conspiracy copyright infringement.
[1] To be clear I'm talking about in general not in this case. In this case the guy is a moron.
... to know that he's not going to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I supposed we should be impressed he can actually operate a grown up computer, thats an einstein level ability down in da hood.
4) We are not talking about damages that number in the hundreds or thousands of views, but over 6 million potential viewings.
I take issue with this. It's Deadpool one of the highest rated rated r movies or the recent era. There's no way the six million views on facebook seriously impacted this movie's ticket sales. There's no significant population who saw the movie and decided "ya know what I WAS going to see it in theatres, but now that I've seen it I'm not going."
You're using Hollywood logic. The one that states dedicated people who pirate movies and never go anywhere would totally have gone out to see Deadpool but darn it they caught it on Facebook so now they're not going. Most people who pirate were going to pirate anyway. Most people who go to movies would have seen it liked it and gone to see it anyway. I've seen Deadpool and Deadpool 2. They're pretty good theatre movies. I know I saw the second in theatres and maybe the first as well.
There is only one country in the world that regularly pretends such a thing is a conviction.
I take it you aren't familiar with the Japanese justice system. God help you if you end up accused of a crime in Japan, there's at least a 95% chance you'll end up imprisoned, even if you're actually innocent, unless your family is insanely wealthy and knows the right people to bribe. American justice is downright Utopian in comparison.
If you think American justice is bad you wouldn't want to live in the first Babylonian Dynasty. Back then they'd cut off your hand if you stole something and if you took someone's eye they'd take yours. American justice is downright Utopian in comparison.
Can't tell if you're being a smart Alec about your use of the word innocent, but the term "innocent" is rarely if ever used in US courts. The term is "not guilty". Only in cases of Perry mason style misidentification might you use the term innocent. But, furthermore, that website conveniently ignores that the vast majority of cases at this level is a result of plea bargaining. It counts as a conviction even if you plea bargain to time served.
Does the prosecution push this for non violent offenders? Hell yes. Why would you the tax payer want a 2 month jury trial for a guy charged with felony weed possession during a traffic stop?
If he didn't get a lawyer, he's an idiot. You don't accept a bargain from anyone without representation.
Know your rights.
can't tell if you're being pedantic or not about obsessing over the word innocent not being a legal term. That said plea bargains don't happen "to save the tax payers the expense of a 2 month jury trial" they happen because the prosecution is allowed to throw all the charges at someone until something sticks via a plea bargain regardless of whether or not there's a reasonable suspicion that they are guilty a LOT of convictions arise from the prosecutors being able to levy charges that there's no way they should be able to levy. If they charge you with Murder in the first when you hit a jaywalker and broke his leg and he got sepsis and your choices are death penalty or 10 years plea bargain. There's a lot of people who take that plea bargain. It also applies on smaller scales when you're faced with 20 years and you plea down to 2. The fact that most cases are plea bargained is a bug not a feature of the current legal system.
As a conservative, I'll just say the following, "If you can't do the time, then don't be accused of doing the crime."
FTFY. Because this same pressure appears whether you're guilty or not. Innocent people go to jail all the time. It's all fun and games until you're the one under the microscope.
Facebook also made some good money on ads for those 6,386,456 views.
Facebook filtering algorithms can manage to find and ban a breastfeeding clip in about 2 millseconds, but somehow a two-hour full-blown Hollywood production was viewed over 6 million times, and was never caught? Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that one. You're right. Facebook enjoyed the shit out of that revenue.
QFT. They have custom nipple based algorithms alright they can spot the nipple on a titmouse 2 seconds before you hit submit but can't spot a Hollywood watermark until they get that sweet advertiser friendly revenue
"Oh I get it now! A 3 foot storm surge means there could be 3 feet of water on the road! Thank you weather network for explaining this with excessive graphical representation, because my mind could not possibly comprehend height of water."
Some people are idiots.
you say that but some people hear storm surge and they don't know what that means. Honestly it's an overwraught term anyway. But it does have a specific meaning and most people who don't live in typical hurricane pathways don't always know what it is.
I didn't think it was all that impressive after all it wasn't, for instance, live weather or anything. But if it convinces people in the hot zone to actually leave then more power to them.
ugh that's moronic. the battery life gain from removing something as as small as a headphone jack is not going to be enough to keep my phone powered on for any significant time. Besides that doesn't help keep my headphones charged which is yet ANOTHER thing I have to charge.
A headphone jack is simple and direct. Plug in and go. Losing it gains me barely anything but keeping it let's me use all the headphones I prefer to use. it lets me audio out to just about anything even if it doesn't have a BT adapter. I can output to my outdoor speaker without draining the battery on BT. Ugh. OP was my company but with this move I'm gonna have to move to greener pastures.
in no way does that work backwards. Trump can't block people because of who he is as a government official. If he starts gramming he can't block people either. if he has email he can't block people. It's not a function of the social media. It's a function of the presidency. The same way we as a people are allowed to block politicians, social media can ban them.
Why backwards? You have just explained to me that Trump cannot block anyone on twitter, because twitting is a "function of the presidency", in your own words.
No. tweeting isn't a function of the presidency. Trump being able to share information with the public is a function of the presidency. Blocking isn't a problem because it stops Trump from being able to listen to me. It's a problem because it stop me from being able to listen to the President. As a citizen I have the right to hear the president. It has nothing to do with twitter as a social media platform. They have ruled that his tweets count as official statements and therefore he doesn't have the right to hide those statements from anyone (via blocking).
So can twitter remove a "function of the presidency" at its own discretion? I do not think so. In fact, in the article I linked there is a statement by twitter, that enforce that point of view (because it suited them at the time): "Twitter has said that messages from world leaders like Mr Trump are inherently of public interest and argued that blocking those users or censoring certain messages would <<not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions>>". So twitter blocking Trump would harm the "public interest", _according to twitter itsef_.
Can the telephone utility company cut the phone line of the White House? No. Can the USPS stop fetching the mail at the White House? No. Is Twitter a utility? That is the real question. I would argue that it is not and that mr. Trump can block other people, and that Twitter can ban mr. Trump. A federal judge seems to argue differently, though.
Twitter can block trump because Trump can still speak to people. Tweeting is not a function of the presidency. Communication is a function of the presidency. Twitter is just one of many ways he can do that and while the 1st Amendment guarantees some means of communication he doesn't guarantee others no matter how commonplace or popular they are. Trump can be blocked from any number of services. He can be blocked from the local mall or Subway sandwich store because it's the right of the people to block anyone. But if the president says something in a sandwhich shop while he can be banned from it. It must be recorded as part of public information. Trump can go to GAB for all I care being forced to communicate via telegram doesn't over the radio because no TV channel will carry his words. Trumps tweets are important because of who he is. That applies all the way around from his tweets to his speeches to anything he says in public. That doesn't mean he has a right to literally every public space. Specifically he doesn't have a right to the privatized spaces that aren't public land like twitter and facebook. It's helpful to spread the word but he could retreat to radio and there's no legal reason he has be on Television. If the president is reduced to carrying a radio show and he blocks a state or a county or a neighborhood or a house from hearing him because they take him out of context or they're democrats or whatever nonsense he would come up with. THAT would be not only illegal but analogous to Trump blocking someone on twitter. You can't deny the president's words to any american citizen. Because that's public information. if the only way he communicates is with a newsletter he can't limit the distribution of that newsletter to people who are favored to him. This is centrally about the president's words and access to them. If he blocks someone that limits their access to public inform
> The first amendment applies to the government, not to private entities
Are you sure about that? I can cite several examples were government has regulated private industry.
One example is the tweet you responded to. The government - not twitter - decided that Trump could not block trolls.
WHAT? No. The government didn't override the social media to say Trump can't block. They overrided Trump to say he can't exercise that as a public official. If you ground a child that's not you overriding the mall's freedom of speech to have your child as a customer. It's you overriding your child's ability to go to the mall.
in no way does that work backwards. Trump can't block people because of who he is as a government official. If he starts gramming he can't block people either. if he has email he can't block people. It's not a function of the social media. It's a function of the presidency. The same way we as a people are allowed to block politicians, social media can ban them.
this needs to be a government only database because it serves a very strong need for the poor who can't maintain other forms of ID for whatever reason.
2) Kids should be taught self-control. (If you're angry, then count to 10 or 100 before you say anything. If you're losing control, then walk away so you don't hurt someone.)
3) Kids need to see their parents acting ethically, and using self-control, as a good example.
4) Kids should be taught that if you lose a game or a job or a girlfriend etc., then it's not the end of the world. Young people need to be told that; they haven't lived long enough to experience loss and recovery from loss.
When they're extremely upset over something transient, they should be told, "A year from now, this won't matter. Five years from now, you won't even remember it. If you can't see this, then just trust me on this one." That's what my parents told me, and they were right. I remember them reassuring me with these words, but I don't remember what I was so upset about.
Honestly dudes just need to learn to express themselves emotional amongst each other without calling it gay. If he had shed a few tears he probably wouldn't have been so frustrated. They should just put on Inside Out before every super manly competition as just a reminder that feelings are okay that might help reduce this sort of aggression based violence that comes from not achieving. Telling them their feelings won't matter is just dismissing the problem. When it feels like you won't make it past the next minute being told about something in the next year isn't exactly helpful in teaching someone how to deal with it now.
5) I wonder if shooters like this grew up surrounded by crowding and/or constant loud music. I can't imagine a kid who plays on swings, makes forts out of snow or cardboard boxes, and lies on his back looking at clouds, growing up to be a killer.
Your imagination is wanting. There were killings before the advent of computers. almost as if computers aren't the problem.
Politics aside, the NRA does some positive activities. Supports shooting ranges / gun safety and affordable insurance. The insurance aspect is interesting since could be an area to couple with other insurance such as liability and health.
That's like saying PETA does some good things by making vegan recipe books while ignoring the fact that they are a barely contained domestic terror organization. The NRA is a racist gun organization that doesn't listen to logic and is demonstrably inconsistent.
Can we finally admit that video games do, in fact, mess with young people's minds and make them more violent? We just had a story about a gamer going and killing an innocent family because he was mad at Valve, and now we have this.
It's time to serious consider regulating video games and protecting our children.
No. Because you're a moron. Considering the amount of video games sold and played and how long we've been using them and how much violence is happening because of video games.... nah son. Those numbers don't add up at all. Violence happened at a video game tournament. Why would video games be the cause why wouldn't it be gun worship? Why wouldn't it be white fragility? why wouldn't it be gamergate? Maybe there was a girl playing and it set him off losing in front of a girl. Because all of those factors have a MUCH higher correlation with violence than the super category of "video games"
Can we finally admit that video games do, in fact, mess with young people's minds and make them more violent? We just had a story about a gamer going and killing an innocent family because he was mad at Valve, and now we have this.
It's time to serious consider regulating video games and protecting our children.
Uh, no.
We have a person who was mad at Valve because he took away his easy income. It could have easily been a stock broker or a online scammer losing his income lashing out.
Maybe we should stop selling the american dream of easy money and a government with a "hands off" attitude to mental health.
you DO realize greed and avarice are human traits, not just american.
having them is human, promoting them as good is American.
Slashdot Mirror
Tech geeks by and large totally ignore copyright laws, have no idea how they work, have wishy-washy hand-wavy ideas they'd never accept in a math proof about it being okay to copy stuff, and go so far as to casually commit felony conspiracy copyright infringement.
Actually it's more the other way around. Copyright laws and those who control them ignore technology and have no idea how it works. these people have wishy washy hand-wavy ideas they'd never accept in a math proof about it being ok to prosecute people for doing things that are perfectly reasonable^1 and go so far as to casually accused people of felony conspiracy copyright infringement.
[1] To be clear I'm talking about in general not in this case. In this case the guy is a moron.
... to know that he's not going to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I supposed we should be impressed he can actually operate a grown up computer, thats an einstein level ability down in da hood.
dude your racism isn't necessary.
4) We are not talking about damages that number in the hundreds or thousands of views, but over 6 million potential viewings.
I take issue with this. It's Deadpool one of the highest rated rated r movies or the recent era. There's no way the six million views on facebook seriously impacted this movie's ticket sales. There's no significant population who saw the movie and decided "ya know what I WAS going to see it in theatres, but now that I've seen it I'm not going."
You're using Hollywood logic. The one that states dedicated people who pirate movies and never go anywhere would totally have gone out to see Deadpool but darn it they caught it on Facebook so now they're not going. Most people who pirate were going to pirate anyway. Most people who go to movies would have seen it liked it and gone to see it anyway. I've seen Deadpool and Deadpool 2. They're pretty good theatre movies. I know I saw the second in theatres and maybe the first as well.
There is only one country in the world that regularly pretends such a thing is a conviction.
I take it you aren't familiar with the Japanese justice system. God help you if you end up accused of a crime in Japan, there's at least a 95% chance you'll end up imprisoned, even if you're actually innocent, unless your family is insanely wealthy and knows the right people to bribe. American justice is downright Utopian in comparison.
If you think American justice is bad you wouldn't want to live in the first Babylonian Dynasty. Back then they'd cut off your hand if you stole something and if you took someone's eye they'd take yours. American justice is downright Utopian in comparison.
Can't tell if you're being a smart Alec about your use of the word innocent, but the term "innocent" is rarely if ever used in US courts. The term is "not guilty". Only in cases of Perry mason style misidentification might you use the term innocent. But, furthermore, that website conveniently ignores that the vast majority of cases at this level is a result of plea bargaining. It counts as a conviction even if you plea bargain to time served. Does the prosecution push this for non violent offenders? Hell yes. Why would you the tax payer want a 2 month jury trial for a guy charged with felony weed possession during a traffic stop?
If he didn't get a lawyer, he's an idiot. You don't accept a bargain from anyone without representation. Know your rights.
can't tell if you're being pedantic or not about obsessing over the word innocent not being a legal term. That said plea bargains don't happen "to save the tax payers the expense of a 2 month jury trial" they happen because the prosecution is allowed to throw all the charges at someone until something sticks via a plea bargain regardless of whether or not there's a reasonable suspicion that they are guilty a LOT of convictions arise from the prosecutors being able to levy charges that there's no way they should be able to levy. If they charge you with Murder in the first when you hit a jaywalker and broke his leg and he got sepsis and your choices are death penalty or 10 years plea bargain. There's a lot of people who take that plea bargain. It also applies on smaller scales when you're faced with 20 years and you plea down to 2. The fact that most cases are plea bargained is a bug not a feature of the current legal system.
As a conservative, I'll just say the following, "If you can't do the time, then don't be accused of doing the crime."
FTFY. Because this same pressure appears whether you're guilty or not. Innocent people go to jail all the time. It's all fun and games until you're the one under the microscope.
Can someone confirm if this was actually "uploaded" to Facebook or was it just a Facebook post with embedded video linking to elsewhere?
Facebook allowed 4gig uploads back then? What kind of connection did this guy have?
He said he didn't make any copies so it would seem like he just embedded a link... hm.
the real questions.
Facebook also made some good money on ads for those 6,386,456 views.
Facebook filtering algorithms can manage to find and ban a breastfeeding clip in about 2 millseconds, but somehow a two-hour full-blown Hollywood production was viewed over 6 million times, and was never caught? Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that one. You're right. Facebook enjoyed the shit out of that revenue.
QFT. They have custom nipple based algorithms alright they can spot the nipple on a titmouse 2 seconds before you hit submit but can't spot a Hollywood watermark until they get that sweet advertiser friendly revenue
You can Kill someone in some states and get less then 5 years.
let that sink in.
Um... while that's interesting.. this dude only got six months. Not sure how germane that observation is to the topic at hand
Respect for law? We have sanctuary cities that hide criminals and politicians and corporate thugs get away with everything.
There is no respect for law. The United States is corrupt from top to bottom.
there's no such thing as a sanctuary city that hides criminals
The president had to appoint someone from the opposing party.
"Oh I get it now! A 3 foot storm surge means there could be 3 feet of water on the road! Thank you weather network for explaining this with excessive graphical representation, because my mind could not possibly comprehend height of water."
Some people are idiots.
you say that but some people hear storm surge and they don't know what that means. Honestly it's an overwraught term anyway. But it does have a specific meaning and most people who don't live in typical hurricane pathways don't always know what it is.
I didn't think it was all that impressive after all it wasn't, for instance, live weather or anything. But if it convinces people in the hot zone to actually leave then more power to them.
ugh that's moronic. the battery life gain from removing something as as small as a headphone jack is not going to be enough to keep my phone powered on for any significant time. Besides that doesn't help keep my headphones charged which is yet ANOTHER thing I have to charge.
A headphone jack is simple and direct. Plug in and go. Losing it gains me barely anything but keeping it let's me use all the headphones I prefer to use. it lets me audio out to just about anything even if it doesn't have a BT adapter. I can output to my outdoor speaker without draining the battery on BT. Ugh. OP was my company but with this move I'm gonna have to move to greener pastures.
Why United States?
so the coal workers have something to do all day.
in no way does that work backwards. Trump can't block people because of who he is as a government official. If he starts gramming he can't block people either. if he has email he can't block people. It's not a function of the social media. It's a function of the presidency. The same way we as a people are allowed to block politicians, social media can ban them.
Why backwards? You have just explained to me that Trump cannot block anyone on twitter, because twitting is a "function of the presidency", in your own words.
No. tweeting isn't a function of the presidency. Trump being able to share information with the public is a function of the presidency. Blocking isn't a problem because it stops Trump from being able to listen to me. It's a problem because it stop me from being able to listen to the President. As a citizen I have the right to hear the president. It has nothing to do with twitter as a social media platform. They have ruled that his tweets count as official statements and therefore he doesn't have the right to hide those statements from anyone (via blocking).
So can twitter remove a "function of the presidency" at its own discretion? I do not think so. In fact, in the article I linked there is a statement by twitter, that enforce that point of view (because it suited them at the time): "Twitter has said that messages from world leaders like Mr Trump are inherently of public interest and argued that blocking those users or censoring certain messages would <<not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions>>". So twitter blocking Trump would harm the "public interest", _according to twitter itsef_. Can the telephone utility company cut the phone line of the White House? No. Can the USPS stop fetching the mail at the White House? No. Is Twitter a utility? That is the real question. I would argue that it is not and that mr. Trump can block other people, and that Twitter can ban mr. Trump. A federal judge seems to argue differently, though.
Twitter can block trump because Trump can still speak to people. Tweeting is not a function of the presidency. Communication is a function of the presidency. Twitter is just one of many ways he can do that and while the 1st Amendment guarantees some means of communication he doesn't guarantee others no matter how commonplace or popular they are. Trump can be blocked from any number of services. He can be blocked from the local mall or Subway sandwich store because it's the right of the people to block anyone. But if the president says something in a sandwhich shop while he can be banned from it. It must be recorded as part of public information. Trump can go to GAB for all I care being forced to communicate via telegram doesn't over the radio because no TV channel will carry his words. Trumps tweets are important because of who he is. That applies all the way around from his tweets to his speeches to anything he says in public. That doesn't mean he has a right to literally every public space. Specifically he doesn't have a right to the privatized spaces that aren't public land like twitter and facebook. It's helpful to spread the word but he could retreat to radio and there's no legal reason he has be on Television. If the president is reduced to carrying a radio show and he blocks a state or a county or a neighborhood or a house from hearing him because they take him out of context or they're democrats or whatever nonsense he would come up with. THAT would be not only illegal but analogous to Trump blocking someone on twitter. You can't deny the president's words to any american citizen. Because that's public information. if the only way he communicates is with a newsletter he can't limit the distribution of that newsletter to people who are favored to him. This is centrally about the president's words and access to them. If he blocks someone that limits their access to public inform
> The first amendment applies to the government, not to private entities
Are you sure about that? I can cite several examples were government has regulated private industry.
One example is the tweet you responded to. The government - not twitter - decided that Trump could not block trolls.
WHAT? No. The government didn't override the social media to say Trump can't block. They overrided Trump to say he can't exercise that as a public official. If you ground a child that's not you overriding the mall's freedom of speech to have your child as a customer. It's you overriding your child's ability to go to the mall.
If Trump cannot block people on Twitter because that violates the first amendment, then I don't think that Twitter can block Trump either for the same reason. Double standards are bad for a democracy.
in no way does that work backwards. Trump can't block people because of who he is as a government official. If he starts gramming he can't block people either. if he has email he can't block people. It's not a function of the social media. It's a function of the presidency. The same way we as a people are allowed to block politicians, social media can ban them.
this needs to be a government only database because it serves a very strong need for the poor who can't maintain other forms of ID for whatever reason.
Pretty sure I was being facetious.
bah. poe's law'd again.
...for years that "Guns don't kill people; video games do!" Looks like they're right for once.
see I heard differently. i heard it was an old school bullet shooting gun not a video game shooting gun.
1) Kids should be taught to have a conscience.
2) Kids should be taught self-control. (If you're angry, then count to 10 or 100 before you say anything. If you're losing control, then walk away so you don't hurt someone.)
3) Kids need to see their parents acting ethically, and using self-control, as a good example.
4) Kids should be taught that if you lose a game or a job or a girlfriend etc., then it's not the end of the world. Young people need to be told that; they haven't lived long enough to experience loss and recovery from loss.
When they're extremely upset over something transient, they should be told, "A year from now, this won't matter. Five years from now, you won't even remember it. If you can't see this, then just trust me on this one." That's what my parents told me, and they were right. I remember them reassuring me with these words, but I don't remember what I was so upset about.
Honestly dudes just need to learn to express themselves emotional amongst each other without calling it gay. If he had shed a few tears he probably wouldn't have been so frustrated. They should just put on Inside Out before every super manly competition as just a reminder that feelings are okay that might help reduce this sort of aggression based violence that comes from not achieving. Telling them their feelings won't matter is just dismissing the problem. When it feels like you won't make it past the next minute being told about something in the next year isn't exactly helpful in teaching someone how to deal with it now.
5) I wonder if shooters like this grew up surrounded by crowding and/or constant loud music. I can't imagine a kid who plays on swings, makes forts out of snow or cardboard boxes, and lies on his back looking at clouds, growing up to be a killer.
Your imagination is wanting. There were killings before the advent of computers. almost as if computers aren't the problem.
Politics aside, the NRA does some positive activities. Supports shooting ranges / gun safety and affordable insurance. The insurance aspect is interesting since could be an area to couple with other insurance such as liability and health.
That's like saying PETA does some good things by making vegan recipe books while ignoring the fact that they are a barely contained domestic terror organization. The NRA is a racist gun organization that doesn't listen to logic and is demonstrably inconsistent.
Can we finally admit that video games do, in fact, mess with young people's minds and make them more violent? We just had a story about a gamer going and killing an innocent family because he was mad at Valve, and now we have this.
It's time to serious consider regulating video games and protecting our children.
No. Because you're a moron. Considering the amount of video games sold and played and how long we've been using them and how much violence is happening because of video games.... nah son. Those numbers don't add up at all. Violence happened at a video game tournament. Why would video games be the cause why wouldn't it be gun worship? Why wouldn't it be white fragility? why wouldn't it be gamergate? Maybe there was a girl playing and it set him off losing in front of a girl. Because all of those factors have a MUCH higher correlation with violence than the super category of "video games"
Can we finally admit that video games do, in fact, mess with young people's minds and make them more violent? We just had a story about a gamer going and killing an innocent family because he was mad at Valve, and now we have this.
It's time to serious consider regulating video games and protecting our children.
Uh, no.
We have a person who was mad at Valve because he took away his easy income. It could have easily been a stock broker or a online scammer losing his income lashing out.
Maybe we should stop selling the american dream of easy money and a government with a "hands off" attitude to mental health.
you DO realize greed and avarice are human traits, not just american.
having them is human, promoting them as good is American.