Not so worried about the cars, Uber and Lyft inspect them to make sure they are in good condition, and even if they didn't the first bad ride would flag it.
Much more worrying is the fact they feel the need to charge extra for extra guarantees of non-serial-killer-drivers...
No, but it's a question of public interest. If the crime is shoplifting there isn't much public interest and the newspaper report will soon be forgotten, hidden away in an archive somewhere. If the crime is greater and publicized a lot at the time it won't be forgotten, obviously, as there is clearly more public interest.
But if there isn't a specific law differentiating the two, it's just the arbitrary whims of some judge deciding what's censorship and what isn't. Which just seems wrong to me. At least if you are going to put censorship into law, codify it and don't rely on some indescribable common law precedent based on what the mood of a public official that day. Personally I think if it's not illegal to print in a news article it shouldn't be illegal to put on the web.
If someone writes about a person who raped or murdered and was convicted for it, and that person is later released, does that mean that ex-convict has the right to have that writing buried? I'd say not. Rehabilitation is fine, but that doesn't mean they have to be forgiven or that it needs to be suppressed.
Anyway, I said public information. You can debate what that means or what ends up as something that rightfully should be removed, but it's irrelevant to my comment, since the point was that the OP was implying Google should just be removing anything anyone asks to be removed without investigating it first or they are "evil", which I strongly disagree with as promoting censorship. I see no difference from that and Google removing any links, Youtube posts, etc that any company claims violates their copyrights without investigating.
Irrelevant to the point that the OP basically asked why Google didn't just delete everything requested, since I'm pretty sure public record is not defined as "only things that someone didn't request Google remove links to".
Is it evil to refuse to delete information about a person's public comments or valid criminal record?
Removing slander is one thing, removing accurate information that is public record could be considered censorship. Which is evil in that case? Or... wow, maybe it's not so black and white...
No, since it's the Secret Service, they want to be able to distinguish sarcastic *threats* against sincere threats. Sincere threats are not protected speech.
I'm sure a million people a day make some form of whiny sarcastic threat against the President or other elected officials, but luckily most of them are not sincere.
Actually, no. On the coasts $500k can now barely buy a 1 BR condo.
In the (somewhat upscale) suburban Midwest, $500k can barely buy a normal middle class home.
Maybe in theory in some areas of the Midwest and South $500k could buy a "McMansion", but how many people really build mansions in the middle of a depressed economic area? Not that many. The subprime mortgage crisis was not caused by giant loans for McMansions, it was caused by giant loans for normal houses.
Never said anything to the contrary. Democrat or Republican, the comment about rich oligarchy has a fair amount of truth in the US.
For example, the Bay Area has a Congressional race between old tech money Mike Honda and new tech money Ro Khanna. Both Democrats.
Due to recent election reforms it's actually an interesting race. The primary is non-partisan, so the top 2 vote getters go to the general election. Of course, interesting doesn't necessarily mean better. People with money will always find ways to use that money to fuck up good intentions (in this case Honda's PAC is actually supporting the Republican candidate to try to keep Khanna from coming in second. Despicable, IMO. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Exactly. The courts got involved, and saved the girl's life
The courts didn't save any life, and in fact, they didn't even get involved. Cigna eventually reversed their decision, but the girl died before the transplant could be performed, anyway. Amazing how an entire debate can go on here without anyone knowing the actual facts of the example.
If you ARE, you pretty much dont have a reason to complain about the voting in this country.
Except with the current 2 party system, primaries are useless to the minority party in many districts. Not to mention national-level elections are more determined by the amount of money spent than actual positions, which was his point. If the Koch brothers want to spend millions on a candidate, they usually win. There's plenty of reason to complain...
Exactly, this is idiotic. You submit MUCH more financial information than this to the government every year.
Honestly credit ratings are one area that the government may be the *right* organization to control. The current credit agencies are for-profit businesses that have very little interest in keeping your information accurate (or investigating shady companies who try to use your credit rating as extortion) and you have very little recourse to fix their mistakes.
No, THAT'S really not true. We have done A/B testing in the office and not only does it not make much of a difference from distances beyond where your eyes can resolve it, 1080p content sometimes looks WORSE on 4k displays due to scaling (similarly to how SD content looks worse on HD TVs than on SD TVs).
What really DOES make a difference at average home sizes and distances is HDR displays (higher bit depth). The high dynamic range is striking compared to the fairly crappy dynamic range of standard YUV 4:2:0 content.
Yep. Because it's trivial to make 4k displays these days (a friend working with the CE manufacturers said it's now down to about $50 extra for a 50" 4k vs 1080p display). But creating and distributing 4k content is a completely different story (will require H.265 encoder that no one supports yet, and even with that take 2x the bitrate).
In any case, from what I have heard HDR (increased bit depth for higher dynamic range) content will have a MUCH bigger impact on perceived video quality than 4k. 1080p HDR takes fewer bits than 4k, and for 90% of the home market the size and distance setup for TVs means no one can even make out the extra resolution anyway. Problem is HDR is a much bigger hardware change for displays than 4k LCD panels...
No, not really. Both the studios and the streaming service makes more when you buy, not rent. And with UltraViolet you can now buy physical media and get the digital right for no extra cost, that will allow streaming on any service that supports UV.
Some services (iTunes and VUDU, for example) do have extras for many new releases. VUDU even has Gravity in 3D - and on some platforms (like PS3) you can download it at the max 1080p bitrate before watching.
Unfortunately, you only own the physical disc, not the content on it (which you just licensed). If you lose it, no one has a record that you licensed the content.
That's the nice thing about UltraViolet, for example - you can buy the DVD or BD and add the rights to the UV locker so you can have the physical copy, and stream (or possibly even download it) from any service that supports it.
No, the B-52 is called the "Stratofortress" for a reason. It's not supersonic like the B-1 or stealth like the B2, it was basically a replacement for the B-29 with jet engines.
It was designed back when 500 mph (440 kn, not 500) and 50,000 feet was enough to effectively avoid most antiaircraft fire.
One shot weapon?? It's a strategic nuclear bomber. It flies 500mph at 50,000 feet, launches potentially nuclear cruise missiles and guided bombs from hundreds of miles away from its target, and each one can carry enough ordnance to wipe out a small country in Europe.
A few might be shot down when used against a 1st world military, but first, calling strategic bombers one shot weapons is silly, and second, if they are ever used against militaries that would have any chance at shooting many of them down (ie. Russia or China) "one shot" is pretty much going to end the war (any maybe much of civilization).
Slashdot Mirror
Not so worried about the cars, Uber and Lyft inspect them to make sure they are in good condition, and even if they didn't the first bad ride would flag it.
Much more worrying is the fact they feel the need to charge extra for extra guarantees of non-serial-killer-drivers...
http://valleywag.gawker.com/wh...
No, but it's a question of public interest. If the crime is shoplifting there isn't much public interest and the newspaper report will soon be forgotten, hidden away in an archive somewhere. If the crime is greater and publicized a lot at the time it won't be forgotten, obviously, as there is clearly more public interest.
But if there isn't a specific law differentiating the two, it's just the arbitrary whims of some judge deciding what's censorship and what isn't. Which just seems wrong to me. At least if you are going to put censorship into law, codify it and don't rely on some indescribable common law precedent based on what the mood of a public official that day. Personally I think if it's not illegal to print in a news article it shouldn't be illegal to put on the web.
If someone writes about a person who raped or murdered and was convicted for it, and that person is later released, does that mean that ex-convict has the right to have that writing buried? I'd say not. Rehabilitation is fine, but that doesn't mean they have to be forgiven or that it needs to be suppressed.
Anyway, I said public information. You can debate what that means or what ends up as something that rightfully should be removed, but it's irrelevant to my comment, since the point was that the OP was implying Google should just be removing anything anyone asks to be removed without investigating it first or they are "evil", which I strongly disagree with as promoting censorship. I see no difference from that and Google removing any links, Youtube posts, etc that any company claims violates their copyrights without investigating.
Irrelevant to the point that the OP basically asked why Google didn't just delete everything requested, since I'm pretty sure public record is not defined as "only things that someone didn't request Google remove links to".
Is it evil to refuse to delete information about a person's public comments or valid criminal record?
Removing slander is one thing, removing accurate information that is public record could be considered censorship. Which is evil in that case? Or... wow, maybe it's not so black and white...
Are there genuine sincere threats made on Twitter etc?
Yes, there are...
http://latino.foxnews.com/lati...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
See, now if it weren't for that wink this comment could easily have been interpreted as a veiled threat towards 'some guy'. Emoticons save lives!
No, since it's the Secret Service, they want to be able to distinguish sarcastic *threats* against sincere threats. Sincere threats are not protected speech.
I'm sure a million people a day make some form of whiny sarcastic threat against the President or other elected officials, but luckily most of them are not sincere.
Actually, no. On the coasts $500k can now barely buy a 1 BR condo.
In the (somewhat upscale) suburban Midwest, $500k can barely buy a normal middle class home.
Maybe in theory in some areas of the Midwest and South $500k could buy a "McMansion", but how many people really build mansions in the middle of a depressed economic area? Not that many. The subprime mortgage crisis was not caused by giant loans for McMansions, it was caused by giant loans for normal houses.
His analogies are all around HORRIBLE. Another statement was that "since Netflix uses 30% of our bandwidth, maybe they should pay 30% of the costs".
When Reed Hastings (Netflix CEO) responded "if we pay 30% of your costs, we should get 30% of your revenue" Comcast had no further comment...
Never said anything to the contrary. Democrat or Republican, the comment about rich oligarchy has a fair amount of truth in the US.
For example, the Bay Area has a Congressional race between old tech money Mike Honda and new tech money Ro Khanna. Both Democrats.
Due to recent election reforms it's actually an interesting race. The primary is non-partisan, so the top 2 vote getters go to the general election. Of course, interesting doesn't necessarily mean better. People with money will always find ways to use that money to fuck up good intentions (in this case Honda's PAC is actually supporting the Republican candidate to try to keep Khanna from coming in second. Despicable, IMO. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Exactly. The courts got involved, and saved the girl's life
The courts didn't save any life, and in fact, they didn't even get involved. Cigna eventually reversed their decision, but the girl died before the transplant could be performed, anyway. Amazing how an entire debate can go on here without anyone knowing the actual facts of the example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
remember the little girl who needed an organ transplant? she was told no and they actually had to bring it to court to save this girls life
Actually, that girl died. They said the chance of survival was low, and they were right.
If you ARE, you pretty much dont have a reason to complain about the voting in this country.
Except with the current 2 party system, primaries are useless to the minority party in many districts. Not to mention national-level elections are more determined by the amount of money spent than actual positions, which was his point. If the Koch brothers want to spend millions on a candidate, they usually win. There's plenty of reason to complain...
$500,000 mansion? What state do you live in? No, scratch that. What century do you live in??
Exactly, this is idiotic. You submit MUCH more financial information than this to the government every year.
Honestly credit ratings are one area that the government may be the *right* organization to control. The current credit agencies are for-profit businesses that have very little interest in keeping your information accurate (or investigating shady companies who try to use your credit rating as extortion) and you have very little recourse to fix their mistakes.
No, THAT'S really not true. We have done A/B testing in the office and not only does it not make much of a difference from distances beyond where your eyes can resolve it, 1080p content sometimes looks WORSE on 4k displays due to scaling (similarly to how SD content looks worse on HD TVs than on SD TVs).
What really DOES make a difference at average home sizes and distances is HDR displays (higher bit depth). The high dynamic range is striking compared to the fairly crappy dynamic range of standard YUV 4:2:0 content.
Yep. Because it's trivial to make 4k displays these days (a friend working with the CE manufacturers said it's now down to about $50 extra for a 50" 4k vs 1080p display). But creating and distributing 4k content is a completely different story (will require H.265 encoder that no one supports yet, and even with that take 2x the bitrate).
In any case, from what I have heard HDR (increased bit depth for higher dynamic range) content will have a MUCH bigger impact on perceived video quality than 4k. 1080p HDR takes fewer bits than 4k, and for 90% of the home market the size and distance setup for TVs means no one can even make out the extra resolution anyway. Problem is HDR is a much bigger hardware change for displays than 4k LCD panels...
And some comedy writers.
Seriously, was that a laugh track behind him or was there actually someone on this planet who thought that was funny??
No, not really. Both the studios and the streaming service makes more when you buy, not rent. And with UltraViolet you can now buy physical media and get the digital right for no extra cost, that will allow streaming on any service that supports UV.
Some services (iTunes and VUDU, for example) do have extras for many new releases. VUDU even has Gravity in 3D - and on some platforms (like PS3) you can download it at the max 1080p bitrate before watching.
Unfortunately, you only own the physical disc, not the content on it (which you just licensed). If you lose it, no one has a record that you licensed the content.
That's the nice thing about UltraViolet, for example - you can buy the DVD or BD and add the rights to the UV locker so you can have the physical copy, and stream (or possibly even download it) from any service that supports it.
It already is in the hardware for almost all devices and has been since DVD players first came out 15+ years ago.
No, the B-52 is called the "Stratofortress" for a reason. It's not supersonic like the B-1 or stealth like the B2, it was basically a replacement for the B-29 with jet engines.
It was designed back when 500 mph (440 kn, not 500) and 50,000 feet was enough to effectively avoid most antiaircraft fire.
One shot weapon?? It's a strategic nuclear bomber. It flies 500mph at 50,000 feet, launches potentially nuclear cruise missiles and guided bombs from hundreds of miles away from its target, and each one can carry enough ordnance to wipe out a small country in Europe.
A few might be shot down when used against a 1st world military, but first, calling strategic bombers one shot weapons is silly, and second, if they are ever used against militaries that would have any chance at shooting many of them down (ie. Russia or China) "one shot" is pretty much going to end the war (any maybe much of civilization).