Well, it could be directed to an IPV4 local network multicast address in the range of 224.0.0.0 to 224.0.0.255. That might at least wake up the device owner.
First, I'm sure there's lots of Open Source being used in Google's implementation - just not where we can see.
There is a speech recognizer from CMU that might be a good starting point. I haven't heard about plain-language software, though. There is additional rocket science to be done. Not insurmountable given things we've already done.
Training with millions of people? Actually, that's the part that community development is good at.
If you surveyed how many citizens would support law against hate speech, it would probably be a significant number. And prospective citizens as well. So I don't think the problem with your proposal has anything to do with people in favor of shari'a law. It would not work with plain Judeo-Christian European European-descended folks.
I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:
If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.
There's also Google's Project Shield, which is free for journalists.
That's a really good point. This service sure isn't going to throw someone off for being attacked too much. I'll ask someone at Google to expedite the process.
By the way, I've sworn to much the same text in my police deputy's oath. I volunteer for disaster services. It didn't limit me from opposing any law, I just have to follow them while they are still on the books.
Your next move, should you choose to make it, is to decry that if we actually had standards for citizenship (like every other goddamn country on Earth) we'd have to kick out all existing citizens that don't meet those standards, which is ludicrous. No one handles birthright citizenship the same way they handle citizenship through naturalization, and the lack of options for stateless citizens makes that idea cruel and untenable.
With all due respect, you're talking to yourself now. I wasn't thinking of this point at all.
The actual statement is "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States". Now, obviously, you personally do not approve of every law, nor could anyone even know them all. If you swear "true faith and allegiance" to them you are swearing to follow and uphold the law, not to refrain from opposing it in a peaceful political manner as is supported by that very text. The only way as a citizen that you could actually break the first amendment would be if you were in a government position, because it's directed toward congress rather than the people. So, the typical prospective citizen can swear allegiance to that amendment with complete confidence that they will never be in a position for that to matter.
Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech. However, this wasn't speech. It was deliberate spreading of falsehood and cheating the moderation system. Who in their right mind would not deplore such corruption?
Hillary did not say the c.p. time statement. It was the Mayor of New York who said that. It's clear that Hillary didn't like it from her own comment, calling it cautious politician time.
If I understand this correctly, Akamai threw Krebs out because Akamai could not handle the DDS. This means I'm never sending any business to Akamai because they can't handle it properly. But it doesn't mean Krebs is off the air for long.
For example, I bet Cloudflare would take him on. They've differentiated themselves on the ability to handle DDS.
You are starting with the concept that everyone has a right to their own political opinion, and extending that to "nobody should take any action due to to offense over anyone else's political opinion". The second does not follow from the first. Folks who take offense and act upon it are not hypocrites, those who see the offense and refuse to act could be cowards.
That's self-contradictory. The first amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
By the very text of that amendment we could not do what you are proposing.
This is more than a bit rich, because you are saying this as the Anonymous Coward of Slashdot, a role reserved for those who will not stand behind their own speech.
I try really hard to be the kind of person whom I will like when I get up in the morning and look in the mirror. I care little about the opinions of others outside of my family.
I have certainly come to deplore some behavior by people who claim to be Libertarians, but whom I classify as "me Libertarians", meaning they value their personal freedom even when it comes at the expense of the freedom of others.
I'm intolerant of "Radical" Islam. They're trying to kill western civilization not embrace it.
You are confusing belief or a creed ("radical" Islam) with action. Once some folks conspire to blow something up, or build a bomb, that is action and you are encouraged not to tolerate it. But just belief? The problem would be that if we started down that path, where would we stop? For example, the Eucharist is considered by some folks (not me) to be an act of ritual cannibalism. But they're really just drinking some wine and eating a cracker.
Well, I think you're confused about a few things. First of all, there is really only one kind of business where one can make a legal claim that its first priority must always be to produce income, and that is a public stock company - and even in that case there are limits to that claim regarding lawfulness, ethics, and the future effects of short-term income strategies.
A private company can and should place a number of things above income, like moral and ethical behavior. In addition, my state has the B corporation which actually has to be certified by a non-profit to meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. So, my private company is not one of these potentially unethical public stock companies. Modern public stock corporations don't have to be that anymore and IMO should not be one.
Second, you don't have much understanding of libel law in the U.S., not your fault but because most people don't follow the courts that closely. For the most part libel suits don't work here. That's part of the problem. Much better to bring such cases in England.
Third, you are accusing me of not supporting someone's free speech and you are calling me a hypocrite for not doing so. So, let's start with the text of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, while Congress must not make laws suppressing speech, it says absolutely nothing about my conduct as a private individual or business owner. Free Speech means speech which is not repressed by the government, not that I as a private individual must countenance, permit on my property or support such speech for it to be free.
This is another common thing - many people try to (in the words of Alan Henry) use free speech as a weapon when it doesn't apply or as a shield to hide behind when they are criticized.
I choose not to support lies and cheating and I feel really good about it.
So, you're saying I should countenance people purposefully spamming deliberate lies and cheating the moderation systems of social networks. And that my taking action against them somehow makes me a hypocrite. Do I have that right?
Well, I run a business. It's all that supports me, and it brings in the money reliably. The way I got there is by building a reputation for behaving ethically. Part of ethics is not standing up for it when people do the wrong thing. Ethics is not neutral, people with ethics have to be able to back it up with action. Maintaining that reputation means opposing garbage like "shitposting" with lawful action as well as words.
I find that a reputation for ethics helps in business. One doesn't gain such a reputation by supporting bad action or standing by while it happens. Now in this case, a good deal of the message was outright lies, and the rest was subverting the comment system with robots. I certainly will do what I can to show my strong disapproval of such actions, and my refusing to do business with that sort of liar and cheat and advocating that others make the same refusal is one of the ways that society deals with liars and cheats.
Slashdot Mirror
We can lobby consumer router manufacturers to include it. Openwrt has a bcp38 package with no configuration, done by Dave Taht and the Cerowrt folks.
Well, it could be directed to an IPV4 local network multicast address in the range of 224.0.0.0 to 224.0.0.255. That might at least wake up the device owner.
It might take some time for DNS changes to propogate. The IP address was set to localhost for a while to get the attacks off of the net.
First, I'm sure there's lots of Open Source being used in Google's implementation - just not where we can see.
There is a speech recognizer from CMU that might be a good starting point. I haven't heard about plain-language software, though. There is additional rocket science to be done. Not insurmountable given things we've already done.
Training with millions of people? Actually, that's the part that community development is good at.
If you surveyed how many citizens would support law against hate speech, it would probably be a significant number. And prospective citizens as well. So I don't think the problem with your proposal has anything to do with people in favor of shari'a law. It would not work with plain Judeo-Christian European European-descended folks.
OK. The folks who run Project Shield have been informed!
I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:
That's a really good point. This service sure isn't going to throw someone off for being attacked too much. I'll ask someone at Google to expedite the process.
By the way, I've sworn to much the same text in my police deputy's oath. I volunteer for disaster services. It didn't limit me from opposing any law, I just have to follow them while they are still on the books.
With all due respect, you're talking to yourself now. I wasn't thinking of this point at all.
The actual statement is "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States". Now, obviously, you personally do not approve of every law, nor could anyone even know them all. If you swear "true faith and allegiance" to them you are swearing to follow and uphold the law, not to refrain from opposing it in a peaceful political manner as is supported by that very text. The only way as a citizen that you could actually break the first amendment would be if you were in a government position, because it's directed toward congress rather than the people. So, the typical prospective citizen can swear allegiance to that amendment with complete confidence that they will never be in a position for that to matter.
Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech. However, this wasn't speech. It was deliberate spreading of falsehood and cheating the moderation system. Who in their right mind would not deplore such corruption?
Hillary did not say the c.p. time statement. It was the Mayor of New York who said that. It's clear that Hillary didn't like it from her own comment, calling it cautious politician time.
If I understand this correctly, Akamai threw Krebs out because Akamai could not handle the DDS. This means I'm never sending any business to Akamai because they can't handle it properly. But it doesn't mean Krebs is off the air for long.
For example, I bet Cloudflare would take him on. They've differentiated themselves on the ability to handle DDS.
You are starting with the concept that everyone has a right to their own political opinion, and extending that to "nobody should take any action due to to offense over anyone else's political opinion". The second does not follow from the first. Folks who take offense and act upon it are not hypocrites, those who see the offense and refuse to act could be cowards.
That's self-contradictory. The first amendment states:
By the very text of that amendment we could not do what you are proposing.
This is more than a bit rich, because you are saying this as the Anonymous Coward of Slashdot, a role reserved for those who will not stand behind their own speech.
I try really hard to be the kind of person whom I will like when I get up in the morning and look in the mirror. I care little about the opinions of others outside of my family.
I have certainly come to deplore some behavior by people who claim to be Libertarians, but whom I classify as "me Libertarians", meaning they value their personal freedom even when it comes at the expense of the freedom of others.
You are confusing belief or a creed ("radical" Islam) with action. Once some folks conspire to blow something up, or build a bomb, that is action and you are encouraged not to tolerate it. But just belief? The problem would be that if we started down that path, where would we stop? For example, the Eucharist is considered by some folks (not me) to be an act of ritual cannibalism. But they're really just drinking some wine and eating a cracker.
click here
Well, I think you're confused about a few things. First of all, there is really only one kind of business where one can make a legal claim that its first priority must always be to produce income, and that is a public stock company - and even in that case there are limits to that claim regarding lawfulness, ethics, and the future effects of short-term income strategies.
A private company can and should place a number of things above income, like moral and ethical behavior. In addition, my state has the B corporation which actually has to be certified by a non-profit to meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. So, my private company is not one of these potentially unethical public stock companies. Modern public stock corporations don't have to be that anymore and IMO should not be one.
Second, you don't have much understanding of libel law in the U.S., not your fault but because most people don't follow the courts that closely. For the most part libel suits don't work here. That's part of the problem. Much better to bring such cases in England.
Third, you are accusing me of not supporting someone's free speech and you are calling me a hypocrite for not doing so. So, let's start with the text of the first amendment:
So, while Congress must not make laws suppressing speech, it says absolutely nothing about my conduct as a private individual or business owner. Free Speech means speech which is not repressed by the government, not that I as a private individual must countenance, permit on my property or support such speech for it to be free.
This is another common thing - many people try to (in the words of Alan Henry) use free speech as a weapon when it doesn't apply or as a shield to hide behind when they are criticized.
I choose not to support lies and cheating and I feel really good about it.
So, you're saying I should countenance people purposefully spamming deliberate lies and cheating the moderation systems of social networks. And that my taking action against them somehow makes me a hypocrite. Do I have that right?
Hm, now it sounds like someone's twisting around right and wrong to lecture me. Naah, must be a communications problem on Slashdot.
Well, I run a business. It's all that supports me, and it brings in the money reliably. The way I got there is by building a reputation for behaving ethically. Part of ethics is not standing up for it when people do the wrong thing. Ethics is not neutral, people with ethics have to be able to back it up with action. Maintaining that reputation means opposing garbage like "shitposting" with lawful action as well as words.
Hm, still hearing all of that noise. Guess it's not a good evening for Slashdot.
I find that a reputation for ethics helps in business. One doesn't gain such a reputation by supporting bad action or standing by while it happens. Now in this case, a good deal of the message was outright lies, and the rest was subverting the comment system with robots. I certainly will do what I can to show my strong disapproval of such actions, and my refusing to do business with that sort of liar and cheat and advocating that others make the same refusal is one of the ways that society deals with liars and cheats.