..meanwhile, Google is slurping up all the delicious free data all those people are providing, bundling it, and selling it off to the highest bidder -- and likely their primary customer is the Indian government.
What is this you say, ask the RIAA, MPAA, and whoever else to do something for free??? That's just crazy talk, you need to be medicated! Of course we're expected to pay, pay, pay for everything; what are you, some sort of communist or something? </extreme_sarcasm>
Guess what? You're dealing with the military. They write a contract for you to develop a specific product. Part of that contract is complete documentation on how to create the product they contracted you for. Once you deliver on the contract, it's not up to you anymore how that product is used, no matter what you might have to say about it. If they want to integrate it into a weapons system, that's tough shit for you and your ethics.
I agree with you, and I'll be happy if they manage to head this off, but chances are the Internet will have to take the damage the ISPs and others are willing to deal to it before enough of the average citizenry screams bloody murder to their congresscritters on both sides of the aisle and forces them to change things. Either that or the Internet will become totally unusable, and like anything else people will just lose interest and go do something else instead. What too many people either don't remember or are too young to have been around for, is when there was no such thing as "The Internet". Life went on just fine without it being around, and life can go on just fine without it. If it becomes unusable or inaccessible due to being too expensive, then everything will move away from it. If they make 'walled gardens' of access levels, and people don't think it's worth it, they won't pay, and whatever is behind those 'walls' will go away. If it comes down to the point where the only things the Internet is good for is accessing government services and email, unless you want to pay through the nose, then people are going to say screw this and find another way. Won't be the first or last time something got ruined because too many people got too greedy. Who knows, if it comes to that, maybe someone will create "Internet 2.0" that's totally separate, and everyone will move to that instead. Or maybe we just go back to not bothering with it. Either way life will go on, nobody's going to die, the sky isn't going to fall.
This is an important find, and so far as I'm concerned totally validates the effort that's gone into exploring Mars up to this point, but frankly I was hoping they were going to announce they'd found actual lifeforms, or solid evidence lifeforms once existed there. This is a big step towards that but there's too much wiggle-room to conclude Mars has or once had life of any kind on it. More work to do yet I guess! Progress is progress though.
In order to comply with this, if (theoretically) it was enforced world-wide upon YouTube, would be for YouTube to have every video uploaded sit in a private space that only YouTube has access to, and have a human employee of YouTube view the video looking for copyright violations. In essense it would be the death of YouTube.
But wait, there's more: That would set a legal precedent for any media hosting on the entire Internet; everyone, from the largest to the smallest company, would have to do the same vetting of uploaded media in order to protect themselves from liability. Something like Facebook, for instance, would have to have every static photograph uploaded scrutinized, too, to ensure that there's nothing in the background that's IP belonging to anyone who would sue over it.
Theoretically, a ruling like this, if it was upheld worldwide, would more or less destroy the Internet as we know it. The only entities it would serve would be large media companies; the Internet would become, even more so than it is already, just a tool for business and revenue generation, not much of anything in the interests of private individuals. Many companies providing hosting of uploaded media would simply cease to exist or stop offering the ability to upload anything for fear of being legally liable for copyright violation.
The Internet is becoming a slow-motion trainwreck. Between government censorship in so many countries, cybercrime, abuses by people and organizations pushing 'fake news', and ISPs wanting to go back to the 'walled garden' business model, the Internet is slowly but surely becoming unusable.
There aren't fewer successful attacks of this kind, there are more of them as time passes, and the consequences of them are getting worse not better. There's obviously a fundamental problem with these critical systems and obviously nobody is doing anything about it. Do we need to go back to doing everything with paper until everyone gets their act together and fixes it?
Stuffed in a metal tube with way too many people and you can't see outside? Sounds like it would be a great way to induce claustrophobia and anxiety attacks in people who don't even normally experience those. All you'd need then is for it to be a little too warm, be jammed in too close to someone who's making you uncomfortable, and having flight attendants threaten you if you try to leave your seat for any reason, and you'd have all-out panic. Besides which, unless it's night-time, it's nice to be able to look outside through a real window. Some TV screen doesn't cut it. If they're going to do this then they may as well just sedate people for the entire flight.
All you have to do is read the news to see that. And people give me shit for paying cash for things (reduce exposure to payment system data breaches as much as possible) and why I refuse to own a smartphone (your kitchen collander has fewer holes) or have IoT devices, or have anything to do with social media sites.
I didn't see anywhere where it says how many people participated in this poll. I sincerely doubt that all 300,000,000 citizens responded.
That's the problem with these 'polls': limited number of participants, how do you expect anyone to believe this truly represents the majority?
There are days I love my species, we can be amazing and wonderful, but there are too many days when I'm just plain disappointed and wonder if we even deserve to survive. What's even worse was the recent epiphany of mine that while I'd been thinking people were getting dumber as the years went by, it's really that I'm just really noticing how dumb so many people are. It's depressing as fuck, I'll have you know.
That's fine and dandy when the long term effects of a policy decision will only mean someone loses money, or some mess has to be cleaned up. In this case their 'policy decision' may make the Earth uninhabitable for the long term, with no way to reverse the damage and have a planet we can live on anymore. Therefore your reasoning is invalid.
Ocean temperature rise may or may not be human-caused, that's why the research needs to continue. The current administration wants to just say "it's not human caused, case closed", and start burning the research, censuring or outright firing scientists that disagree, and actively discouraging anyone, government or private, from doing any further research. That's the sort of bullshit that needs to be stopped; it smacks of Dominionism, of religious zealots who actually believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that we don't have to give a damn about it because it's all going to end soon anyway. This isn't just about climate change, it's about Real Facts and the neverending search for Real Truth versus dogma.
Show us your PhD in Climate Science (with timestamp) to back up your 'opinions' on this anonymous news aggregation-and-discussion site. Otherwise you're just one more climate-change-denying jackass with an 'opinion' you can't back up with anything more than the lint in your pockets. I'm no scientist either, but I'd sooner listen to a room full of people who spent 6-8-10 years getting their degrees plus however many decades of experience than I would some fool (or politician, same difference) when it comes to something like this -- and I'm far from alone.
You can look to the Flat Earth people for that; you could put them in orbit, or send them around the Moon and back, and they'd still claim it's all smoke and mirrors. In that scenario I wouldn't at all be surprised if they tried to open the door of the capsule while in transit, convinced they were on a Hollywood sound stage.
If you're going to 'protect the environment' in order to 'protect the citizens' then you have to have a long-term view of things, not only as far as next quarters' profits for the oil and gas industry.
The core problem here standing in the way of what most of us would call 'common sense' is, to put it bluntly, greed and corruption. Scott Pruitt, I'm sure, cares more about corporations and what THEY want, and to hell with 'the environment' if it stands in their way. It's also possible he's a Dominionist, and actually believes that protecting the environment in the long term is pointless since it's all going to come to an end anyway so it won't matter how much damage we do to the planet.
What the 'courts are expecting' is there to be something better than what appears to be a purely politically-motivated 'opinion' from one man (or one political party) that actively quashes any opposing viewpoint. The entire subject of 'global warming' is FAR from being 100% settled (mainly because the scientific method demands it stay open to intelligent debate) but defunding and disbanding climate science research, issuing gag orders to government-employed scientists, and (my favorite one of all) actually destroying scientific data and research that doesn't agree with his 'opinion' is all diametrically opposed to the scientific method and the science community in general. It's all closer to something I'd have expected from the Catholic Church during the Inquisition era: make a claim that runs counter to what the Church's official position is? Have your life ruined, and perhaps be killed as a heretic. Some of the stories I've read in the news since Pruitt took over are chillingly similar: you're a goverment scientist who says human-caused climate change is real? Have your professional life more or less ruined, as you're censured and reassigned to some backwater of science you'll be stuck in forever, simply because Pruitt doesn't like what you had to say.
From the three-letter-agencies that brought you More Surveillance: Say "welcome!" to your new AI surveillance-data-processing overlords!
That's about where I think this is going. Since what they keep trotting out as 'AI' is shitty, that means the analysis will be wrong part of the time, and some innocent citizens will end up dropped in a blacksite oubliette and never heard from again.
MS says: "LOL we plan on owning GNOME and everything else in the future anyway, so sure we'll rename it because we'll be renaming everything later anyway"
Yes yes yes I KNOW all that already and tell others the same regularly. I do not have a 'smart TV', or a smartphone, or a voice assistant, or any of the other useless toys that have been leveraged into being surveillance devices, and I have not 'given up modern life', and it's wrong of you to characterize it that way. You can be smart about some things and take back SOME of your privacy moving forward. Stay off 'social media'. Don't use a smartphone. Don't buy things with cameras and microphones that are 'always on'. Don't buy most 'IoT' devices for the same reasons. Pay CASH for all purchases you possibly can, and write checks for things you can't, instead of using plastic (which is also safer right now anyway because of constant data breaches; electronic payment systems are NOT SECURE and like having unprotected sex the more you expose yourself to them the higher your risk of getting your data stolen).
Is privacy really worth giving up that much? I may hate that the 4th is dead in all but name, but I'm not going to go live in a cave in Afghanistan just to say I have privacy. Likely that wouldn't even be true. Probably satellites watching the entire country anyway.
Listen, buddy: I want to slap people when they say shit like that. If you GIVE UP then THEY WIN; is that what you want? To live like an animal in a zoo, or a convict in prison, watched 24/7/365 cradle-to-grave, every move you make, word you say recorded logged scrutinized and analyzed? Is that the world you want your kids growing up in? Don't even accuse me of the 'Appeal to Emotion' fallacy because it's a real question: Do you want your own children growing up in a world where having NO PRIVACY WHATSOEVER and being surveilled constantly is the NORM? If you say anything other than a resounding "NO!" then I say you need to THINK HARDER and try again.
If you think I'm being too harsh then consider this: It takes at least this much to get through to most people, and 'most people' are what it's going to take to reverse this trend and take back our lives.
Can't speak for the majority but neither I nor anyone I know fell for the 'smart TV' meme, and the few who bought one don't ever connect it to the internet for any reason.
Slashdot Mirror
..meanwhile, Google is slurping up all the delicious free data all those people are providing, bundling it, and selling it off to the highest bidder -- and likely their primary customer is the Indian government.
What is this you say, ask the RIAA, MPAA, and whoever else to do something for free??? That's just crazy talk, you need to be medicated! Of course we're expected to pay, pay, pay for everything; what are you, some sort of communist or something? </extreme_sarcasm>
Just like they said "Don't be evil".
Guess what? You're dealing with the military. They write a contract for you to develop a specific product. Part of that contract is complete documentation on how to create the product they contracted you for. Once you deliver on the contract, it's not up to you anymore how that product is used, no matter what you might have to say about it. If they want to integrate it into a weapons system, that's tough shit for you and your ethics.
I agree with you, and I'll be happy if they manage to head this off, but chances are the Internet will have to take the damage the ISPs and others are willing to deal to it before enough of the average citizenry screams bloody murder to their congresscritters on both sides of the aisle and forces them to change things. Either that or the Internet will become totally unusable, and like anything else people will just lose interest and go do something else instead. What too many people either don't remember or are too young to have been around for, is when there was no such thing as "The Internet". Life went on just fine without it being around, and life can go on just fine without it. If it becomes unusable or inaccessible due to being too expensive, then everything will move away from it. If they make 'walled gardens' of access levels, and people don't think it's worth it, they won't pay, and whatever is behind those 'walls' will go away. If it comes down to the point where the only things the Internet is good for is accessing government services and email, unless you want to pay through the nose, then people are going to say screw this and find another way. Won't be the first or last time something got ruined because too many people got too greedy. Who knows, if it comes to that, maybe someone will create "Internet 2.0" that's totally separate, and everyone will move to that instead. Or maybe we just go back to not bothering with it. Either way life will go on, nobody's going to die, the sky isn't going to fall.
This is an important find, and so far as I'm concerned totally validates the effort that's gone into exploring Mars up to this point, but frankly I was hoping they were going to announce they'd found actual lifeforms, or solid evidence lifeforms once existed there. This is a big step towards that but there's too much wiggle-room to conclude Mars has or once had life of any kind on it. More work to do yet I guess! Progress is progress though.
99.999% sure that's just some jackasses' trolling account.
Trollololol. Fuck off back to /b/.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
In order to comply with this, if (theoretically) it was enforced world-wide upon YouTube, would be for YouTube to have every video uploaded sit in a private space that only YouTube has access to, and have a human employee of YouTube view the video looking for copyright violations. In essense it would be the death of YouTube.
But wait, there's more: That would set a legal precedent for any media hosting on the entire Internet; everyone, from the largest to the smallest company, would have to do the same vetting of uploaded media in order to protect themselves from liability. Something like Facebook, for instance, would have to have every static photograph uploaded scrutinized, too, to ensure that there's nothing in the background that's IP belonging to anyone who would sue over it.
Theoretically, a ruling like this, if it was upheld worldwide, would more or less destroy the Internet as we know it. The only entities it would serve would be large media companies; the Internet would become, even more so than it is already, just a tool for business and revenue generation, not much of anything in the interests of private individuals. Many companies providing hosting of uploaded media would simply cease to exist or stop offering the ability to upload anything for fear of being legally liable for copyright violation.
The Internet is becoming a slow-motion trainwreck. Between government censorship in so many countries, cybercrime, abuses by people and organizations pushing 'fake news', and ISPs wanting to go back to the 'walled garden' business model, the Internet is slowly but surely becoming unusable.
There aren't fewer successful attacks of this kind, there are more of them as time passes, and the consequences of them are getting worse not better. There's obviously a fundamental problem with these critical systems and obviously nobody is doing anything about it. Do we need to go back to doing everything with paper until everyone gets their act together and fixes it?
Stuffed in a metal tube with way too many people and you can't see outside? Sounds like it would be a great way to induce claustrophobia and anxiety attacks in people who don't even normally experience those. All you'd need then is for it to be a little too warm, be jammed in too close to someone who's making you uncomfortable, and having flight attendants threaten you if you try to leave your seat for any reason, and you'd have all-out panic. Besides which, unless it's night-time, it's nice to be able to look outside through a real window. Some TV screen doesn't cut it. If they're going to do this then they may as well just sedate people for the entire flight.
All you have to do is read the news to see that. And people give me shit for paying cash for things (reduce exposure to payment system data breaches as much as possible) and why I refuse to own a smartphone (your kitchen collander has fewer holes) or have IoT devices, or have anything to do with social media sites.
I didn't see anywhere where it says how many people participated in this poll. I sincerely doubt that all 300,000,000 citizens responded.
That's the problem with these 'polls': limited number of participants, how do you expect anyone to believe this truly represents the majority?
There are days I love my species, we can be amazing and wonderful, but there are too many days when I'm just plain disappointed and wonder if we even deserve to survive. What's even worse was the recent epiphany of mine that while I'd been thinking people were getting dumber as the years went by, it's really that I'm just really noticing how dumb so many people are. It's depressing as fuck, I'll have you know.
That's fine and dandy when the long term effects of a policy decision will only mean someone loses money, or some mess has to be cleaned up. In this case their 'policy decision' may make the Earth uninhabitable for the long term, with no way to reverse the damage and have a planet we can live on anymore. Therefore your reasoning is invalid.
Ocean temperature rise may or may not be human-caused, that's why the research needs to continue. The current administration wants to just say "it's not human caused, case closed", and start burning the research, censuring or outright firing scientists that disagree, and actively discouraging anyone, government or private, from doing any further research. That's the sort of bullshit that needs to be stopped; it smacks of Dominionism, of religious zealots who actually believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that we don't have to give a damn about it because it's all going to end soon anyway. This isn't just about climate change, it's about Real Facts and the neverending search for Real Truth versus dogma.
Show us your PhD in Climate Science (with timestamp) to back up your 'opinions' on this anonymous news aggregation-and-discussion site. Otherwise you're just one more climate-change-denying jackass with an 'opinion' you can't back up with anything more than the lint in your pockets. I'm no scientist either, but I'd sooner listen to a room full of people who spent 6-8-10 years getting their degrees plus however many decades of experience than I would some fool (or politician, same difference) when it comes to something like this -- and I'm far from alone.
You can look to the Flat Earth people for that; you could put them in orbit, or send them around the Moon and back, and they'd still claim it's all smoke and mirrors. In that scenario I wouldn't at all be surprised if they tried to open the door of the capsule while in transit, convinced they were on a Hollywood sound stage.
If you're going to 'protect the environment' in order to 'protect the citizens' then you have to have a long-term view of things, not only as far as next quarters' profits for the oil and gas industry.
The core problem here standing in the way of what most of us would call 'common sense' is, to put it bluntly, greed and corruption. Scott Pruitt, I'm sure, cares more about corporations and what THEY want, and to hell with 'the environment' if it stands in their way. It's also possible he's a Dominionist, and actually believes that protecting the environment in the long term is pointless since it's all going to come to an end anyway so it won't matter how much damage we do to the planet.
What the 'courts are expecting' is there to be something better than what appears to be a purely politically-motivated 'opinion' from one man (or one political party) that actively quashes any opposing viewpoint. The entire subject of 'global warming' is FAR from being 100% settled (mainly because the scientific method demands it stay open to intelligent debate) but defunding and disbanding climate science research, issuing gag orders to government-employed scientists, and (my favorite one of all) actually destroying scientific data and research that doesn't agree with his 'opinion' is all diametrically opposed to the scientific method and the science community in general. It's all closer to something I'd have expected from the Catholic Church during the Inquisition era: make a claim that runs counter to what the Church's official position is? Have your life ruined, and perhaps be killed as a heretic. Some of the stories I've read in the news since Pruitt took over are chillingly similar: you're a goverment scientist who says human-caused climate change is real? Have your professional life more or less ruined, as you're censured and reassigned to some backwater of science you'll be stuck in forever, simply because Pruitt doesn't like what you had to say.
From the three-letter-agencies that brought you More Surveillance: Say "welcome!" to your new AI surveillance-data-processing overlords!
That's about where I think this is going. Since what they keep trotting out as 'AI' is shitty, that means the analysis will be wrong part of the time, and some innocent citizens will end up dropped in a blacksite oubliette and never heard from again.
MS says: "LOL we plan on owning GNOME and everything else in the future anyway, so sure we'll rename it because we'll be renaming everything later anyway"
Is privacy really worth giving up that much? I may hate that the 4th is dead in all but name, but I'm not going to go live in a cave in Afghanistan just to say I have privacy. Likely that wouldn't even be true. Probably satellites watching the entire country anyway.
Listen, buddy: I want to slap people when they say shit like that. If you GIVE UP then THEY WIN; is that what you want? To live like an animal in a zoo, or a convict in prison, watched 24/7/365 cradle-to-grave, every move you make, word you say recorded logged scrutinized and analyzed? Is that the world you want your kids growing up in? Don't even accuse me of the 'Appeal to Emotion' fallacy because it's a real question: Do you want your own children growing up in a world where having NO PRIVACY WHATSOEVER and being surveilled constantly is the NORM? If you say anything other than a resounding "NO!" then I say you need to THINK HARDER and try again.
If you think I'm being too harsh then consider this: It takes at least this much to get through to most people, and 'most people' are what it's going to take to reverse this trend and take back our lives.
Can't speak for the majority but neither I nor anyone I know fell for the 'smart TV' meme, and the few who bought one don't ever connect it to the internet for any reason.