The winners for domains will be selected (initially) by a 'widely derided mechanism' of 'digital archery'
This replaced the original plan for a massive game of "Pin the tail on the domain" after they realised it would be impractical to get everyone together in one room.
Still, nearly 200,000 people just to pre-screen Youtube videos? That's over 6 times as many employees as Google currently has, even if you're only paying them $10,000/year that's $2bn just to make sure that, on average the videos being uploaded to Youtube don't possibly maybe infringe on some guy's copyright somewhere - and it probably wouldn't even be 100% effective.
Fuck you, why should I have to spend my time checking to see whether content on Youtube is infringing some foreign company's copyright? Your time may be free, but mine sure as hell isn't.
Presumably it will join the keyboard and mouse, which have apparently been just about to become obsolete for most of the last 15 years.
Not that it will matter, of course, because the Internet is mere weeks away from becoming catastrophically overloaded & falling apart and it has been for years.
Net Neutrality is not really anything to do with censorship, it's about ensuring that - for example - Google doesn't pay your ISP to prioritise all Google.com traffic over other search engines or that BSkyB doesn't pay them to cripple access to the BBC News site while leaving Sky News untouched.
I'm not in favour of censorship for any reason, but it's not helpful to conflate it with net neutrality.
The fundamental difference being that you can choose not to use Google's services and thereby avoid their "monitoring" but you can't avoid wholesale government monitoring of the internet unless you stop using it altogether (which is getting increasingly difficult to do as more and more government & private services move primarily online).
This is the public sector we're talking about, you can't just fire people for gross misconduct, that would be discriminating against people who violate your policies.
I have personal experience of this, contracting for an NHS trust where one of the people in my team abused their access to snoop through peoples' emails, documents & web logs to try and find information that they could use to blackmail them into giving them perks & preferential treatment. We caught it within a couple of days and had witnesses and audit logs showing what they'd been doing (they weren't too bright when it came to covering their tracks) and handed the whole lot over to HR.
It took nearly 3 months before they even suspended him; almost 2 years later they had botched everything so badly that they had to pay this person off to leave quietly and not take them to an employment tribunal.
That anyone ever gets fired from a public sector role without having broken some pretty major laws is nothing short of a miracle.
Under the moronic RIPA laws, they'd just throw you in jail for 5 years for being unwilling or unable to decrypt the data (they don't really care if you can or not and you'd struggle to prove that you couldn't).
OK, serious question then; what if the recording equipment used by Optus was leased to the customer so that they "owned" it and in effect all Optus were doing was pressing record for us because we were busy doing something else?
Optus is no more entitled to copy "on my behalf" than they are to vote on my behalf.
Except that in the UK - and therefore probably also in Australia - you can permit someone else to vote on your behalf if you are unable to (proxy voting). Obviously, doing so removes *your* right to vote, but that bit of the law is less critical when you're talking about watching the football a couple of hours later than it was broadcast rather than electing your government.
Now matter how much certain people in and around the government might want to try and protect the Murdochs and their business interests, it's basically impossible for them to do so at the moment without committing political suicide; even the slightest suspicion of support is probably enough to stop you getting re-elected.
Remember that the Murdochs are several degrees removed from all of these charges. Now they may be evil masterminds and they may eventually be charged with one or more crimes, but for the moment the police are having to work their way up through the ranks.
I suspect that for anything substantial to stick it's going to take more than one or two NOTW employees pointing at the Murdochs and saying "they made me do it".
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
To quote the PC Gamer "live review":
I alt+tab out to check my net connection, and it’s working fine. When I get back in, the game’s quit to the main menu with an error saying there’s been an error – it has a number but no specifics. When I try to get back in, it throws up another error that says to make sure all of my party is ready. I’m playing single player. In a few minutes I’m able to log back in and play again. I’ve lost all my progress through the current zone and the world has reset and repopulated with monsters, but my character, items and quest status are intact.
There’s a lot to say about the fact that this can happen even in single player, but I’ll keep it brief: this is utter bullshit.
I'm all for providing parents with the tools to filter their local internet connection for their children, but centralised blocking will never work effectively.
How do you decide what's appropriate for 5 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? Sure, you could just block everything that you think might be inappropriate for under-18s but then you're going to be blocking a massive amount of stuff that most parents would probably be happy for their teenage children to view, even if they wouldn't want their 8 year old looking at it.
What if your cunning ISP-based blocking system starts missing sites here and there? Or over-zealously blocks perfectly legitimate sites? Or doesn't catch some Youtube video with "suggestive" content? Suddenly you've got a lawsuit from some idiot parents on your hands.
By all means give parents a copy of Netnanny, but leave it at that.
Because you can opt out. Of course, you won't opt out because you don't want to have to call your ISP and say "Please can you let me look at porn", or explain to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife why you've had the filth-filter turned off.
It's really just another moronic step in the funeral parade of personal responsibility; this idea that people shouldn't have to think about requesting adult material be blocked on their connection, let alone actually look after their children and keep an eye on what they're doing online because, you know, that's *hard*.
Stupid lazy fuckers would happily give away all their rights and freedoms if it meant they didn't have to think about anything too hard.
It's worse than you think, the majority of licensing are only increasing by 20-25% while Open Value is going up by 33.5%, which is presumably where the 1/3 figure comes from, so the "average" quoted isn't even representative of the actual changes.
It's hardly our fault that the Euro has been going down the pan faster than the Pound; we get screwed enough when it comes to the price of goods without adding to it voluntarily.
The ISPs will very likely take the least-cost, least-effective method available to them under the terms of the court order so as to adhere to it with a minimum of disruption to their profits and their users.
Slashdot Mirror
The winners for domains will be selected (initially) by a 'widely derided mechanism' of 'digital archery'
This replaced the original plan for a massive game of "Pin the tail on the domain" after they realised it would be impractical to get everyone together in one room.
Still, nearly 200,000 people just to pre-screen Youtube videos? That's over 6 times as many employees as Google currently has, even if you're only paying them $10,000/year that's $2bn just to make sure that, on average the videos being uploaded to Youtube don't possibly maybe infringe on some guy's copyright somewhere - and it probably wouldn't even be 100% effective.
Presumably they score each video based on what percentage of skin-coloured pink there is per frame
That's racist.
Fuck you, why should I have to spend my time checking to see whether content on Youtube is infringing some foreign company's copyright? Your time may be free, but mine sure as hell isn't.
Ah, video calls, I believe they're due to become a dominant technological force a couple of weeks after Virtual Reality does.
Presumably it will join the keyboard and mouse, which have apparently been just about to become obsolete for most of the last 15 years.
Not that it will matter, of course, because the Internet is mere weeks away from becoming catastrophically overloaded & falling apart and it has been for years.
Net Neutrality is not really anything to do with censorship, it's about ensuring that - for example - Google doesn't pay your ISP to prioritise all Google.com traffic over other search engines or that BSkyB doesn't pay them to cripple access to the BBC News site while leaving Sky News untouched.
I'm not in favour of censorship for any reason, but it's not helpful to conflate it with net neutrality.
The fundamental difference being that you can choose not to use Google's services and thereby avoid their "monitoring" but you can't avoid wholesale government monitoring of the internet unless you stop using it altogether (which is getting increasingly difficult to do as more and more government & private services move primarily online).
Congratulations on missing the point.
This is the public sector we're talking about, you can't just fire people for gross misconduct, that would be discriminating against people who violate your policies.
I have personal experience of this, contracting for an NHS trust where one of the people in my team abused their access to snoop through peoples' emails, documents & web logs to try and find information that they could use to blackmail them into giving them perks & preferential treatment. We caught it within a couple of days and had witnesses and audit logs showing what they'd been doing (they weren't too bright when it came to covering their tracks) and handed the whole lot over to HR.
It took nearly 3 months before they even suspended him; almost 2 years later they had botched everything so badly that they had to pay this person off to leave quietly and not take them to an employment tribunal.
That anyone ever gets fired from a public sector role without having broken some pretty major laws is nothing short of a miracle.
Under the moronic RIPA laws, they'd just throw you in jail for 5 years for being unwilling or unable to decrypt the data (they don't really care if you can or not and you'd struggle to prove that you couldn't).
OK, serious question then; what if the recording equipment used by Optus was leased to the customer so that they "owned" it and in effect all Optus were doing was pressing record for us because we were busy doing something else?
Optus is no more entitled to copy "on my behalf" than they are to vote on my behalf.
Except that in the UK - and therefore probably also in Australia - you can permit someone else to vote on your behalf if you are unable to (proxy voting). Obviously, doing so removes *your* right to vote, but that bit of the law is less critical when you're talking about watching the football a couple of hours later than it was broadcast rather than electing your government.
There isn't really one.
Now matter how much certain people in and around the government might want to try and protect the Murdochs and their business interests, it's basically impossible for them to do so at the moment without committing political suicide; even the slightest suspicion of support is probably enough to stop you getting re-elected.
Remember that the Murdochs are several degrees removed from all of these charges. Now they may be evil masterminds and they may eventually be charged with one or more crimes, but for the moment the police are having to work their way up through the ranks.
I suspect that for anything substantial to stick it's going to take more than one or two NOTW employees pointing at the Murdochs and saying "they made me do it".
To quote the PC Gamer "live review":
I alt+tab out to check my net connection, and it’s working fine. When I get back in, the game’s quit to the main menu with an error saying there’s been an error – it has a number but no specifics. When I try to get back in, it throws up another error that says to make sure all of my party is ready. I’m playing single player. In a few minutes I’m able to log back in and play again. I’ve lost all my progress through the current zone and the world has reset and repopulated with monsters, but my character, items and quest status are intact.
There’s a lot to say about the fact that this can happen even in single player, but I’ll keep it brief: this is utter bullshit.
I'm all for providing parents with the tools to filter their local internet connection for their children, but centralised blocking will never work effectively.
How do you decide what's appropriate for 5 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? Sure, you could just block everything that you think might be inappropriate for under-18s but then you're going to be blocking a massive amount of stuff that most parents would probably be happy for their teenage children to view, even if they wouldn't want their 8 year old looking at it.
What if your cunning ISP-based blocking system starts missing sites here and there? Or over-zealously blocks perfectly legitimate sites? Or doesn't catch some Youtube video with "suggestive" content? Suddenly you've got a lawsuit from some idiot parents on your hands.
By all means give parents a copy of Netnanny, but leave it at that.
Because you can opt out. Of course, you won't opt out because you don't want to have to call your ISP and say "Please can you let me look at porn", or explain to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife why you've had the filth-filter turned off.
It's really just another moronic step in the funeral parade of personal responsibility; this idea that people shouldn't have to think about requesting adult material be blocked on their connection, let alone actually look after their children and keep an eye on what they're doing online because, you know, that's *hard*.
Stupid lazy fuckers would happily give away all their rights and freedoms if it meant they didn't have to think about anything too hard.
It's worse than you think, the majority of licensing are only increasing by 20-25% while Open Value is going up by 33.5%, which is presumably where the 1/3 figure comes from, so the "average" quoted isn't even representative of the actual changes.
It's hardly our fault that the Euro has been going down the pan faster than the Pound; we get screwed enough when it comes to the price of goods without adding to it voluntarily.
It already exists http://www.seamonkey-project.org/
Really, do. It's where Firefox would have ended up if it hadn't started chasing Chrome a couple of years ago.
It's like Firefox only without all the desperate attempts to copy Chrome at every turn. Just a shame more addons aren't marked as compatible with it.
The ISPs will very likely take the least-cost, least-effective method available to them under the terms of the court order so as to adhere to it with a minimum of disruption to their profits and their users.
That's piracy sorted, what's next?