That depends. Is it okay if a pharmaceutical company gives doctors $100 for each kid they diagnose with ADHD? Is it okay if the porn business gives a teacher $100 for each student he/she convinces to go into porn?
Let's make it slightly more ambiguous. What about if doctors got $100 for 'suggesting' an ADHD diagnosis and explaining how it would help the kid get extra teaching aid? What about if the teacher got $100 not for sending a student into porn, but for getting them to audition?
Somewhere on that slope is Google. They're not there yet (paying teachers to force kids into only using Google services), but they're on the road leading there.
Keep in mind that all of the suggestions here are legal, though morally reprehensible, just like Google. And I sure as hell don't trust Google to do something allegedly altruistic after how they handled Damore.
That is a very blurry line. Most game companies, and most other companies as well, are driven primarily by greed from the day they are founded. Greed is the engine of capitalism. If you let the government's nose into the tent to fix this one little peeve of yours, you have already surrendered your liberty to game as you like.
Agreed, and that is why we have such back and forth problems with should they/shouldn't they. Most on/. seem to agree that government regulations such as NN are necessary since the companies against NN are so god-damn greedy as to beggar the mind, but other areas are far less clear-cut. I would disagree on the first point though, I think most game companies are founded with a very different mindset - they have a dream of delivering a kick-ass game, but switch more and more towards greed as the founders are supplanted by greedy investors uninterested in the core business (Bioware and Blizzard both started out focused on making kick-ass games, but then greedy bastards like EA/Activision happened).
Obvious solution: Stop buying their products.
I stopped doing that when they launched Origin, and I haven't looked back since. I've never used microtransactions in a non-F2P game either. I'm doing my part I'd say.
The problem is getting others to do the same. EA is doing it because it's working after all.
The morale of the story? Maybe people should not pay a game developer any more than the $40-60 they paid when they thought they "bought" the game in the first place.
While the closing remarks took care of one aspect, I feel another worthwhile moral point is "there is no need for government regulation in a market until avarice becomes the single driving force of progress". EA has overstepped and overstepped with more and more greedy business practices, game by game, until now it's finally gotten so bad that the games market has to be regulated for gambling. EA went ahead and peed in the communal soup bowl, and now everyone pays the price.
I cannot express the loathing I feel for EA execs, and I thoroughly hope they get to suffer for making the world just a tiny bit worse for everyone.
Tucker on the Pai plan: prepare for innovation, since socialized internet is finally kicked to the curb!
Please take a moment for introspection as you fruitlessly shill your limited perspective.
In order to get any attention at all you have to throw links around at every opportunity, like a blinking neon sign. Why do you think that is? Because you haven't arrived yet? Because the ball hasn't started rolling for you yet? Or perhaps, because people have read your pointless deluge of words, and found them, contrary to what you think, vapid, shallow, and/or inane?
Please, consider the fact there is good reason to pay you no heed, no attention, not even rage, as you are uninspired and forgettable in every meaning of the word.
I found the problem. If you want representation, you shouldn't fund the Government, you should fund the politicians. That's what the big boys are doing.
Look at it - Google - taxes: $5.30. Politicians: Millions Apple - taxes: $0 but requested $800 million in returns. Politicians: One Ireland worth of bribes. Verizon - taxes: please, do we look like poor people? Politicians: Enough for complete ownership of one Ajit Pai and whatever lawmaker is willing to block fiber deployment to the local orphanage for hefty donations.
Keto doesn't give you muscle mass problems when you ingest it, it's the body's own way of producing keto-bodies that is the muscle-destroying variant. It will also cause horrific breath.
Now, when you say you went on keto, does that mean you also started counting calories and lowered your daily intake? And perhaps started exercising a bit more?
My first venture onto a keto/atkins diet, I had my blood pressure drop from medium high to "wow you're doing just fine", my triglycerides went from 390 to 95, weight from 235lbs to 190lbs, and I got completely off all diabetes-related medication - all within the span of 10 weeks.
Keto doesn't do anything for dieting, that's not how it works or what it's "designed" to do. It's used as a panic-move energy source for your brain when you are out of bloodsugar since fats cannot pass the blood-brain barrier.
If you started at 235lbs then you were at the upper echelon of overweight at least (unless you're 7"+ tall), and basically any change in diet would reduce your weight. This is a well-known problem and is the reason why so much diet research is shit - when you include extreme outliers in your study (you take a bunch of obese people for your tests) you can expect results simply from taking them away from their pre-existing diet. I.e. if you take a 300lbs man away from his regular schedule, he will lose weight just from that. If you feed a 300lbs man print ads from your local newspaper, he will lose weight simply because he doesn't have enough time to eat like he usually does. But consuming print ads will not do much for a normal person.
Finally, no body is designed to eat ketons on a regular basis since the construction of those is destructive to your muscle mass and overall health.
It's been two full months since Apple released iOS 11 to millions and millions of devices worldwide, and the software is still just buggy as hell. Some of the glitches are ugly or just unexpected from a company that has built a reputation for flawless software. Shame on me for always expecting perfection from an imperfect company, I guess.
This perfectly defines an Apple user. You get rawdogged all the way to the bank, and you blame yourself for getting boned! If this was Windows, you'd be blaming Microsoft, if this was Unix, you'd be blaming open source, if this was the Republicans, you'd be blaming the Democrats (and vice versa), but when it comes to Apple, it's not their fault the software is buggy, it's yours for expecting Apple to deliver on their promises.
You are absolutely correct, I mixed up my numbers before putting pen to paper. I apologize.
There are 600 articles written per day.
That means over the past 30 days, 1320 editors have written 13,860 articles (77% of 18,000 articles). That comes down to 10.5 articles each, in a single month. While that number is but a fraction of what I wrote earlier, the point stands. There is no way that people who have all that time to waste on Wikipedia are experts in anything at all, much less 10.5 things per month.
Since current events are allowed, ideological and political editors are drawn to the site, leading to it becoming polarized, leading to even greater political and ideological appeal. This will in turn dismay all "normal" editors who aren't in it for ideological reasons, and many of them will leave. From there, we would expect the dominant group to block/kick out the ideologically divergent editors, eventually leading to the formation of new wikipedias where the ousted editors can form their own dominant groups. Are there other Wikipedias with strong political/ideological twists formed since the original one turned polarized and ideological?
If this hypothesis holds, it certainly could explain why 1% of editors are responsible for most of the content.
There are currently 5,507,355 English articles on Wikipedia. 77% of that is 4,240,663.35. Divide that by 1320 and you see that every editor in that 1% is an "expert" on 3212.62 topics. Or perhaps they are just very interested in what others are allowed to read.
So what you're saying is that the main premise of Wikipedia is false.
It is not a crowd-sourced documentation of knowledge. It is the exact same encyclopaedia, written by a few experts, that Wikipedia was supposed to supplant. Oh, except that instead of having verified and accountable experts like we had in the old format, we now have unverifiable non-experts that aren't accountable, and may put whatever biased crap they want in there. If it's all the same to you, I'll stick with the merit-based format.
Somehow, I don't think this what founder Jimmy Wales envisioned.
You have to send the image to FB. That prevents abuse of the system, since you won't be able to get a hash of the Mona Lisa or some stock photo up there. What it also implies is that the image is verified before the hash is computed. That means that some dude will be looking at your nudes before deciding if it's a real or fake one.
But, why aren't they using an algorithm for this? Well, current models (IsItPorn) aren't remotely there yet. A lot of weird stuff will get hashed and submitted. Second, an algorithm will not have the talent to identify fake stuff or funny stuff. And third, what do you think happens if FB gets it wrong? If they are actively participating in the revenge porn activity they will in fact be liable for any mistake (and the person in question is unlikely to be amicable at the time). So they will absolutely have an employee go through the details to avoid mishaps.
That only works in the US. In the EU, strange as it may seem, the law is the law. You cannot sign away your rights (because in the EU your rights are your rights), nor can you give anyone permission to do something which is illegal. Because, and I'm surprised I need to say this again, in the EU anything illegal is in fact illegal.
With this in mind, guess why there aren't any "forced arbitration" clauses in European EULAs.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends. Is it okay if a pharmaceutical company gives doctors $100 for each kid they diagnose with ADHD? Is it okay if the porn business gives a teacher $100 for each student he/she convinces to go into porn?
Let's make it slightly more ambiguous. What about if doctors got $100 for 'suggesting' an ADHD diagnosis and explaining how it would help the kid get extra teaching aid? What about if the teacher got $100 not for sending a student into porn, but for getting them to audition?
Somewhere on that slope is Google. They're not there yet (paying teachers to force kids into only using Google services), but they're on the road leading there.
Keep in mind that all of the suggestions here are legal, though morally reprehensible, just like Google. And I sure as hell don't trust Google to do something allegedly altruistic after how they handled Damore.
What was that about Obama instituting policies that were unnecessary and unneeded?
Wasn't that one of the major arguments against NN?
That is a very blurry line. Most game companies, and most other companies as well, are driven primarily by greed from the day they are founded. Greed is the engine of capitalism. If you let the government's nose into the tent to fix this one little peeve of yours, you have already surrendered your liberty to game as you like.
Agreed, and that is why we have such back and forth problems with should they/shouldn't they. Most on /. seem to agree that government regulations such as NN are necessary since the companies against NN are so god-damn greedy as to beggar the mind, but other areas are far less clear-cut.
I would disagree on the first point though, I think most game companies are founded with a very different mindset - they have a dream of delivering a kick-ass game, but switch more and more towards greed as the founders are supplanted by greedy investors uninterested in the core business (Bioware and Blizzard both started out focused on making kick-ass games, but then greedy bastards like EA/Activision happened).
Obvious solution: Stop buying their products.
I stopped doing that when they launched Origin, and I haven't looked back since. I've never used microtransactions in a non-F2P game either. I'm doing my part I'd say.
The problem is getting others to do the same. EA is doing it because it's working after all.
The morale of the story? Maybe people should not pay a game developer any more than the $40-60 they paid when they thought they "bought" the game in the first place.
While the closing remarks took care of one aspect, I feel another worthwhile moral point is "there is no need for government regulation in a market until avarice becomes the single driving force of progress". EA has overstepped and overstepped with more and more greedy business practices, game by game, until now it's finally gotten so bad that the games market has to be regulated for gambling. EA went ahead and peed in the communal soup bowl, and now everyone pays the price.
I cannot express the loathing I feel for EA execs, and I thoroughly hope they get to suffer for making the world just a tiny bit worse for everyone.
Tucker on the Pai plan: prepare for innovation, since socialized internet is finally kicked to the curb!
Please take a moment for introspection as you fruitlessly shill your limited perspective.
In order to get any attention at all you have to throw links around at every opportunity, like a blinking neon sign. Why do you think that is? Because you haven't arrived yet? Because the ball hasn't started rolling for you yet? Or perhaps, because people have read your pointless deluge of words, and found them, contrary to what you think, vapid, shallow, and/or inane?
Please, consider the fact there is good reason to pay you no heed, no attention, not even rage, as you are uninspired and forgettable in every meaning of the word.
Sanctum 2 on Humble Bundle currently.
Eat your Snickers, he made a funny.
Then all Apple Stores would be placed in downtown Mumbai... (or Manila if we are to be completely correct)
There are probably many factors that play into their store placement.
We the People, fund the Government.
I found the problem. If you want representation, you shouldn't fund the Government, you should fund the politicians. That's what the big boys are doing.
Look at it -
Google - taxes: $5.30. Politicians: Millions
Apple - taxes: $0 but requested $800 million in returns. Politicians: One Ireland worth of bribes.
Verizon - taxes: please, do we look like poor people? Politicians: Enough for complete ownership of one Ajit Pai and whatever lawmaker is willing to block fiber deployment to the local orphanage for hefty donations.
Like an MBA could ever get past all the cool YouTube videos of snakebites and mango worms to search for guides.
Like an MBA could ever build a mining rig.
Keto doesn't give you muscle mass problems when you ingest it, it's the body's own way of producing keto-bodies that is the muscle-destroying variant. It will also cause horrific breath.
Now, when you say you went on keto, does that mean you also started counting calories and lowered your daily intake? And perhaps started exercising a bit more?
My first venture onto a keto/atkins diet, I had my blood pressure drop from medium high to "wow you're doing just fine", my triglycerides went from 390 to 95, weight from 235lbs to 190lbs, and I got completely off all diabetes-related medication - all within the span of 10 weeks.
Keto doesn't do anything for dieting, that's not how it works or what it's "designed" to do. It's used as a panic-move energy source for your brain when you are out of bloodsugar since fats cannot pass the blood-brain barrier.
If you started at 235lbs then you were at the upper echelon of overweight at least (unless you're 7"+ tall), and basically any change in diet would reduce your weight.
This is a well-known problem and is the reason why so much diet research is shit - when you include extreme outliers in your study (you take a bunch of obese people for your tests) you can expect results simply from taking them away from their pre-existing diet. I.e. if you take a 300lbs man away from his regular schedule, he will lose weight just from that. If you feed a 300lbs man print ads from your local newspaper, he will lose weight simply because he doesn't have enough time to eat like he usually does. But consuming print ads will not do much for a normal person.
Finally, no body is designed to eat ketons on a regular basis since the construction of those is destructive to your muscle mass and overall health.
That type of propaganda is unfortunately far more pervasive.
It's been two full months since Apple released iOS 11 to millions and millions of devices worldwide, and the software is still just buggy as hell. Some of the glitches are ugly or just unexpected from a company that has built a reputation for flawless software. Shame on me for always expecting perfection from an imperfect company, I guess.
This perfectly defines an Apple user. You get rawdogged all the way to the bank, and you blame yourself for getting boned! If this was Windows, you'd be blaming Microsoft, if this was Unix, you'd be blaming open source, if this was the Republicans, you'd be blaming the Democrats (and vice versa), but when it comes to Apple, it's not their fault the software is buggy, it's yours for expecting Apple to deliver on their promises.
I would think "here's a security guy that seems to understand modern security issues".
...it kinda sucks when someone takes information you thought was yours alone and sells it to the highest bidder, eh?
Did they call tech support? Did they try turning it off and on again?
You are absolutely correct, I mixed up my numbers before putting pen to paper. I apologize.
There are 600 articles written per day.
That means over the past 30 days, 1320 editors have written 13,860 articles (77% of 18,000 articles). That comes down to 10.5 articles each, in a single month. While that number is but a fraction of what I wrote earlier, the point stands. There is no way that people who have all that time to waste on Wikipedia are experts in anything at all, much less 10.5 things per month.
You might be on to something here.
Since current events are allowed, ideological and political editors are drawn to the site, leading to it becoming polarized, leading to even greater political and ideological appeal. This will in turn dismay all "normal" editors who aren't in it for ideological reasons, and many of them will leave. From there, we would expect the dominant group to block/kick out the ideologically divergent editors, eventually leading to the formation of new wikipedias where the ousted editors can form their own dominant groups.
Are there other Wikipedias with strong political/ideological twists formed since the original one turned polarized and ideological?
If this hypothesis holds, it certainly could explain why 1% of editors are responsible for most of the content.
There are currently 5,507,355 English articles on Wikipedia.
77% of that is 4,240,663.35.
Divide that by 1320 and you see that every editor in that 1% is an "expert" on 3212.62 topics. Or perhaps they are just very interested in what others are allowed to read.
I think the numbers speak for themselves.
So what you're saying is that the main premise of Wikipedia is false.
It is not a crowd-sourced documentation of knowledge. It is the exact same encyclopaedia, written by a few experts, that Wikipedia was supposed to supplant.
Oh, except that instead of having verified and accountable experts like we had in the old format, we now have unverifiable non-experts that aren't accountable, and may put whatever biased crap they want in there.
If it's all the same to you, I'll stick with the merit-based format.
Somehow, I don't think this what founder Jimmy Wales envisioned.
Well this is interesting.
You have to send the image to FB. That prevents abuse of the system, since you won't be able to get a hash of the Mona Lisa or some stock photo up there. What it also implies is that the image is verified before the hash is computed. That means that some dude will be looking at your nudes before deciding if it's a real or fake one.
But, why aren't they using an algorithm for this? Well, current models (IsItPorn) aren't remotely there yet. A lot of weird stuff will get hashed and submitted. Second, an algorithm will not have the talent to identify fake stuff or funny stuff. And third, what do you think happens if FB gets it wrong? If they are actively participating in the revenge porn activity they will in fact be liable for any mistake (and the person in question is unlikely to be amicable at the time). So they will absolutely have an employee go through the details to avoid mishaps.
I really hope I can sign up for that job.
That only works in the US. In the EU, strange as it may seem, the law is the law. You cannot sign away your rights (because in the EU your rights are your rights), nor can you give anyone permission to do something which is illegal. Because, and I'm surprised I need to say this again, in the EU anything illegal is in fact illegal.
With this in mind, guess why there aren't any "forced arbitration" clauses in European EULAs.
For his sake, I hope that he takes the appropriate caution when given parenting advice by someone so insightful they have to hide in anonymity.