The EU still allows that exception. But it has also explicitly stated that this law is a first step towards EU-wide licenses, and it hopes to abolish or severely limit such exceptions at some point.
On the other hand, many distributors have stuck to the idea of charging more for content in smaller (not necessarily richer) regions. Hopefully this will put an end to that. I also hope that we’ll soon be able to enjoy the same selection on Netflix as offered in the UK... though it’s likely that brexit will go through before they get around to dealing with Netflix.
Heritage does explicitly argue against equal rights. Not really sure someone who believes in lesser rights because of who you are is an opinion really worth listening to
The AI Board would be talking about a wide range of issues, of which LGBT rights would only be a small part (it might not even come up at all). I fully agree that not all opinions are equally valuable, but arguing against LGBT rights in no way invalidates the Heritage rep's opinion on all of those other matters. Maybe they do have an appalling view on other matters as well. In that case, why did the Google employees not say so? Then they'd actually have a point, instead of appearing to be a bunch of whiny virtue signalers.
I don't know if Google wanted to include Heritage Foundation because of their angle on matters related to AI or ethics. Maybe they just wanted to have a conservative representation on the board. You know, for reasons of inclusion...
Making shrill demands to have everyone else follow your own narrow set of beliefs is not the same as ethics. Diversity of opinion is the very thing these employees are protesting against, even if they might not know it themselves.
A self driving motorcycle would be a boon, however. That way, the rider can give his undivided attention to wildly gesturing at drivers on their cell phones, and slapping wing mirrors of drivers he thinks are not giving him enough space. Meanwhile the AI can be set to accelerate fast if it detects someone pulling out of a driveway a couple hundred meters down the road. Maybe it can even handle the rev bombing...
I'd agree about the 99%... if we lived in a world without what some call "social justice", or without "deplatforming". People trying to get you fired by email-bombing your employer, for having an Ungood opinion. Or not getting hired for your political views. Many, many more people than the 1% whistleblowers have very good and valid reasons to want to keep their professional, political, gaming, and social personae separated. Identity is abused more often and in far worse ways than anonymity is.
An award involves speech but there's more to it. Especially in this case. Forbidding a rule that excludes newcomers from an important industry award has nothing to do with curtailing freedom of speech. At least, I expect that a judge will find it so.
That really depends on your prison. If you just lock up people, and turn them out with the suit they came in with and a bus fare, then you're right. But if you add a library, access to education, family visits, help with psychological issues, phone calls, or the occasional furlough, you're already improving the odds of rehabilitation. Many prisons in Europe specifically aim to help prisoners adjust to a normal life, with a regimen that provides jobs or stuff to do as well as things that help (re)build necessary social skills that most of us take for granted. For instance, the Dutch Ministry for Justice explicitly states 3 goals of prison sentences: retribution (punishment), security (locking up people prevents them from committing more crimes), and prevention of recidivism by preparing prisoners for life after prison.
This doesn't end crime; recidivism remains high, though not nearly as high as in prisons without any rehabilitation program. Rehabilitation works poorly, but it does work.
Nothing of value? On the contrary. If these got deleted, that means that there's something in there they do not want people to see or remember. That makes it valuable.
Why? A prison should serve several functions, only one of them being punishment. How about rehabilitation? Very few prisoners deserve life imprisonment, and it is in everyone's best interest to do what we can to have prisoners re-enter society as best they can when their time is up. You will not accomplish that by treating them like animals.
Don't know if I'd go along with the defense reasoning that his actions are the result of a mental illness, but if they can't prove that he intended to share any of the information at any point, then charges of treason shouldn't stick either.
However I can well imagine that willfully mishandling classified information (taking it home when you have no authority to do so) constitutes a crime under US law. Merely having classified info in your possession when you shouldn't certainly is a crime in my own country.
On the contrary. I think he would prefer rules that would cost a lot to implement. Something that large incumbents like FB can afford, but upstart competitors can’t.
They've always just took existing things, put polish on it, and convinced people they needed it
In a way, that's what innovation is: taking either new ideas, or improvements on existing things, and putting them out there. Innovation is not invention, but application.
Some were saying that paying billions for a messaging service and a photo thingy, which weren't making any money and had no real idea how to monetize their service, was insane. Others understood that the Zuck wasn't paying for the service, but for eyeballs. Not exactly a new concept, but (according to some) he overpaid, by quite a bit. You might say that the "prophetic" part is that Facebook understood that those services were worth a lot more to them than to themselves or to others. It's like buying Boardwalk when you already own Park Place in Monopoly, and you're ready to stick some hotels on those suckers.
FB could have easily duplicated the Instagram and WhatsApp services themselves, and current FB users would have flocked to them... but would they have been able to win over the non-faceBook customers? Especially with Instagram and WhatsApp already out there? There's still plenty of #deletefacebook-ers with a burning hatred for everything Zuckerberg owns, but still find it very hard to completely do away with WhatsApp.
Maybe that's the goal, considering the unrational violent hatred some people (including politicians who ought to know better) have for cars. Just look at the first post under this article.
Slashdot Mirror
The EU still allows that exception. But it has also explicitly stated that this law is a first step towards EU-wide licenses, and it hopes to abolish or severely limit such exceptions at some point.
Fairfax was the one being accused of sexual misconduct. Northram is the dude allegedly wearing the pointy hat.
On the other hand, many distributors have stuck to the idea of charging more for content in smaller (not necessarily richer) regions. Hopefully this will put an end to that. I also hope that we’ll soon be able to enjoy the same selection on Netflix as offered in the UK... though it’s likely that brexit will go through before they get around to dealing with Netflix.
Setting diversity of opinion as the goal is the secret ethics sauce.
Heritage does explicitly argue against equal rights. Not really sure someone who believes in lesser rights because of who you are is an opinion really worth listening to
The AI Board would be talking about a wide range of issues, of which LGBT rights would only be a small part (it might not even come up at all). I fully agree that not all opinions are equally valuable, but arguing against LGBT rights in no way invalidates the Heritage rep's opinion on all of those other matters. Maybe they do have an appalling view on other matters as well. In that case, why did the Google employees not say so? Then they'd actually have a point, instead of appearing to be a bunch of whiny virtue signalers.
I don't know if Google wanted to include Heritage Foundation because of their angle on matters related to AI or ethics. Maybe they just wanted to have a conservative representation on the board. You know, for reasons of inclusion...
There actions have been widely condemned and are unlikely to serve another term.
So there's only hearsay against Fairfax. Is that really enough to "widely condemn" him?
Making shrill demands to have everyone else follow your own narrow set of beliefs is not the same as ethics. Diversity of opinion is the very thing these employees are protesting against, even if they might not know it themselves.
Playing Fortnite just makes me feel like garbage, period.
A self driving motorcycle would be a boon, however. That way, the rider can give his undivided attention to wildly gesturing at drivers on their cell phones, and slapping wing mirrors of drivers he thinks are not giving him enough space. Meanwhile the AI can be set to accelerate fast if it detects someone pulling out of a driveway a couple hundred meters down the road. Maybe it can even handle the rev bombing...
I'd agree about the 99%... if we lived in a world without what some call "social justice", or without "deplatforming". People trying to get you fired by email-bombing your employer, for having an Ungood opinion. Or not getting hired for your political views. Many, many more people than the 1% whistleblowers have very good and valid reasons to want to keep their professional, political, gaming, and social personae separated. Identity is abused more often and in far worse ways than anonymity is.
An award involves speech but there's more to it. Especially in this case. Forbidding a rule that excludes newcomers from an important industry award has nothing to do with curtailing freedom of speech. At least, I expect that a judge will find it so.
That really depends on your prison. If you just lock up people, and turn them out with the suit they came in with and a bus fare, then you're right. But if you add a library, access to education, family visits, help with psychological issues, phone calls, or the occasional furlough, you're already improving the odds of rehabilitation. Many prisons in Europe specifically aim to help prisoners adjust to a normal life, with a regimen that provides jobs or stuff to do as well as things that help (re)build necessary social skills that most of us take for granted. For instance, the Dutch Ministry for Justice explicitly states 3 goals of prison sentences: retribution (punishment), security (locking up people prevents them from committing more crimes), and prevention of recidivism by preparing prisoners for life after prison.
This doesn't end crime; recidivism remains high, though not nearly as high as in prisons without any rehabilitation program. Rehabilitation works poorly, but it does work.
Shame they never indicted Bobby Tables
Nothing of value? On the contrary. If these got deleted, that means that there's something in there they do not want people to see or remember. That makes it valuable.
Why? A prison should serve several functions, only one of them being punishment. How about rehabilitation? Very few prisoners deserve life imprisonment, and it is in everyone's best interest to do what we can to have prisoners re-enter society as best they can when their time is up. You will not accomplish that by treating them like animals.
Of course with the difference that people can do little about their "size".
I have an inbox full of ads that claim otherwise...
Don't know if I'd go along with the defense reasoning that his actions are the result of a mental illness, but if they can't prove that he intended to share any of the information at any point, then charges of treason shouldn't stick either.
However I can well imagine that willfully mishandling classified information (taking it home when you have no authority to do so) constitutes a crime under US law. Merely having classified info in your possession when you shouldn't certainly is a crime in my own country.
The status quo being that only 3 other nations already had an anti-sat missile?
Does India's Anti-Satellite Missile Test Mean The Weaponization of Space
I thought it meant the dawn of a new era of peace, love, reason and understanding. No?
On the contrary. I think he would prefer rules that would cost a lot to implement. Something that large incumbents like FB can afford, but upstart competitors can’t.
They've always just took existing things, put polish on it, and convinced people they needed it
In a way, that's what innovation is: taking either new ideas, or improvements on existing things, and putting them out there. Innovation is not invention, but application.
The solution: 1) more ads. 2) target ads more accurately by mining our private lives ever deeper.
Some were saying that paying billions for a messaging service and a photo thingy, which weren't making any money and had no real idea how to monetize their service, was insane. Others understood that the Zuck wasn't paying for the service, but for eyeballs. Not exactly a new concept, but (according to some) he overpaid, by quite a bit. You might say that the "prophetic" part is that Facebook understood that those services were worth a lot more to them than to themselves or to others. It's like buying Boardwalk when you already own Park Place in Monopoly, and you're ready to stick some hotels on those suckers.
FB could have easily duplicated the Instagram and WhatsApp services themselves, and current FB users would have flocked to them... but would they have been able to win over the non-faceBook customers? Especially with Instagram and WhatsApp already out there? There's still plenty of #deletefacebook-ers with a burning hatred for everything Zuckerberg owns, but still find it very hard to completely do away with WhatsApp.
Maybe that's the goal, considering the unrational violent hatred some people (including politicians who ought to know better) have for cars. Just look at the first post under this article.
Think rationally instead of ideologically
I wish Dutch politicians would take that and tape it to their bathroom mirrors.