First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers?
You're asking the wrong question.
If we can agree that internet search engines are not newspapers,
then the burden falls upon search engines to explain why they should receive the special status granted to newspapers.
What "special status" granted to newspapers? Is this a European thing? In America, everyone has the same free speech rights that newspapers do. Newspapers aren't special.
TLDR: this ruling simply applies to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content.
Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles?
No, they don't. Because they are not internet search engines.
Your last two comments contradict each other. You say it's a search engine if it links to offsite content, but then in the next answer you say newspapers are allowed to link to offsite content without being classed as a search engine.
The original court decision was twofold
1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story
2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.
This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.
There are two problems here. First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers? Second, what defines an Internet service as a "search engine" or a "newspaper"? Suppose I run on online newspaper that has a search function, allowing users to search past articles about any topic? Am I now a search engine? Suppose my newspaper becomes so popular it becomes the de facto place where people go to search for news stories? Do different rules apply then? Or does this ruling simply apply to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content? Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles? The line between newspapers and search engines may become fuzzy, if it isn't already. Do you see the problem?
I know Twitch TV and Justin TV are closely linked. I think in fact that Twitch is an offshoot of JTV and the user accounts are shared. Is YouTube buying JTV as well, will JTV go on independently, or will JTV be shut down?
Since a reformat and reinstall was done, the permissions involved were presumably handled at a lower level (BIOS?) than the installed OS. So it could easily have hit any Intel-based machines accessible via the network
If what you're saying were true, then every Windows computer in the world that's on the Internet would be vulnerable to one hacker sending out a format command.
Working with drupal is a nightmare. Drupal 8 is looking much better but all below are just terrible to work with.
As opposed to what? WordPress? Joomla? Drupal does have a steeper learning curve than some of the other open source CMS's but it has more flexibility, and if you're going to standardize on one, that flexibility is important. I'm curious to know if you have a specific alternative in mind.
I would define someone as a "math genius" if they're able to solve previously unsolved problems, and publish results in major, refereed mathematical journals. Has he been publishing papers since his injury, or at the very least, has he been doing well on university level math exams? Nothing in the article seems to suggest this, so I do question the headline.
My son is required to hand his assignments in via Google Drive and use Gmail to communicate with teachers and fellow students...
I can certainly understand a university requiring gmail to communicate with teachers, but I've never heard of a university requiring students to use gmail to communicate with fellow students. Does that mean that if I become friends with someone in one of my classes I cannot use any e-mail system other than gmail if I want to make plans with them? That sounds like a huge invasion of privacy, and frankly, I'm not even sure how this rule would be enforced.
Let's see how they handle that, as I keep messing around with facial hair 8^{)>
Modern facial recognition seems to be immune to facial hair changes, as well as other simple attempts to fool it. It is based more on measurements of bone structure, and distances between certain facial features such as eyes, nose and mouth. Also, sophisticated AI software is used to make the system robust against changes to some of these features as well. Unless you wear a bag over your head, it's pretty hard to fool modern systems.
I agree with you that the problem is "herd immunity", but not in the way you think.
The problem is in people's perception of the risk vs. benefit of vaccines, and the phrase "herd immunity" does a lot to distort that perception. It suggests that perhaps the risk to an individual getting a vaccine is greater than the benefit to that individual, and the primary reason for the pushing the vaccine on people is for the greater good of the population. First, that isn't true: for pretty much all the standard vaccines people get, the risk to the individual by not getting the vaccine is greater than the risk to the individual by getting it. "Herd immunity" is really a bonus, in that getting a vaccine reduces everyone else's risk of getting the disease as well. However, no reasonable parent is going to subject their child to a risk of harm if the sole benefit is to other people's children, and so placing too much emphasis on "herd immunity" really could be doing more harm than good as it could distort the public perception of the benefits of vaccines for the individuals getting them.
A second problem is the terminology itself. As anyone in advertising will tell you, word choice can have a profound psychological effect on people's perceptions. The word "herd" in all other usages of which I'm aware applies to livestock, such as cattle. When doctors talk to parents about "immunizing the herd", it suggests, even just subconsciously, that health care professionals see children as livestock, and not human beings. While this may not be true, if parents are already wary of vaccinating their kids, the phrase "herd immunity" certainly won't push them in the direction of wanting to.
Unlike in Sweden or Norway, where your ticket depends on your income, the fine is a small amount to a billionaire.
How can the ticket depend on income? How do they know how much you're making? Do they look at your tax return? What if you're a tourist from America or somewhere? They don't file tax returns with the Swedish government, so how do they know how much to charge?
That's simply false. I lived in SC for 4 years, and everyone drives about 10 mph above the speed limit and I've never been pulled over. And the cops I have talked to were actually very nice.
Whether sending a willing astronaut, who understands and chose to do this of his own free will, on a dangerous or even one-way mission is ethical is not a question for anyone except the astronaut.
Can the astronaut accomplish the mission all by him or herself? Or does he/she need a ground crew and a team of engineers to design and build the rocket? If so, then they would all be participants in the astronaut's death. If I decide I want to die and I hand you a gun and ask you to shoot me, is it ethical for you to do so?
It's like trying to decide if gay marriage is "ethical". Unless you're one of the ones involved, nonya business trying to define ethics
But therein lies the problem. There are other people involved.
That's a slippery slope right there. You could almost argue with it that you shouldn't be picking strangers as hitch-hikers because as soon as they pick *you* at some later time, an illegal business transaction is thereby concluded.
Actually, it is already illegal in many jurisdictions to hitchhike or pick up hitchhikers and has been for quite some time.
Skin of Evil was pretty bad too. That's the one where Tasha Yar was killed by an oil slick. I also wasn't too fond of Manhunt. Bloodlines was a real stinker too, especially disappointing since it came so near the end of the series.
End to end encryption doesn't give anywhere near the security many people think. If adversaries (including the government) have access to the communication lines, they can intercept software updates, or take advantage of other vulnerabilities to install software (such as keyloggers, memory sniffers with key extractors, etc.) on the endpoint machines. In fact, they need only compromise one of the computers participating in the communication. So, end to end encryption, although a great idea in theory, really doesn't give much security in practice.
True, but I think most people "forget" to declare most of their possessions. Unless you own a private jet or yacht, I don't think you'll have much trouble.
But it also includes gadgets like a plug-in to inject into MySQL connections, allowing the NSA to quietly mess with the contents of a third-party's database. (This also surprisingly suggests that unencrypted MySQL on the internet is common enough to attract NSA attention.)
When the author wrote that part of the story, he or she seemed to be unaware of what he or she had just written:
allowing bogus certificates and similar routines to break SSL
By breaking SSL, the NSA has access to SQL queries whether or not they're encrypted.
This wasn't a corporate site nor was it a medical services site. This was a non-profit charitable organization. Suppose I set up a website of my own, not for profit, in which I provide information on where to get an abortion. Suppose I don't secure my web server enough and a hacker gets a copy of my access.log files and is thus able to determine who visited my site and suppose they publish that information. Would I be subject to big fines as well? What if it was a website about some other subject like building model trains? I understand in this case the hackers probably got more than just IP addresses, but where exactly is the line drawn? Is anyone who has a website in danger of running afoul of these laws?
Because actual kids are being filned/photographed performing such acts? Since minors can't legally give consent for sex, they are the victims in this crime.
I think you misread the parent's post. It said "I dare someone to prove the harm in possessing/viewing cold porn" [emphasis added]. By "this crime" you seem to mean the sex or the kids being forced into sex to be photographed. I agree that should definitely be a crime and the perpetrators should be punished. By your logic though, possessing photographs of someone being murdered should be a crime, since the victim clearly lost their life.
Slashdot Mirror
First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers?
You're asking the wrong question. If we can agree that internet search engines are not newspapers, then the burden falls upon search engines to explain why they should receive the special status granted to newspapers.
What "special status" granted to newspapers? Is this a European thing? In America, everyone has the same free speech rights that newspapers do. Newspapers aren't special.
TLDR: this ruling simply applies to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content .
Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles?
No, they don't. Because they are not internet search engines.
Your last two comments contradict each other. You say it's a search engine if it links to offsite content, but then in the next answer you say newspapers are allowed to link to offsite content without being classed as a search engine.
The original court decision was twofold 1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story 2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.
This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.
There are two problems here. First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers? Second, what defines an Internet service as a "search engine" or a "newspaper"? Suppose I run on online newspaper that has a search function, allowing users to search past articles about any topic? Am I now a search engine? Suppose my newspaper becomes so popular it becomes the de facto place where people go to search for news stories? Do different rules apply then? Or does this ruling simply apply to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content? Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles? The line between newspapers and search engines may become fuzzy, if it isn't already. Do you see the problem?
Can you imagine if you were in jail on copyright infringement charges and the prison you were in was showing pirated movies?
Can you imagine if you were in jail on drug offenses and there was an illicit drug trade going on in the prison? Oh, wait...
I know Twitch TV and Justin TV are closely linked. I think in fact that Twitch is an offshoot of JTV and the user accounts are shared. Is YouTube buying JTV as well, will JTV go on independently, or will JTV be shut down?
I hope you verified this before posting. ;-)
Since a reformat and reinstall was done, the permissions involved were presumably handled at a lower level (BIOS?) than the installed OS. So it could easily have hit any Intel-based machines accessible via the network
If what you're saying were true, then every Windows computer in the world that's on the Internet would be vulnerable to one hacker sending out a format command.
I never understood where my employer got the right to impersonate gmail or xyz-bank with their own certificates.
They got the right by providing you with the network connection at work which you choose to use for your personal banking and e-mail.
Working with drupal is a nightmare. Drupal 8 is looking much better but all below are just terrible to work with.
As opposed to what? WordPress? Joomla? Drupal does have a steeper learning curve than some of the other open source CMS's but it has more flexibility, and if you're going to standardize on one, that flexibility is important. I'm curious to know if you have a specific alternative in mind.
I would define someone as a "math genius" if they're able to solve previously unsolved problems, and publish results in major, refereed mathematical journals. Has he been publishing papers since his injury, or at the very least, has he been doing well on university level math exams? Nothing in the article seems to suggest this, so I do question the headline.
GPS is already taken by something else. This could cause some confusion.
My son is required to hand his assignments in via Google Drive and use Gmail to communicate with teachers and fellow students...
I can certainly understand a university requiring gmail to communicate with teachers, but I've never heard of a university requiring students to use gmail to communicate with fellow students. Does that mean that if I become friends with someone in one of my classes I cannot use any e-mail system other than gmail if I want to make plans with them? That sounds like a huge invasion of privacy, and frankly, I'm not even sure how this rule would be enforced.
I'm glad the "experts" cleared that up for me. I guess I'll have to change my vacation plans!
What was the uproar about actually? Were people afraid the computers would make mistakes and overcharge them or what?
Let's see how they handle that, as I keep messing around with facial hair 8^{)>
Modern facial recognition seems to be immune to facial hair changes, as well as other simple attempts to fool it. It is based more on measurements of bone structure, and distances between certain facial features such as eyes, nose and mouth. Also, sophisticated AI software is used to make the system robust against changes to some of these features as well. Unless you wear a bag over your head, it's pretty hard to fool modern systems.
The problem is herd immunity.
I agree with you that the problem is "herd immunity", but not in the way you think.
The problem is in people's perception of the risk vs. benefit of vaccines, and the phrase "herd immunity" does a lot to distort that perception. It suggests that perhaps the risk to an individual getting a vaccine is greater than the benefit to that individual, and the primary reason for the pushing the vaccine on people is for the greater good of the population. First, that isn't true: for pretty much all the standard vaccines people get, the risk to the individual by not getting the vaccine is greater than the risk to the individual by getting it. "Herd immunity" is really a bonus, in that getting a vaccine reduces everyone else's risk of getting the disease as well. However, no reasonable parent is going to subject their child to a risk of harm if the sole benefit is to other people's children, and so placing too much emphasis on "herd immunity" really could be doing more harm than good as it could distort the public perception of the benefits of vaccines for the individuals getting them.
A second problem is the terminology itself. As anyone in advertising will tell you, word choice can have a profound psychological effect on people's perceptions. The word "herd" in all other usages of which I'm aware applies to livestock, such as cattle. When doctors talk to parents about "immunizing the herd", it suggests, even just subconsciously, that health care professionals see children as livestock, and not human beings. While this may not be true, if parents are already wary of vaccinating their kids, the phrase "herd immunity" certainly won't push them in the direction of wanting to.
The problem is simple.
Unlike in Sweden or Norway, where your ticket depends on your income, the fine is a small amount to a billionaire.
How can the ticket depend on income? How do they know how much you're making? Do they look at your tax return? What if you're a tourist from America or somewhere? They don't file tax returns with the Swedish government, so how do they know how much to charge?
That's simply false. I lived in SC for 4 years, and everyone drives about 10 mph above the speed limit and I've never been pulled over. And the cops I have talked to were actually very nice.
Whether sending a willing astronaut, who understands and chose to do this of his own free will, on a dangerous or even one-way mission is ethical is not a question for anyone except the astronaut.
Can the astronaut accomplish the mission all by him or herself? Or does he/she need a ground crew and a team of engineers to design and build the rocket? If so, then they would all be participants in the astronaut's death. If I decide I want to die and I hand you a gun and ask you to shoot me, is it ethical for you to do so?
It's like trying to decide if gay marriage is "ethical". Unless you're one of the ones involved, nonya business trying to define ethics
But therein lies the problem. There are other people involved.
That's a slippery slope right there. You could almost argue with it that you shouldn't be picking strangers as hitch-hikers because as soon as they pick *you* at some later time, an illegal business transaction is thereby concluded.
Actually, it is already illegal in many jurisdictions to hitchhike or pick up hitchhikers and has been for quite some time.
Skin of Evil was pretty bad too. That's the one where Tasha Yar was killed by an oil slick. I also wasn't too fond of Manhunt. Bloodlines was a real stinker too, especially disappointing since it came so near the end of the series.
You mean, like, say, end to end encryption?
End to end encryption doesn't give anywhere near the security many people think. If adversaries (including the government) have access to the communication lines, they can intercept software updates, or take advantage of other vulnerabilities to install software (such as keyloggers, memory sniffers with key extractors, etc.) on the endpoint machines. In fact, they need only compromise one of the computers participating in the communication. So, end to end encryption, although a great idea in theory, really doesn't give much security in practice.
True, but I think most people "forget" to declare most of their possessions. Unless you own a private jet or yacht, I don't think you'll have much trouble.
But it also includes gadgets like a plug-in to inject into MySQL connections, allowing the NSA to quietly mess with the contents of a third-party's database. (This also surprisingly suggests that unencrypted MySQL on the internet is common enough to attract NSA attention.)
When the author wrote that part of the story, he or she seemed to be unaware of what he or she had just written:
allowing bogus certificates and similar routines to break SSL
By breaking SSL, the NSA has access to SQL queries whether or not they're encrypted.
Why is this a problem? You've outlined some interesting results here, but what makes you think there's an issue here?
Because the United States is not supposed to have a redistributionist government, but the figures seem to suggest that's exactly what it is.
This wasn't a corporate site nor was it a medical services site. This was a non-profit charitable organization. Suppose I set up a website of my own, not for profit, in which I provide information on where to get an abortion. Suppose I don't secure my web server enough and a hacker gets a copy of my access.log files and is thus able to determine who visited my site and suppose they publish that information. Would I be subject to big fines as well? What if it was a website about some other subject like building model trains? I understand in this case the hackers probably got more than just IP addresses, but where exactly is the line drawn? Is anyone who has a website in danger of running afoul of these laws?
Because actual kids are being filned/photographed performing such acts? Since minors can't legally give consent for sex, they are the victims in this crime.
I think you misread the parent's post. It said "I dare someone to prove the harm in possessing/viewing cold porn" [emphasis added]. By "this crime" you seem to mean the sex or the kids being forced into sex to be photographed. I agree that should definitely be a crime and the perpetrators should be punished. By your logic though, possessing photographs of someone being murdered should be a crime, since the victim clearly lost their life.