Unless your background (read that as your PhD work) is in superconducting and you're an active researcher in the field, it is quite unlikely you understand the physics involved well enough to judge if it has a merit.
Not likely unless you have a broken fuel rod in an assembly, which is an incident, and then depending on the burn-up of the fuel, you may have less of the uranium-5 you want, and more of the uranium-8 which you don't want than seawater.
You're confusing the argument here. Before the legality is the issue of the legitimacy. The legitimacy of the US "sanctions" comes from the old and tired idea that "might makes right". Now, it is very shortsighted to argue legitimacy from this point of view, because legitimacy should be based on principles and not on circumstances.
"Might" is transient, and the US has already weakened considerably since the peak of its power in the late 40s and the early 50s of the 20th century. In another 2 decades, or maybe even less, other players will be able to make the same argument, and the US will be forced to swallow it.
This is how the US is "educating" China. I can only hope you'll still be happy when the fruits of this "education" bite your anonymous smart ass.
I'm reading it again: "Sanctions don't have to be valid". That is, the justification for them can be made up. This is unacceptable and should be shunned, and this is exactly what the two countries mentioned in TFS are doing.
You can't weasel yourself out of it by whataboutism and references to the "Communist scare".
As for this "thieving ethnostate criminal cabal without laws" thingy that you're talking about... That actually smells and sounds a lot like a PNAC US cabinet, the third edition of which is in power and is behind these "sanctions" and the fake "justifications" for them. They, incidentally, sound a lot like the "justifications" that one Mr. Collin Powell presented with some test tubes at the UN a few years back.
So, you're saying that it is okay for a nation to lie to justify hostile policies against other nations? Well, excuse me, but that goes against both the spirit and the letter of practically all international law. Any nation that does that should be shunned, including yours.
There is no "intellectual property". There are various temporary monopoly licenses given by the state (patents, copyrights, etc.) to the author of an intellectual work to recoup their costs. But the catch is that those licenses are limited.
Trying to turn them into a perpetuity is a lawyer trick, which only feeds the "intellectual property" lobbyist and lawyers, and does nothing for the real authors, who actually come up with the clever ideas.
You weren't born then probably, so you have no idea. To try out the first public http client ever, you had to telnet to a cern host, log on and then it RAN in all its glory.
If FB has violated current law, then there doesn't need to be "new regulations"
Says the slashdot village idiot. However, that's not what the people who make the laws think.
The issue of the article being self-contradictory has nothing to with with EU vs. non-EU.
Read the comment I am responding to, darling. Here is the part you missed, my deep reader and quote searcher: this smacks of another EU-style shakedown
You apparently did not read even that summary
You apparently fail at reading comprehension so badly, that I can't even. Fuck off and go back to first grade, where you truly belong.
I vaguely recall news that the US government has developed and is actively using tools that make US government hacking look like it is coming from there. So maybe the US is just lying again, and that is why this is a "public notice".
Well, if you ask me if they are the Stazi with an advertising arm or a "Pravda"-like propaganda powerhouse with a side business in state security, I'll probably answer that I'm on the fence about it:)
You attributed what another person said to an anonymous coward.
Really, now? I'm pretty sure you're the same guy and you're trying a different line of trolling. Not smarter or more logical, just different, using your anonymity. Prove it ain't so, make the argument from a named account, so that I can tell.
You think you'll be able to obtain what you can't otherwise of your own doings via theft of other people's money.
Really, now? Whose money I am "stealing" exactly and how? Specific evidence, please.
They are not abolishing government schooling,
Why should "they"? Underinvestment in education is a market failure that is both explained by economic theory and empirically established. It is only sound that any smart government should invest in education it to correct this failure.
No, near all politicians are socialist. It's just a matter of degrees.
You don't say! How awkward! Maybe there is something of value in this "socialism" which you loathe with foam from your mouth then, if everyone but you is into it?
Nobody is under the delusion that the UK is going to be able to rid the world of Facebook.
Nobody except yourself. You apparently think that its existence is somehow threatened. By none other than myself. Do you even read what you, to quote you, "spew"? Here, the quote: You were advocating for the destruction of Facebook in one way or another.
How about we fine you instead? I mean, why should we fine Facebook and not you?
Well, for one, I've never been found in violation of privacy and other laws in multiple jurisdictions, unlike them. There is this thing, you know, that punishments tend go to those who are actually responsible.
I don't agree with you and nothing makes you more right than me.
Well, you think that I should be fined by the government for my opinion. I don't think you should be fined by the government for yours, however unread, illogical and vitriolic. Judged even by your standards, I'm righter than you are:)
You are also accusing me of theft without a shred of evidence. That's about as libelous as it is stupid. And wrong:)
Not everybody in the UK agrees with your socialist government.
Well, it is not exactly my government. Also, it is very, very far from "socialist". You may have missed the memo, but the current UK failure of a government is the consummate conservative government, all true-form Thatcherites, in their very limited intelligence, in their utter inability to get work done, in their pandering to Trump, and in their anti-EU at all cost stance. You should not be getting your "news" only from Facebook, you may end up with a totally unrealistic picture of the world, you know:)
but I have no issue with Facebook existing
Facebook exists all right, haven't heard anyone threatening them with anything else but small fines.
if the UK wants to be Orwellian and control the population it should be the one which is forced to cut off Facebook. Not the other way around.
You sure you're okay? All that vitriol, all that ignorance and all those illogical jumps to opposite positions almost have me worried about you. Almost.
So you want to be able to root your tablet and get product support from Samsung when you encounter problems with whatever custom ROM you go for
No, I do not want support of the ROM, I want support for flashing the rom. Learn to read, smart boy. Support for running whatever OS you want on the hardware you own has been the tradition with general purpose personal computers since they began selling. Fuck Samsung and fuck you for trying to subvert that.
Facebook is not "an information medium", Facebook is an advertising company. Everything you read in your "feeds" or whatever there is advertising, or laboratory experiments to fine-tune the delivery of advertising. It has not been "misused" to deliver lies and disinformation, it has received (a lot of) money to spread lies and disinformation.
And yes, your second paragraph is spot on: Facebook should, indeed, "flip the switch" and do not operate in places, which laws it refuses to obey. Now, hold your righteous "free market" horse and consider this for a moment - Facebook doesn't do that. What does this simple observation tell you?
Yep, exactly, the Facebooks strongly prefer to be in those places and do not share your outrage. So, maybe you should calm down, too.
You find "contradiction" where there is none. It is obvious what is meant - Facebook both violated current laws, and has done things which point to the need for new regulation that will prevent further attacks on privacy and further damage by irresponsible Internet advertising outfits pushing for money outright lies that disrupt the rational public discourse. Only your pretend anger at the "EU shakedowns" is preventing you from seeing the obvious. Besides, this is a uniquely UK shakedown, and the new laws will probably be passed in a place that is outside the EU.
Incidentally, you did not feel the same way about the "FTC shakedown" (https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/02/15/0522203/facebook-settlement-with-ftc-could-run-into-the-billions), so one cannot help but think that you're not against "shakedowns" in principle, but just against shakedowns by the countries you convinced yourself you don't like.
This ain't simply a "google" issue, but a bright example of how "markets will self-regulate". Joker: they won't, not without a body that can draw regulations AND dispense "justice" in the form of sufficient extra costs so that it is more expensive to the user.
This is the main reason why I've not and I am not buying, installing or using "apps" that are just front-ends to network services, if I cannot use it behind a firewall, it isn't worth having.
It is also an example of how low the app hygiene of the "average user is".
Incidentally, if you pick a public finance textbook, you'll see that these three problems - lack or regulations, lack of enforcement and cost asymmetries - are the most important failures that help capitalism subvert capitalist democracy:)
How can the average "web developer" do that, when they install 650+ "frameworks" just to be able to get some output to the browser console? Do you expect them to know what everything that they bundle with their "webapp" by blindly typing "npm run build" does? Security is hopeless.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless your background (read that as your PhD work) is in superconducting and you're an active researcher in the field, it is quite unlikely you understand the physics involved well enough to judge if it has a merit.
Not likely unless you have a broken fuel rod in an assembly, which is an incident, and then depending on the burn-up of the fuel, you may have less of the uranium-5 you want, and more of the uranium-8 which you don't want than seawater.
The details matter, my smart ass friend.
Well, aren't they lucky that the Japanese taxpayer spares a few bucks a year to supplement their youtube income.
Don't worry. Europe managed to survive the spectre of Communism, it will overcome the spectre of John Galt, too.
You're confusing the argument here. Before the legality is the issue of the legitimacy. The legitimacy of the US "sanctions" comes from the old and tired idea that "might makes right". Now, it is very shortsighted to argue legitimacy from this point of view, because legitimacy should be based on principles and not on circumstances.
"Might" is transient, and the US has already weakened considerably since the peak of its power in the late 40s and the early 50s of the 20th century. In another 2 decades, or maybe even less, other players will be able to make the same argument, and the US will be forced to swallow it.
This is how the US is "educating" China. I can only hope you'll still be happy when the fruits of this "education" bite your anonymous smart ass.
I'm reading it again: "Sanctions don't have to be valid". That is, the justification for them can be made up. This is unacceptable and should be shunned, and this is exactly what the two countries mentioned in TFS are doing.
You can't weasel yourself out of it by whataboutism and references to the "Communist scare".
As for this "thieving ethnostate criminal cabal without laws" thingy that you're talking about... That actually smells and sounds a lot like a PNAC US cabinet, the third edition of which is in power and is behind these "sanctions" and the fake "justifications" for them. They, incidentally, sound a lot like the "justifications" that one Mr. Collin Powell presented with some test tubes at the UN a few years back.
Sanctions don't have to be valid, they're policy.
So, you're saying that it is okay for a nation to lie to justify hostile policies against other nations? Well, excuse me, but that goes against both the spirit and the letter of practically all international law. Any nation that does that should be shunned, including yours.
There is no "intellectual property". There are various temporary monopoly licenses given by the state (patents, copyrights, etc.) to the author of an intellectual work to recoup their costs. But the catch is that those licenses are limited.
Trying to turn them into a perpetuity is a lawyer trick, which only feeds the "intellectual property" lobbyist and lawyers, and does nothing for the real authors, who actually come up with the clever ideas.
You weren't born then probably, so you have no idea. To try out the first public http client ever, you had to telnet to a cern host, log on and then it RAN in all its glory.
I remember the telnet interface... It was so exciting.
Who knew this would turn the Internet to a shithole where cheap tricks for data collection and crap dominate in such a short time.
Dunno 'bout that, if they don't need them, why do they keep asking for them?
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
It is very secure, only US-approved backdoors are available.
If FB has violated current law, then there doesn't need to be "new regulations"
Says the slashdot village idiot. However, that's not what the people who make the laws think.
The issue of the article being self-contradictory has nothing to with with EU vs. non-EU.
Read the comment I am responding to, darling. Here is the part you missed, my deep reader and quote searcher: this smacks of another EU-style shakedown
You apparently did not read even that summary
You apparently fail at reading comprehension so badly, that I can't even. Fuck off and go back to first grade, where you truly belong.
I vaguely recall news that the US government has developed and is actively using tools that make US government hacking look like it is coming from there. So maybe the US is just lying again, and that is why this is a "public notice".
Well, if you ask me if they are the Stazi with an advertising arm or a "Pravda"-like propaganda powerhouse with a side business in state security, I'll probably answer that I'm on the fence about it :)
You attributed what another person said to an anonymous coward.
Really, now? I'm pretty sure you're the same guy and you're trying a different line of trolling. Not smarter or more logical, just different, using your anonymity. Prove it ain't so, make the argument from a named account, so that I can tell.
You think you'll be able to obtain what you can't otherwise of your own doings via theft of other people's money.
Really, now? Whose money I am "stealing" exactly and how? Specific evidence, please.
They are not abolishing government schooling,
Why should "they"? Underinvestment in education is a market failure that is both explained by economic theory and empirically established. It is only sound that any smart government should invest in education it to correct this failure.
No, near all politicians are socialist. It's just a matter of degrees.
You don't say! How awkward! Maybe there is something of value in this "socialism" which you loathe with foam from your mouth then, if everyone but you is into it?
Nobody is under the delusion that the UK is going to be able to rid the world of Facebook.
Nobody except yourself. You apparently think that its existence is somehow threatened. By none other than myself. Do you even read what you, to quote you, "spew"? Here, the quote: You were advocating for the destruction of Facebook in one way or another.
How about we fine you instead? I mean, why should we fine Facebook and not you?
Well, for one, I've never been found in violation of privacy and other laws in multiple jurisdictions, unlike them. There is this thing, you know, that punishments tend go to those who are actually responsible.
I don't agree with you and nothing makes you more right than me.
Well, you think that I should be fined by the government for my opinion. I don't think you should be fined by the government for yours, however unread, illogical and vitriolic. Judged even by your standards, I'm righter than you are :)
You are also accusing me of theft without a shred of evidence. That's about as libelous as it is stupid. And wrong :)
See? I am much more right than you are.
why its up to Facebook to cut off the UK?
Because this is what you suggested. Let me remind you: Facebook should just flip the kill switch to the UK and be done with it.
Not everybody in the UK agrees with your socialist government.
Well, it is not exactly my government. Also, it is very, very far from "socialist". You may have missed the memo, but the current UK failure of a government is the consummate conservative government, all true-form Thatcherites, in their very limited intelligence, in their utter inability to get work done, in their pandering to Trump, and in their anti-EU at all cost stance. You should not be getting your "news" only from Facebook, you may end up with a totally unrealistic picture of the world, you know :)
but I have no issue with Facebook existing
Facebook exists all right, haven't heard anyone threatening them with anything else but small fines.
if the UK wants to be Orwellian and control the population it should be the one which is forced to cut off Facebook. Not the other way around.
Well, AC, you seem to contradict yourself. Facebook should just flip the kill switch to the UK and be done with it.
You sure you're okay? All that vitriol, all that ignorance and all those illogical jumps to opposite positions almost have me worried about you. Almost.
So you want to be able to root your tablet and get product support from Samsung when you encounter problems with whatever custom ROM you go for
No, I do not want support of the ROM, I want support for flashing the rom. Learn to read, smart boy. Support for running whatever OS you want on the hardware you own has been the tradition with general purpose personal computers since they began selling. Fuck Samsung and fuck you for trying to subvert that.
Facebook is not "an information medium", Facebook is an advertising company. Everything you read in your "feeds" or whatever there is advertising, or laboratory experiments to fine-tune the delivery of advertising. It has not been "misused" to deliver lies and disinformation, it has received (a lot of) money to spread lies and disinformation.
And yes, your second paragraph is spot on: Facebook should, indeed, "flip the switch" and do not operate in places, which laws it refuses to obey. Now, hold your righteous "free market" horse and consider this for a moment - Facebook doesn't do that. What does this simple observation tell you?
Yep, exactly, the Facebooks strongly prefer to be in those places and do not share your outrage. So, maybe you should calm down, too.
You find "contradiction" where there is none. It is obvious what is meant - Facebook both violated current laws, and has done things which point to the need for new regulation that will prevent further attacks on privacy and further damage by irresponsible Internet advertising outfits pushing for money outright lies that disrupt the rational public discourse. Only your pretend anger at the "EU shakedowns" is preventing you from seeing the obvious. Besides, this is a uniquely UK shakedown, and the new laws will probably be passed in a place that is outside the EU.
Incidentally, you did not feel the same way about the "FTC shakedown" (https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/02/15/0522203/facebook-settlement-with-ftc-could-run-into-the-billions), so one cannot help but think that you're not against "shakedowns" in principle, but just against shakedowns by the countries you convinced yourself you don't like.
but "officially", with Samsung's leave and support?
If not, it is just a piece of electronic junk that can gather all the dust it wants in the warehouse.
This ain't simply a "google" issue, but a bright example of how "markets will self-regulate". Joker: they won't, not without a body that can draw regulations AND dispense "justice" in the form of sufficient extra costs so that it is more expensive to the user.
This is the main reason why I've not and I am not buying, installing or using "apps" that are just front-ends to network services, if I cannot use it behind a firewall, it isn't worth having.
It is also an example of how low the app hygiene of the "average user is".
Incidentally, if you pick a public finance textbook, you'll see that these three problems - lack or regulations, lack of enforcement and cost asymmetries - are the most important failures that help capitalism subvert capitalist democracy :)
Probably they did, but what I am not seeing in this thread is the bunch of trolls that were badmouthing the EU when it did the same a month ago.
How can the average "web developer" do that, when they install 650+ "frameworks" just to be able to get some output to the browser console? Do you expect them to know what everything that they bundle with their "webapp" by blindly typing "npm run build" does? Security is hopeless.
You're confusing "the hackers" with "the scripts ran by the script kiddies". They are different animals altogether.