I work for one of the listed companies. I support the law. We collect official criminal records and give them out to prospective employers.
"Personal" data should not be trafficked without explicit consent. "Public" data, such as egregious criminal convictions, should be available to those whom it affects.
(Determining what are "egregious criminal convictions" is not well defined, and should be publicly discussed and legislated.)
A small proportion of criminal records are wrong. Some are disseminated by courts despite the fact that the records are sealed by a judge. Some are attributed to the wrong people. We give our reports to the person being looked up, so that they can correct it before we give a final version to a potential employer.
We remove all racial and ethnic identifiers from our reports. Only one state law requires that, but we apply it to all records, as it seems like it is unnecessary and likely to be abused.
The law is frequently laxer than we would be. For example we don't report on any old, minor convictions over, even when a state law specifically allows it. (Texas lawmakers, I am talking to you.)
Bottom line: even though I believe my company is a good company and acting ethically, no company is in itself a moral actor. It depends on the people in the company. And since I can imagine my company with other people in it who are more willing to make a buck, I support the regulation whole-heartedly.
The first amendment does not apply to corporations. Peuple have rights. Corporations are fictions we make up, so we can apply whatever rules we want to them.
Let me think of a way to say this gently... you're an idiot. I think I failed. Sorry. Telepathy as generally defined by people is Not Real. Nor is homeopathy. Nor god. You can come up with a vague general sort of something that might pass for telepathy that you could claim was real, but the thing the common man calls telepathy does not exist. Thank you for your attention.
Both the EFF (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fourth-amendment-cloud-act) and the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/consumer-privacy/proposed-cloud-act-would-let-bad-foreign-governments-demand) think the CLOUD act is a bad idea.
Having software it that is too complex for you too work on is VERY different from having software that you are NOT ALLOWED to work on.
Those bugs you mention were found. If it was closed source, they would not have been found.
>> with the ability to whitelist a few trusted SSIDs.
That's what I just learned here. You can't trust an SSID, even your own. They will be spoofed. You must *always* use a VPN.
No, that kind of reasoning does not apply to nuke plant failures. There are not millions of nuke plants running each day. There are only 442 nuke plants. If we cannot secure 442 plants from having disasters, then we need to do something else that does not cause disasters.
Historically, we can demonstrate the existence of Jesus, due to the historical events of Pontius Pillate and Ceaser and other shit happening around that time lining up, and something about some annoying beggar-preacher that they executed.
I think people agree that having these orphaned books available would be a good thing. The problem then becomes that we don't want Google to have some special privilege to access them. What if the books were available through some public service, and Google was merely a consumer of that service? Amazon, Google, and Joe's Random Website could all have equal access to these books.
This bears repeating. RMS is quite clear that "free software" has nothing to do with the price. It means that you have the right to use the software and modify it, or have it modified, as you wish.
Lots of people are paid to create "free software." If there is a demand, software will be created. Just because no programmer has an personal interest in making your mom's quilting program, does not mean that your mom, or Bob's Quilting Supplies, Ltd. will not pay a programmer to create it.
Selling or giving software to someone, but retaining control on what they can do with it (like stopping them from modifying it) is a social evil.
>>No, the insanity here is that Google and Mozilla refuse to use the codecs installed in the operating system that you've already paid royalties for (if they require royalties to be paid) and that automatically take advantage of hardware acceleration and any other features the OS offers for media playback.
Funny, I don't recall paying anyone for my GNU/Linux operating system...
If I were a terrorist, I would be thrilled with the network provider putting all this effort into controlling individual applications and devices, rather than just making the network tolerant of abuse.
Then, when all the sheeple are using crippled apps and devices, I can do massive damage to the network itself!
Slashdaughters, let us avoid the tendency to take the focused ruling in a specific legal case and spread it over our most elaborate paranoid fantasies.
then
People, and that includes people like you, will start shoplifting, then start looting, then start shooting. Monsanto employees will be doing the same thing, too. Nobody will have much use for any kind of intellectual-property horseshit when their real property starts going up in flames.
Do you read these things at all? This study does nothing to further your assertion that "Fox [is] the most balanced in straight reporting".
The study covered *only* 2008 Election stories during the prime time evening news shows for a period of 3 1/2 months in late 2007.
The methodology was to look for "positive" and "negative" comments about candidates. Suppose we had a story about a serial killer. By this methodology, if the news program called him a thug twice, and a blessing once, then we'd have an "unbalanced" news report which was 66% negative and 33% positive.
(Interesting to note that by these measures, the Fox news was close to 50+/50- for democratic candidates, but the others averaged 47+/53- for those democratic candidates.)
If you wish to learn more, go to SourceWatch.com (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs) and find out who funds the Center for Media and Public Affairs (http://www.cmpa.com/). At the time of the report, the president of the CMPA, S. Robert Lichter, was a paid Fox News contributor.
What really scares me is when advertisers know stuff about me that *I* don't even know. Like the fact that I will need Viagra tomorrow, or that I am about to receive a million dollars from my Nigerian uncle.
This has little to do with her texting. It has to do with her decision to drive recklessly, where recklessness can be proven by the fact that she got into an accident. You are going to write bad laws if you attempt to define all the possible things that can distract a driver. (Driving with children. Driving a car that belongs to somebody else. Driving while sleepy. Driving in snow or rain.) All you need are the laws on the books.
Earplugs are a great idea! Most earplugs on the market today don't quite drown out the noise enough though. I decided I needed those earplugs to generate a little noise to counteract the ambient noise. I went on a search for a type of noise that would effectively drown out the ambient noise, and yet not be bothersome. I found a small battery-powered device which can generate that noise, and in fact, is programmable to allow me to change the noise at my discretion. I then hooked up this device to my earplugs, and now I am very happy with my new earplugs.
The point is that I often want to view something from one window and use that information in another unrelated window. Copy/paste of 25 different items, or mental manipulation of results on one screen as input to another. Tabs don't work for that scenario -- I need both windows on the screen(s) at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
I work for one of the listed companies. I support the law. We collect official criminal records and give them out to prospective employers. "Personal" data should not be trafficked without explicit consent. "Public" data, such as egregious criminal convictions, should be available to those whom it affects. (Determining what are "egregious criminal convictions" is not well defined, and should be publicly discussed and legislated.) A small proportion of criminal records are wrong. Some are disseminated by courts despite the fact that the records are sealed by a judge. Some are attributed to the wrong people. We give our reports to the person being looked up, so that they can correct it before we give a final version to a potential employer. We remove all racial and ethnic identifiers from our reports. Only one state law requires that, but we apply it to all records, as it seems like it is unnecessary and likely to be abused. The law is frequently laxer than we would be. For example we don't report on any old, minor convictions over, even when a state law specifically allows it. (Texas lawmakers, I am talking to you.) Bottom line: even though I believe my company is a good company and acting ethically, no company is in itself a moral actor. It depends on the people in the company. And since I can imagine my company with other people in it who are more willing to make a buck, I support the regulation whole-heartedly.
The first amendment does not apply to corporations. Peuple have rights. Corporations are fictions we make up, so we can apply whatever rules we want to them.
Let me think of a way to say this gently... you're an idiot. I think I failed. Sorry. Telepathy as generally defined by people is Not Real. Nor is homeopathy. Nor god. You can come up with a vague general sort of something that might pass for telepathy that you could claim was real, but the thing the common man calls telepathy does not exist. Thank you for your attention.
Both the EFF (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fourth-amendment-cloud-act) and the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/consumer-privacy/proposed-cloud-act-would-let-bad-foreign-governments-demand) think the CLOUD act is a bad idea.
Having software it that is too complex for you too work on is VERY different from having software that you are NOT ALLOWED to work on. Those bugs you mention were found. If it was closed source, they would not have been found.
>> with the ability to whitelist a few trusted SSIDs. That's what I just learned here. You can't trust an SSID, even your own. They will be spoofed. You must *always* use a VPN.
No, they are right. This is the best way to reach me.
You are making the "black swan fallacy". Just because everything we see seems to have a cause does not mean that everything has a cause.
No, that kind of reasoning does not apply to nuke plant failures. There are not millions of nuke plants running each day. There are only 442 nuke plants. If we cannot secure 442 plants from having disasters, then we need to do something else that does not cause disasters.
Historically, we can demonstrate the existence of Jesus, due to the historical events of Pontius Pillate and Ceaser and other shit happening around that time lining up, and something about some annoying beggar-preacher that they executed.
Oh puh-leeze. The evidence for a real Jesus is slim at best. http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
I think people agree that having these orphaned books available would be a good thing. The problem then becomes that we don't want Google to have some special privilege to access them. What if the books were available through some public service, and Google was merely a consumer of that service? Amazon, Google, and Joe's Random Website could all have equal access to these books.
This bears repeating. RMS is quite clear that "free software" has nothing to do with the price. It means that you have the right to use the software and modify it, or have it modified, as you wish.
Lots of people are paid to create "free software." If there is a demand, software will be created. Just because no programmer has an personal interest in making your mom's quilting program, does not mean that your mom, or Bob's Quilting Supplies, Ltd. will not pay a programmer to create it.
Selling or giving software to someone, but retaining control on what they can do with it (like stopping them from modifying it) is a social evil.
>>No, the insanity here is that Google and Mozilla refuse to use the codecs installed in the operating system that you've already paid royalties for (if they require royalties to be paid) and that automatically take advantage of hardware acceleration and any other features the OS offers for media playback.
Funny, I don't recall paying anyone for my GNU/Linux operating system...
If I were a terrorist, I would be thrilled with the network provider putting all this effort into controlling individual applications and devices, rather than just making the network tolerant of abuse. Then, when all the sheeple are using crippled apps and devices, I can do massive damage to the network itself!
Ummm, that was Abraham.
I imagine that some smart people will make Sync plugins for other browsers.
First
Slashdaughters, let us avoid the tendency to take the focused ruling in a specific legal case and spread it over our most elaborate paranoid fantasies.
then
People, and that includes people like you, will start shoplifting, then start looting, then start shooting. Monsanto employees will be doing the same thing, too. Nobody will have much use for any kind of intellectual-property horseshit when their real property starts going up in flames.
Good troll!
How stupid! Show the user the dialog box, and put a checkmark on it which says (approx) "Don't notify me of these updates anymore, just do them."
Do you read these things at all? This study does nothing to further your assertion that "Fox [is] the most balanced in straight reporting".
The study covered *only* 2008 Election stories during the prime time evening news shows for a period of 3 1/2 months in late 2007.
The methodology was to look for "positive" and "negative" comments about candidates. Suppose we had a story about a serial killer. By this methodology, if the news program called him a thug twice, and a blessing once, then we'd have an "unbalanced" news report which was 66% negative and 33% positive.
(Interesting to note that by these measures, the Fox news was close to 50+/50- for democratic candidates, but the others averaged 47+/53- for those democratic candidates.)
If you wish to learn more, go to SourceWatch.com (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs) and find out who funds the Center for Media and Public Affairs (http://www.cmpa.com/). At the time of the report, the president of the CMPA, S. Robert Lichter, was a paid Fox News contributor.
What really scares me is when advertisers know stuff about me that *I* don't even know. Like the fact that I will need Viagra tomorrow, or that I am about to receive a million dollars from my Nigerian uncle.
One word: logarithm.
Button: "Import Facebook Contacts."
This has little to do with her texting. It has to do with her decision to drive recklessly, where recklessness can be proven by the fact that she got into an accident. You are going to write bad laws if you attempt to define all the possible things that can distract a driver. (Driving with children. Driving a car that belongs to somebody else. Driving while sleepy. Driving in snow or rain.) All you need are the laws on the books.
Earplugs are a great idea! Most earplugs on the market today don't quite drown out the noise enough though. I decided I needed those earplugs to generate a little noise to counteract the ambient noise. I went on a search for a type of noise that would effectively drown out the ambient noise, and yet not be bothersome. I found a small battery-powered device which can generate that noise, and in fact, is programmable to allow me to change the noise at my discretion. I then hooked up this device to my earplugs, and now I am very happy with my new earplugs.
The point is that I often want to view something from one window and use that information in another unrelated window. Copy/paste of 25 different items, or mental manipulation of results on one screen as input to another. Tabs don't work for that scenario -- I need both windows on the screen(s) at the same time.