well, if you don't want to be identified, reasonably they don't want to do business with you. Basically the reason they collect this info is because they don't accept you r possession of the ticket as proof you are who you claim to be. It is an anti counterfeit, anti scam measure that they wouldn't implement unless they thought it saved them money. I'm all for a law saying they have to tell you what they collect and what they do with it so you can consent, however, there is no reason to expect them to sell things to people who don't consent. ( is that part of this law?)
hopefully that trend will start to reverse as we get more Justices who actually believe that words have meanings at the time they are spoken and the meaning of a sentence doesn't change over time because it means what it was intended to mean, not what you want it to mean today.
Of course the SCOTUS has always picked cases based on the perception that the case actually has a valid constitutional issue that is important and unresolved. So it might not help much in which cases they decide to pick up. It should help in the consistency of their decisions however.
I don't think they said they were going to delete it. They said they were trying to recommend it less often, which I suppose is pretty stupid if you are someone looking for that kind of thing. A better question is, are most people? Is the algorithm helping people find what they want and google intentionally hindering that for political / philosophical purposes, or are they trying to make there recommendations more closely match what they believe you will be most interested in watch ( which is to say actually improve the accuracy of the result.)
Aren't most of the google servers the server news in the United states? I guess if they want to agrigate European news they will need to do it from a domain that says.us ? .
Exactly how does EU copyright law apply to an american company? Can't they simply claim they are not doing business in the EU and that anyone accessing their site is importing content ?
As a further thought is Google liable for content they provide if I obscure my location? ( incognito mode? ) Or is the idea just that they are not allowed to provide the service to anyone anywhere in the world ever, regardless of local laws?
Climate scientists tell us that the world must drastically cut its fossil fuel use in the next 30 years to stave off a potentially catastrophic tipping point for the planet
If you actually plan on replacing most or all of the electrical production facilities and vehicles world wide without a large military taking over the world and dictating policy to every nation , I'm afraid you will be disappointed.
Not that I oppose the idea of getting rid of dependence on fossil fuels, but if you plan on producing approx 1 billion passenger cars ( and somehow forcing people to scrap the existing ones). http://www.worldometers.info/c... Replacing nearly 900,000 power plants https://www.carbonbrief.org/ma...
My guess would be you are already way behind, regardless of what method you choose because you first have to convince those in control to take action on a massive scale and most of them are no where near doing that.
So IF the first preposition is correct ( and I hope it's not), there isn't much hope of going beyond that tipping point. If the chaos and wars it generates doesn't lower our carbon output , we will probably fix the problem over the coarse of 100 years or so.
Any body up for creating a streaming client agitator that lets you pick an choose from all the streaming options shows you what's available , lets you auto subscribe the auto unsubscribe etc.
I could see a nice tool ( it would have to work on TV's , video game consoles, web, laptop etc.) that would manage accounts for you. you search and see if what you want to watch is available where. If you can watch it for free on a service you don't have that cost 9 dollars a month or rent it to 2.50 elsewhere you decide if you want to pay rent on a month by month basis. Of coarse you'd have to figure out how to make money or it wouldn't be worth the time to make it I suppose;)
??? so what did they not charge for the comics? seriously even comics are not made popular on any level without publishers who are looking to make a profit. All of our current super hero's were invented before the internet, the only way any of them became really popular was someone had enough budget to pay for a lot of printing and paper and hoped they would sell enough of them to not starve to death and pay for their supplies and time.
The thing is there is a big difference between 'making a descent living' and 'making a killing'. There needs to be a balance. Original copyright law did a fair job of striking that balance. As I recall it was granted for 7 years or the lifetime of the author whichever was shorter. Then the work became public domain to stop people controlling it and fan works would be inspired creating a robust ecosystem of public works. The problem isn't that copyright exists, the problem is that corporate interests have been allow to pervert it so it no longer servers the common good, which is pretty easily demonstrated by the fact that every time the original mickey mouse cartoons have been ready to go out of copyright the length of the term of copyright has been extended.
Honestly nowadays a good clause could be added saying that if you are not making a piece of art available to the public 3 years after it's creation, then it become public domain. There is a lot of good discussion that can be had around what makes good, or fair copyright law, but you approach is called 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. It would do more damage then good and if you study the history of why copyright laws exist then you come to understand their use and how they are currently being abused. But that is a much more nuanced and complicated viewpoint that can't be easily put in a subject line on/.
Where as I'd say it is true that people create good content out of passion. Everyone needs to eat and provide shelter for themselves and their families. Any activity for which 'no profit' can be gained will never have passionate people working full time to create great things, nor will it ever have a larger amount of resources then can be gathered by a few people dedicated too it. Not that there is room for a balance, but no profit ( of any kind) guarantees no product and OR no passion. Even simple art cost both money and time to produce. The more complicated the process, the more costly the production. How many hours of your day can you afford to 'do whatever you want' ?
Of coarse you could make an argument that the government should gather others peoples resources and hand them out to passionate people to do something 'useful' but as soon as you do that I will guarantee that whoever is in control of the current government will want to have some input ( aka control) on the definition of useful.
If your truism is correct and there is no middle ground I'd suggest you list your 10 favorite movies, and tell me which ones were done with absolutely no intention of making profits. (HINT: unless they are all indie films done with a single camera and no applicable crew there aren't any). Even films done by non - profits hope to make enough money to break even so the non-profit can pay it's employees.
Though a series of 'initiatives' and 'empowerment sessions' and some 'on going improvements' those who had enough clout to actually stop a project important to upper management will find there 'performance' is now very poor @ review time until they leave or are forced to leave , the project Dragonfly will become project Panda and get built in about 3 years, sans the ugly publicity, everyone working on the project will have NDA's properly signed so that if they so much as speak of it , even at internal events they will be fired on the spot.
I could enumerate about 100 reasons, trying to control something you are unable to comprehend is probably a bad idea , but I'd just be told I was being pessimistic and unscientific.
Government controlled education always equals government controlled thought, because those who are hired to educate will share the same biases as those doing the hiring creating a self enforcing loop. If you don't believe me , consider the nearly universal opinion Americans have on diversity and freedom of religion. Where did they learn it? Public schools. ( weather that opinion is good or bad is NOT the point, what is certainly is not is nearly as prevalent in other cultures). That is the best case. It happens much faster if the propaganda is intentional in some place like China.
As long as your research agrees with the politics of bejing. Any speech or resource that disagrees and you can expect to quietly disappear for using your freedom poorly.
If us political PAC's right or left do this, that is ok, but not Russia? I think some people think the interweb belongs only to the U.S.A. I bet there was at least one British and one Chinese organization that tried to influence the election, probably an Israeli 1 as well. I think you kind of need to expect that.
Groups ( or individuals) who can pretend to be 100's of people is a bit disquieting, but I'm not sure how to solve that problem. Maybe people should learn to research facts and be realistic about sources before forming opinions, but that is probably too much to ask.
Any time you use 'statistical characteristics' of individuals to concentrate police efforts regardless of the actual details of said individual.
This system will justify 'racial profiling' and possibly;'religious profiling'... After all, are conservative men who are strict followers of certain types of Islam more or less likely to commit violent crimes.
( I'm not answering the questions, but you can get a statistical answer.)
It is a far cry from 'in general' yes to 'so let's watch THAT one'.... but people do it all the time.
I have never understood why the assumed jurisdiction for the sale is the location of the client , why not the location of the server from which the request comes. or the location of the server where money is actually exchanged. If I call someone in china and buy something from them mail order with my visa card, where did that transaction occur? Pretty sure it wasn't my home state and I am really no certain why anyone would think otherwise. Or at least the state needs to stop expecting the 'vendor' to act like a state agent and collect taxes for it.
The greater principle of expecting businesses to act as agents of the government really needs to be addressed. It is a common place practice, business are required to gather information the government can't legally gather and report it to the government all the time. Circumventing constitutional protections. If the state want's a tax paid on goods sold , it should collect the money itself.
I have a friend who walked into a clothing store. The clerk said 'hello Mr. x' to which my fried replied 'How did you know my name?'. The clerk explained that when he came into his store that the equipment pinged his cell phone , which brought up his previous purchase records, name and photography from the camera above the register the last time he was in the store. He never went back. Sometimes, you don't get to be 'familiar' with me when you aren't. It is just creepy.
what is it worth to the average consumer. People generally like / liked Netflix because of flexibility. The on demand nature, so they were willing to put up with , lag, internet usage etc, even dump cable for it because it had sufficient variety.
Without the variety it is a very much like the difference in value of paying for 1 cable channel vs paying for cable. So if netflix is charging $20 a month this service should need to charge something like $2 to be of equal value from a consumer standpoint. Most consumers inherently understand that, it seems so odd that Disney doesn't. I doubt they will be long term profitable , although I could see that at some point in time there may be a 'service agitator' that has deals with different sights to host their content using it's own interface. They may even allow customers pick and choose which 'channels' or sets of content they want to buy, perhaps even give discounts for choosing certain pre defined sets or 'bundles'. The more things are new the more they stay the same . The scarcity of resources will eventually correct the situation and some solutions are repeated on a different scale because they work.
maybe some kind of equal time doctrine would be useful, with each article have a common controversies section, so that alternative views are at least documented even if it is on another tab.
Slashdot Mirror
well, if you don't want to be identified, reasonably they don't want to do business with you. Basically the reason they collect this info is because they don't accept you r possession of the ticket as proof you are who you claim to be. It is an anti counterfeit, anti scam measure that they wouldn't implement unless they thought it saved them money. I'm all for a law saying they have to tell you what they collect and what they do with it so you can consent, however, there is no reason to expect them to sell things to people who don't consent. ( is that part of this law?)
hopefully that trend will start to reverse as we get more Justices who actually believe that words have meanings at the time they are spoken and the meaning of a sentence doesn't change over time because it means what it was intended to mean, not what you want it to mean today.
Of course the SCOTUS has always picked cases based on the perception that the case actually has a valid constitutional issue that is important and unresolved. So it might not help much in which cases they decide to pick up. It should help in the consistency of their decisions however.
isn't a photograph biometric information? Or is the law specific about it's definition?
Can i someone in Illinois sue google for allowing google photo to identify there face in a picture they didn't upload?
I don't think they said they were going to delete it. They said they were trying to recommend it less often, which I suppose is pretty stupid if you are someone looking for that kind of thing. A better question is, are most people? Is the algorithm helping people find what they want and google intentionally hindering that for political / philosophical purposes, or are they trying to make there recommendations more closely match what they believe you will be most interested in watch ( which is to say actually improve the accuracy of the result.)
yes, the big difference is what kind of politics you want to promote ;)
Aren't most of the google servers the server news in the United states? I guess if they want to agrigate European news they will need to do it from a domain that says .us ? .
Exactly how does EU copyright law apply to an american company? Can't they simply claim they are not doing business in the EU and that anyone accessing their site is importing content ?
As a further thought is Google liable for content they provide if I obscure my location? ( incognito mode? )
Or is the idea just that they are not allowed to provide the service to anyone anywhere in the world ever, regardless of local laws?
This is your religion here. Spoken from faith in .... 'humanity'... or technology and in no way connected to hard science or objective evidence.
I will never count on US to save US. If there is not God , we are all done for , that is my estimation of the state of the human race.
Climate scientists tell us that the world must drastically cut its fossil fuel use in the next 30 years to stave off a potentially catastrophic tipping point for the planet
If you actually plan on replacing most or all of the electrical production facilities and vehicles world wide without a large military taking over the world and dictating policy to every nation , I'm afraid you will be disappointed.
Not that I oppose the idea of getting rid of dependence on fossil fuels, but if you plan on producing approx 1 billion passenger cars ( and somehow forcing people to scrap the existing ones). http://www.worldometers.info/c...
Replacing nearly 900,000 power plants https://www.carbonbrief.org/ma...
Replacing 2 to 3% of the global economy https://www.investopedia.com/a...
My guess would be you are already way behind, regardless of what method you choose because you first have to convince those in control to take action on a massive scale and most of them are no where near doing that.
So IF the first preposition is correct ( and I hope it's not), there isn't much hope of going beyond that tipping point. If the chaos and wars it generates doesn't lower our carbon output , we will probably fix the problem over the coarse of 100 years or so.
Any body up for creating a streaming client agitator that lets you pick an choose from all the streaming options shows you what's available , lets you auto subscribe the auto unsubscribe etc.
I could see a nice tool ( it would have to work on TV's , video game consoles, web, laptop etc.) that would manage accounts for you. you search and see if what you want to watch is available where. If you can watch it for free on a service you don't have that cost 9 dollars a month or rent it to 2.50 elsewhere you decide if you want to pay rent on a month by month basis. Of coarse you'd have to figure out how to make money or it wouldn't be worth the time to make it I suppose ;)
??? so what did they not charge for the comics? seriously even comics are not made popular on any level without publishers who are looking to make a profit.
All of our current super hero's were invented before the internet, the only way any of them became really popular was someone had enough budget to pay for a lot of printing and paper and hoped they would sell enough of them to not starve to death and pay for their supplies and time.
The thing is there is a big difference between 'making a descent living' and 'making a killing'. There needs to be a balance. Original copyright law did a fair job of striking that balance. As I recall it was granted for 7 years or the lifetime of the author whichever was shorter. Then the work became public domain to stop people controlling it and fan works would be inspired creating a robust ecosystem of public works. The problem isn't that copyright exists, the problem is that corporate interests have been allow to pervert it so it no longer servers the common good, which is pretty easily demonstrated by the fact that every time the original mickey mouse cartoons have been ready to go out of copyright the length of the term of copyright has been extended.
Honestly nowadays a good clause could be added saying that if you are not making a piece of art available to the public 3 years after it's creation, then it become public domain. There is a lot of good discussion that can be had around what makes good, or fair copyright law, but you approach is called 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. It would do more damage then good and if you study the history of why copyright laws exist then you come to understand their use and how they are currently being abused. But that is a much more nuanced and complicated viewpoint that can't be easily put in a subject line on /.
Where as I'd say it is true that people create good content out of passion. Everyone needs to eat and provide shelter for themselves and their families. Any activity for which 'no profit' can be gained will never have passionate people working full time to create great things, nor will it ever have a larger amount of resources then can be gathered by a few people dedicated too it. Not that there is room for a balance, but no profit ( of any kind) guarantees no product and OR no passion. Even simple art cost both money and time to produce. The more complicated the process, the more costly the production. How many hours of your day can you afford to 'do whatever you want' ?
Of coarse you could make an argument that the government should gather others peoples resources and hand them out to passionate people to do something 'useful' but as soon as you do that I will guarantee that whoever is in control of the current government will want to have some input ( aka control) on the definition of useful.
If your truism is correct and there is no middle ground I'd suggest you list your 10 favorite movies, and tell me which ones were done with absolutely no intention of making profits. (HINT: unless they are all indie films done with a single camera and no applicable crew there aren't any). Even films done by non - profits hope to make enough money to break even so the non-profit can pay it's employees.
Though a series of 'initiatives' and 'empowerment sessions' and some 'on going improvements' those who had enough clout to actually stop a project important to upper management will find there 'performance' is now very poor @ review time until they leave or are forced to leave , the project Dragonfly will become project Panda and get built in about 3 years, sans the ugly publicity, everyone working on the project will have NDA's properly signed so that if they so much as speak of it , even at internal events they will be fired on the spot.
I could enumerate about 100 reasons, trying to control something you are unable to comprehend is probably a bad idea , but I'd just be told I was being pessimistic and unscientific.
Government controlled education always equals government controlled thought, because those who are hired to educate will share the same biases as those doing the hiring creating a self enforcing loop. If you don't believe me , consider the nearly universal opinion Americans have on diversity and freedom of religion. Where did they learn it? Public schools. ( weather that opinion is good or bad is NOT the point, what is certainly is not is nearly as prevalent in other cultures).
That is the best case. It happens much faster if the propaganda is intentional in some place like China.
As long as your research agrees with the politics of bejing. Any speech or resource that disagrees and you can expect to quietly disappear for using your freedom poorly.
If us political PAC's right or left do this, that is ok, but not Russia? I think some people think the interweb belongs only to the U.S.A. I bet there was at least one British and one Chinese organization that tried to influence the election, probably an Israeli 1 as well. I think you kind of need to expect that.
Groups ( or individuals) who can pretend to be 100's of people is a bit disquieting, but I'm not sure how to solve that problem. Maybe people should learn to research facts and be realistic about sources before forming opinions, but that is probably too much to ask.
Any time you use 'statistical characteristics' of individuals to concentrate police efforts regardless of the actual details of said individual.
This system will justify 'racial profiling' and possibly ;'religious profiling'... After all, are conservative men who are strict followers of certain types of Islam more or less likely to commit violent crimes.
( I'm not answering the questions, but you can get a statistical answer.)
It is a far cry from 'in general' yes to 'so let's watch THAT one'.... but people do it all the time.
Wouldn't changing the momentum of the moon have bad effects on earth, like messing with the tides?
I have never understood why the assumed jurisdiction for the sale is the location of the client , why not the location of the server from which the request comes.
or the location of the server where money is actually exchanged. If I call someone in china and buy something from them mail order with my visa card, where did that transaction occur? Pretty sure it wasn't my home state and I am really no certain why anyone would think otherwise. Or at least the state needs to stop expecting the 'vendor' to act like a state agent and collect taxes for it.
The greater principle of expecting businesses to act as agents of the government really needs to be addressed. It is a common place practice, business are required to gather information the government can't legally gather and report it to the government all the time. Circumventing constitutional protections. If the state want's a tax paid on goods sold , it should collect the money itself.
I have a friend who walked into a clothing store. The clerk said 'hello Mr. x' to which my fried replied 'How did you know my name?'.
The clerk explained that when he came into his store that the equipment pinged his cell phone , which brought up his previous purchase records, name and photography from the camera above the register the last time he was in the store. He never went back. Sometimes, you don't get to be 'familiar' with me when you aren't. It is just creepy.
what is it worth to the average consumer.
People generally like / liked Netflix because of flexibility. The on demand nature, so they were willing to put up with , lag, internet usage etc, even dump cable for it because it had sufficient variety.
Without the variety it is a very much like the difference in value of paying for 1 cable channel vs paying for cable. So if netflix is charging $20 a month this service should need to charge something like $2 to be of equal value from a consumer standpoint. Most consumers inherently understand that, it seems so odd that Disney doesn't. I doubt they will be long term profitable , although I could see that at some point in time there may be a 'service agitator' that has deals with different sights to host their content using it's own interface. They may even allow customers pick and choose which 'channels' or sets of content they want to buy, perhaps even give discounts for choosing certain pre defined sets or 'bundles'. The more things are new the more they stay the same . The scarcity of resources will eventually correct the situation and some solutions are repeated on a different scale because they work.
maybe some kind of equal time doctrine would be useful, with each article have a common controversies section, so that alternative views are at least documented even if it is on another tab.
So ... you are saying there is really no hope for science as an objective study of truth?