Let me get this straight. The existence of nice vehicles in a neighborhood considered poor is evidence that 99.99% of all poor people are poor due to irresponsible behavior. That's what you're saying.
DMCA takedowns apply to material that is alleged to infringe someone's copyrights. When an online provider receives a takedown, they are legally obliged to take the content down. DMCA takedowns aren't at all hard to "appeal against"; you just file a counter-notice and the material goes back up. Then, if you actually infringed their copyrights, the owner of the material sues you. They can do this because in the counter-notice you have to tell them who you are.
That isn't a required legal process. It's what a site can do to be safe from liability.
If you upload something to YouTube, I can't just sue YouTube even if it infringes my copyrights. I send a DMCA takedown notice. If YouTube doesn't take it down, I can sue YouTube as well as you for copyright infringement. If YouTube isn't worried about this, they aren't going to take it down. They may not be worried about it because they know I don't have the copyright, or because they don't think I'll sue, or any number of reasons. (Note that, to file a legit takedown notice, I have to name a copyrighted work that I have the copyright of, or that I legally represent the copyright holder, and then claim the video infringes on that copyright. The first part is under pain of perjury, the second isn't. If I say I have the copyright on this post, and that your video infringes on it, that's a legal takedown notice.)
Now that YouTube has taken it down, suppose you file a counterclaim. If YouTube puts your video back up, it's not liable to you for interruption of service or anything like that. Of course, YouTube wasn't liable in the first place, so they don't have to do anything about the counterclaim. If YouTube had some sort of contractual obligation to you, they could follow the counterclaim procedure and avoid any legal liability to you.
Unless there is repeatable, quantifiable evidence that god does not exist. atheism is just as unscientific as theism.
There is no repeatable, quantifiable evidence that there is not a teapot between the orbits of Earth and Mars, but if I said there was no such teapot people wouldn't call me unscientific. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God, and I suppose I could come up with a fancy term for lack of belief in a particular teapot. Suspension of belief means not believing, so suspension of belief in a god is atheism.
Sounds like a no true scotsman fallacy. Who decides what is 'abuse' of 'sacred' texts when the whole premise is based on faith and subjective interpretation?
I don't presume to rule on whether people are members of an organized religion or not (I'm not). I just call out groups as I see them. I am sufficiently familiar with Christianity to say that the Christians I have problems with don't appear to think that Jesus guy usually had a clue, but I don't know Islam that well.
I don't have to take a position on whether ISIS is really Muslim to condemn them. I can be OK with moderate Muslims in general without supporting all of their beliefs, and while doing things that run against many of their beliefs. (I don't really care whose beliefs I'm opposing, actually.)
You're wrong about progressives. In general, we sympathize with those we believe unfairly picked on. We generally believe Muslims are getting a bad deal in the West, and want them to have a better one. That doesn't mean we'll support anything because it's Muslim.
Remember the baker that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? The couple should have just walked away and said "your loss." Instead, they made a huge stink, and crowdsourcing campaigns raised over $800,000 for the bakery owners - more than enough for them to retire.
From what I could gather from the court documents, the bakers must have been quite offensive to the couple, and then started an internet harassment campaign against them, hence the large award in the case against the bakers. Then they got $800K in donations, not any sort of taxpayer money. That means the money came from the asshole community itself, and wasn't an efficient assholish use of the money. I'm calling it a win for the good guys.
Extinction may very well be a natural step along the evolutionary path to an eventual superior species. We need to be removed from the ecosystem to make room.
Without actually disagreeing with you (except for the "evolutionary path to an eventual superior species", which imposes a lot of value judgments on evolution), I don't see what it matters. I, personally, am more or less human. I'm interested in humans (they're really quite interesting). I base my thoughts and actions primarily on the effects on humans. I'm actually against the extinction of the species, no matter what members of other species may think. I'm prejudiced, biased, and perhaps bigoted here, but that's me.
The planet will be just fine. I don't know anyone who thinks it'll disintegrate or explode or turn into a black hole because of global warming. I'm more interested in how the humans do.
Can you provide a cite to a 4-sigma error? The error bars on climate predictions tend to be fairly large, so a 4-sigma error would be pretty darn big.
Moreover, do you know what a climate scientist would do with a 4-sigma model error? Take that into account and try to improve the model. Do you know what a particle physicist would do with a 4-sigma model error? Precisely the same thing.
We have four-sigma evidence that leptons don't behave as predicted. We don't have a single EM experiment that rules out enough possible other factors to show that the EM drive violates the law of conservation of momentum (or its relativistic equivalent).
The theory that tells us that black holes exist tells us that the small ones decay really, really fast.
Moreover, a small uncharged black hole has no significant attraction to anything, because gravity is really, really weak as forces go. It would gain mass only by an almost exact collision with a fundamental particle (it could go through a proton and miss all the quarks). Lots of people think black holes suck because one with an event horizon big enough to see would have a considerable amount of mass, but one with the mass of a proton will have the gravitational attraction of a proton.
The empirical observation is that we're not all part of a black hole yet, since particles about seventy thousand times the maximum LHC energy hit each square kilometer of Earth about once a year, so if anything bad was going to happen we would be unlikely to have lasted long enough to build the LHC.
Be it texting and driving, you can't have a gathering of people without everyone's face in a screen.
You can't? I don't have problems with that.
Or you can't have a mealtime because people have forgot manners and answers their phones in the middle of a meal.
You know what happened last week? The land line rang (actually, it played the closest thing I could find to the shoggoth sounds in At the Mountains of Madness, but that's not really relevant here) during dinner. I don't see the difference here.
I've never heard of that happening. It's empirically possible to raise a kid without running into that problem.
(One time he was at a library with a project group, and they restricted computer access, so it did turn out to be a good thing that a girl in the group had brought her laptop.)
Parents want to keep an eye on their kids. That used to be easy.
Lots of us old farts grew up when we were free to run around the neighborhood provided there were no large carnivorous dinosaurs reported that day. Granted, there was the parental network, but it wasn't omniscient.
I get that you don't like smartphones. That's cool. I don't really see how it's relevant to a discussion about a law restricting them, though. There's lots of stupid dumb things I don't want laws against.
Mine had a iMac in a common area before he was 5. On the whole, I think a common area is a better place for a young kid's computer than a private place.
In other words, since we have a bad situation, we should refrain from trying to improve it? I can't do much about established laws, unless they get some outside publicity, but I can have some influence about new ones, so that's the economical way to exert pressure.
for a lot of kids, these devices become a black hole of interest, sucking them away from everything else.
My opinion is that black holes of interest depend more on the kid than on the device in use. If the kid wants time away from people, the kid will use anything handy and reasonably interesting as a distraction. Books look innocuous and work well. Alternatively, they may get used as a way of communicating with the kid's peer group without letting the parents in.
No. You're allowed to say or publish pretty much what you want, but you don't have unlimited authority to do what you like. You can be barred from using a particular forum, for example. Limiting smartphone use would deny someone the ability to express themselves in one way, but not others, so it's legal.
However you must keep in mind that the testing involved that regulates acceptable radiation etc, was tested on adults.
I'm fine with banning cell phones that emit significant ionizing radiation, but I doubt any do unless carried as part of a Fukushima cleanup or dropped into a reactor waste pool or something like that. If you want to get me to agree with restrictions on non-ionizing radiation, you can bloody well come up with solid proof of harm.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me get this straight. The existence of nice vehicles in a neighborhood considered poor is evidence that 99.99% of all poor people are poor due to irresponsible behavior. That's what you're saying.
I wouldn't dream of discouraging you from trying this out, but I really don't think it will get enough viewership to be significant.
That isn't a required legal process. It's what a site can do to be safe from liability.
If you upload something to YouTube, I can't just sue YouTube even if it infringes my copyrights. I send a DMCA takedown notice. If YouTube doesn't take it down, I can sue YouTube as well as you for copyright infringement. If YouTube isn't worried about this, they aren't going to take it down. They may not be worried about it because they know I don't have the copyright, or because they don't think I'll sue, or any number of reasons. (Note that, to file a legit takedown notice, I have to name a copyrighted work that I have the copyright of, or that I legally represent the copyright holder, and then claim the video infringes on that copyright. The first part is under pain of perjury, the second isn't. If I say I have the copyright on this post, and that your video infringes on it, that's a legal takedown notice.)
Now that YouTube has taken it down, suppose you file a counterclaim. If YouTube puts your video back up, it's not liable to you for interruption of service or anything like that. Of course, YouTube wasn't liable in the first place, so they don't have to do anything about the counterclaim. If YouTube had some sort of contractual obligation to you, they could follow the counterclaim procedure and avoid any legal liability to you.
There is no repeatable, quantifiable evidence that there is not a teapot between the orbits of Earth and Mars, but if I said there was no such teapot people wouldn't call me unscientific. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God, and I suppose I could come up with a fancy term for lack of belief in a particular teapot. Suspension of belief means not believing, so suspension of belief in a god is atheism.
I don't presume to rule on whether people are members of an organized religion or not (I'm not). I just call out groups as I see them. I am sufficiently familiar with Christianity to say that the Christians I have problems with don't appear to think that Jesus guy usually had a clue, but I don't know Islam that well.
I don't have to take a position on whether ISIS is really Muslim to condemn them. I can be OK with moderate Muslims in general without supporting all of their beliefs, and while doing things that run against many of their beliefs. (I don't really care whose beliefs I'm opposing, actually.)
You're wrong about progressives. In general, we sympathize with those we believe unfairly picked on. We generally believe Muslims are getting a bad deal in the West, and want them to have a better one. That doesn't mean we'll support anything because it's Muslim.
From what I could gather from the court documents, the bakers must have been quite offensive to the couple, and then started an internet harassment campaign against them, hence the large award in the case against the bakers. Then they got $800K in donations, not any sort of taxpayer money. That means the money came from the asshole community itself, and wasn't an efficient assholish use of the money. I'm calling it a win for the good guys.
FTFY.
Without actually disagreeing with you (except for the "evolutionary path to an eventual superior species", which imposes a lot of value judgments on evolution), I don't see what it matters. I, personally, am more or less human. I'm interested in humans (they're really quite interesting). I base my thoughts and actions primarily on the effects on humans. I'm actually against the extinction of the species, no matter what members of other species may think. I'm prejudiced, biased, and perhaps bigoted here, but that's me.
The planet will be just fine. I don't know anyone who thinks it'll disintegrate or explode or turn into a black hole because of global warming. I'm more interested in how the humans do.
Can you provide a cite to a 4-sigma error? The error bars on climate predictions tend to be fairly large, so a 4-sigma error would be pretty darn big.
Moreover, do you know what a climate scientist would do with a 4-sigma model error? Take that into account and try to improve the model. Do you know what a particle physicist would do with a 4-sigma model error? Precisely the same thing.
We have four-sigma evidence that leptons don't behave as predicted. We don't have a single EM experiment that rules out enough possible other factors to show that the EM drive violates the law of conservation of momentum (or its relativistic equivalent).
The theory that tells us that black holes exist tells us that the small ones decay really, really fast.
Moreover, a small uncharged black hole has no significant attraction to anything, because gravity is really, really weak as forces go. It would gain mass only by an almost exact collision with a fundamental particle (it could go through a proton and miss all the quarks). Lots of people think black holes suck because one with an event horizon big enough to see would have a considerable amount of mass, but one with the mass of a proton will have the gravitational attraction of a proton.
The empirical observation is that we're not all part of a black hole yet, since particles about seventy thousand times the maximum LHC energy hit each square kilometer of Earth about once a year, so if anything bad was going to happen we would be unlikely to have lasted long enough to build the LHC.
I'm older than that. I had to get piles of books from the library and read them in my room.
You can't? I don't have problems with that.
You know what happened last week? The land line rang (actually, it played the closest thing I could find to the shoggoth sounds in At the Mountains of Madness, but that's not really relevant here) during dinner. I don't see the difference here.
I've never heard of that happening. It's empirically possible to raise a kid without running into that problem.
(One time he was at a library with a project group, and they restricted computer access, so it did turn out to be a good thing that a girl in the group had brought her laptop.)
Lots of us old farts grew up when we were free to run around the neighborhood provided there were no large carnivorous dinosaurs reported that day. Granted, there was the parental network, but it wasn't omniscient.
Let me get my cane so I can hobble off your lawn.
I get that you don't like smartphones. That's cool. I don't really see how it's relevant to a discussion about a law restricting them, though. There's lots of stupid dumb things I don't want laws against.
Whatever happened to sneaking the father's Playboys out, or at least using the National Geographics in the attic?
Mine had a iMac in a common area before he was 5. On the whole, I think a common area is a better place for a young kid's computer than a private place.
In other words, since we have a bad situation, we should refrain from trying to improve it? I can't do much about established laws, unless they get some outside publicity, but I can have some influence about new ones, so that's the economical way to exert pressure.
My opinion is that black holes of interest depend more on the kid than on the device in use. If the kid wants time away from people, the kid will use anything handy and reasonably interesting as a distraction. Books look innocuous and work well. Alternatively, they may get used as a way of communicating with the kid's peer group without letting the parents in.
No. You're allowed to say or publish pretty much what you want, but you don't have unlimited authority to do what you like. You can be barred from using a particular forum, for example. Limiting smartphone use would deny someone the ability to express themselves in one way, but not others, so it's legal.
All cell phones serve as tracking devices.
I'm fine with banning cell phones that emit significant ionizing radiation, but I doubt any do unless carried as part of a Fukushima cleanup or dropped into a reactor waste pool or something like that. If you want to get me to agree with restrictions on non-ionizing radiation, you can bloody well come up with solid proof of harm.
If you checked, you'd also find that anti-depressive drug use is correlated with depression. Social media use might be self-medication.