Why would there be any moral obligation for YouTube to continue offering a free service in ways that make people money? If they find that they were making money themselves on the deal, and now appear to be losing money, how long do you think they should feel morally obligated to continue it for the benefit of someone who wasn't paying them anything?
I tend to get bored when I'm somewhat sick. If I'm sufficiently sick, I'm too out of it to be bored. If I'm healthy, I can find something interesting to do that requires thinking and/or fine coordination. If I'm in between, I'm bored.
A long time ago, my wife got hooked on a computer game in BASIC, and she fiddled with it until she could actually program reasonably well. She wound up working on software for a living, and being successful at it. That isn't going to happen with a modern game (unless it has a scripting interface, I guess).
YouTube had no contractual arrangement. YouTube is a free service. YouTube allows people to make money off their videos because YouTube believes it will make money that way. If YouTube concludes that hosting some things will cost money for whatever reason, YouTube will drop them. It's that simple.
It's foolish to rely on a business relationship without some sort of commitment, and YouTube doesn't make such commitments. Nor does YouTube have to provide free speech. Forcing them to host stuff they think will damage their brand or their profits is a bad idea for several reasons.
If people are getting annoyed by YouTube, they can set up their own video sites. Getting to be as profitable as YouTube isn't going to be easy, but it's possible. If too many people dislike YouTube, then they'll go to MyTube, and YouTube will lose relevance.
No, GP's argument is that shootings like this are really very rare, and unpredictable, so to stop a very small number of shootings we'd have to have massive security all over.
Police often shoot innocents because they're afraid of getting shot. Philandro Castile was likely shot because he had a legal gun. I'm not condoning these police actions, but if there were many fewer armed people out there they wouldn't be as trigger-happy.
All people are precious, and it would be great if we could reason with all of them and live peacefully together. However, this is the real world, and sometimes we have to kill people. Given this necessity, I'd rather have effective weapons, and particularly weapons that are better able to kill the folks we need to kill and as few others as possible.
You don't seem all that big on personal choices in this, yourself. Are you a pacifist? Are you willing to watch your loved ones be raped, tortured, and killed rather than resort to violence? If not, then you need to have people with weapons available somewhere, so you have an indirect need for weapons. In this case, it's better to have more effective weapons rather than less effective. In particular, it's better to have weapons that can target better than weapons that can't, because ideally you'd be killing or destroying who you need killed or what you need destroyed without additional death or destruction.
If there is no bombing, it really doesn't matter whether we're not doing accurate or inaccurate bombing. At that point, it's a matter of resources, not any sort of morality.
However, weapons do not suddenly appear where they needed at the outbreak of war, so we need to think, in peacetime, how prepared we should be for war.
Nope. In 1982, Argentina attacked the Falklands/Malvinas, despite the fact that Britain was a nuclear power that could wipe out most Argentinian cities quite easily. That was one war not deterred by nukes.
Bomber Command adopted the "dehousing" campaign because at that time they couldn't reliably hit anything smaller than a city at night. The intention remained to destroy housing, not kill people, although obviously a whole lot of people would die with a city-busting campaign. The USAAF tried precision bombing, but found it really didn't work under common European weather conditions, and did a lot more area bombing. In both cases, we see an attempt at precision bombing not work, and area bombing being adopted because that was what the Air Forces could do.
Dresden had a lot of military targets, but they were hard to hit accurately. Burning the city destroyed those targets, and nobody cared about collateral damage to Germans at that point in the war. The firebombing in Japan was because precision bombing wasn't working, as usual. Japanese cities were a lot more flammable, so firebombing was a more effective method than it was in Europe.
Possibly the most effective non-nuclear strategic bombing in the Pacific War was the destruction of the coal ferries that went between Hokkaido and northern Honshu, and that was precision bombing from carriers.
Sometimes there is "fast enough". Warship top speeds peaked around WWII, although there's been a lot of attention paid to sustained speeds and speed in adverse weather conditions.
Really, what's the military application for a supersonic plane that has a minimal sonic boom? By the time you notice the boom, there will have been other ways to notice the aircraft. Stealth goes only so far. The military isn't going to worry about supersonic fighters over cities when they're at war.
There was one fatality (the shooter) and one victim in critical condition (according to Wikipedia. Also from Wikipedia are definitions of mass shootings. One requires four deaths, which didn't happen. One requires three shooting victims, not including the shooter, and the YouTube shooting barely qualifies.
In other words, it wasn't a particularly notable incident. We tend to notice school shootings, and sometimes church shootings. This was neither. So far, only the shooter has been killed, to the best of my knowledge, although another person could die.
David Hogg is a survivor of a mass killing in a school, and is likely interested in similar crimes, which this really wasn't.
False on both counts. An armed population will have little choice but to submit, because the tyrant's forces are organized and centrally controlled and the populace is neither. Unarmed populations can do things about tyrannies. The trick in overthrowing a tyranny is morality, not violence.
I don't have the statistics to show you offhand, but this is likely what GP is saying.
People are recorded as criminals if they've been arrested, charged, and convicted of or confessed to a crime. None of these are inherently race-neutral. A white person who commits a crime that isn't obvious is less likely to be suspected than a black person. Whites are more likely to be let off with a warming. Whites are more likely to make arrangements that don't get them charged. Fifth Amendment protections are not enforced nearly enough. The net result is that a black who does a specific thing is a lot more likely to wind up as a criminal than a white who does that thing.
There's other feedback loops in play. Someone who starts with respect for the law, and is consistently treated badly by police, will likely lose that respect. Someone who's been convicted of a crime, and therefore has great difficulty in making a living by lawful means, is likely to commit more crimes.
However, it suits many people to quote slanted statistics as if they were gospel, as long as they conform to the people's preconceptions.
Until the pro-gun crowd realizes that there are people getting shot, although not necessarily in their neighborhoods, I don't care to hear anything they're screaming.
Heck, the Daily Stormer got a new host when the old one decided it was violating the ToS, so there's no reason anybody else can't. Anyone with a few bucks can get on the Internet and say almost whatever stupid thing they want. (They'll take you down for child pornography or obviously facilitating illegal activity, typically.)
Slashdot Mirror
Why would there be any moral obligation for YouTube to continue offering a free service in ways that make people money? If they find that they were making money themselves on the deal, and now appear to be losing money, how long do you think they should feel morally obligated to continue it for the benefit of someone who wasn't paying them anything?
I tend to get bored when I'm somewhat sick. If I'm sufficiently sick, I'm too out of it to be bored. If I'm healthy, I can find something interesting to do that requires thinking and/or fine coordination. If I'm in between, I'm bored.
A long time ago, my wife got hooked on a computer game in BASIC, and she fiddled with it until she could actually program reasonably well. She wound up working on software for a living, and being successful at it. That isn't going to happen with a modern game (unless it has a scripting interface, I guess).
Now, is it in YouTube's financial interest to chop advertisers up that way? I don't know, and I don't think you do either.
YouTube had no contractual arrangement. YouTube is a free service. YouTube allows people to make money off their videos because YouTube believes it will make money that way. If YouTube concludes that hosting some things will cost money for whatever reason, YouTube will drop them. It's that simple.
It's foolish to rely on a business relationship without some sort of commitment, and YouTube doesn't make such commitments. Nor does YouTube have to provide free speech. Forcing them to host stuff they think will damage their brand or their profits is a bad idea for several reasons.
If people are getting annoyed by YouTube, they can set up their own video sites. Getting to be as profitable as YouTube isn't going to be easy, but it's possible. If too many people dislike YouTube, then they'll go to MyTube, and YouTube will lose relevance.
No, GP's argument is that shootings like this are really very rare, and unpredictable, so to stop a very small number of shootings we'd have to have massive security all over.
In the US, don't forget health insurance. If your health care depends on keeping your job, getting fired or laid off is a real danger.
Police often shoot innocents because they're afraid of getting shot. Philandro Castile was likely shot because he had a legal gun. I'm not condoning these police actions, but if there were many fewer armed people out there they wouldn't be as trigger-happy.
Sometimes those of us who know history are doomed to watch other people repeat it. It can be depressing.
All people are precious, and it would be great if we could reason with all of them and live peacefully together. However, this is the real world, and sometimes we have to kill people. Given this necessity, I'd rather have effective weapons, and particularly weapons that are better able to kill the folks we need to kill and as few others as possible.
I thought they kept two-thirds of it.
You don't seem all that big on personal choices in this, yourself. Are you a pacifist? Are you willing to watch your loved ones be raped, tortured, and killed rather than resort to violence? If not, then you need to have people with weapons available somewhere, so you have an indirect need for weapons. In this case, it's better to have more effective weapons rather than less effective. In particular, it's better to have weapons that can target better than weapons that can't, because ideally you'd be killing or destroying who you need killed or what you need destroyed without additional death or destruction.
If there is no bombing, it really doesn't matter whether we're not doing accurate or inaccurate bombing. At that point, it's a matter of resources, not any sort of morality.
However, weapons do not suddenly appear where they needed at the outbreak of war, so we need to think, in peacetime, how prepared we should be for war.
However, being a nuclear state doesn't necessarily deter a non-nuclear state, as was the case in the Falklands War in 1982.
I believe there was a sketchy German plan to invade Switzerland, but the Germans found Switzerland to be somewhat valuable as a neutral.
Nope. In 1982, Argentina attacked the Falklands/Malvinas, despite the fact that Britain was a nuclear power that could wipe out most Argentinian cities quite easily. That was one war not deterred by nukes.
Bomber Command adopted the "dehousing" campaign because at that time they couldn't reliably hit anything smaller than a city at night. The intention remained to destroy housing, not kill people, although obviously a whole lot of people would die with a city-busting campaign. The USAAF tried precision bombing, but found it really didn't work under common European weather conditions, and did a lot more area bombing. In both cases, we see an attempt at precision bombing not work, and area bombing being adopted because that was what the Air Forces could do.
Dresden had a lot of military targets, but they were hard to hit accurately. Burning the city destroyed those targets, and nobody cared about collateral damage to Germans at that point in the war. The firebombing in Japan was because precision bombing wasn't working, as usual. Japanese cities were a lot more flammable, so firebombing was a more effective method than it was in Europe.
Possibly the most effective non-nuclear strategic bombing in the Pacific War was the destruction of the coal ferries that went between Hokkaido and northern Honshu, and that was precision bombing from carriers.
Sometimes there is "fast enough". Warship top speeds peaked around WWII, although there's been a lot of attention paid to sustained speeds and speed in adverse weather conditions.
Really, what's the military application for a supersonic plane that has a minimal sonic boom? By the time you notice the boom, there will have been other ways to notice the aircraft. Stealth goes only so far. The military isn't going to worry about supersonic fighters over cities when they're at war.
There was one fatality (the shooter) and one victim in critical condition (according to Wikipedia. Also from Wikipedia are definitions of mass shootings. One requires four deaths, which didn't happen. One requires three shooting victims, not including the shooter, and the YouTube shooting barely qualifies.
In other words, it wasn't a particularly notable incident. We tend to notice school shootings, and sometimes church shootings. This was neither. So far, only the shooter has been killed, to the best of my knowledge, although another person could die.
David Hogg is a survivor of a mass killing in a school, and is likely interested in similar crimes, which this really wasn't.
False on both counts. An armed population will have little choice but to submit, because the tyrant's forces are organized and centrally controlled and the populace is neither. Unarmed populations can do things about tyrannies. The trick in overthrowing a tyranny is morality, not violence.
I don't have the statistics to show you offhand, but this is likely what GP is saying.
People are recorded as criminals if they've been arrested, charged, and convicted of or confessed to a crime. None of these are inherently race-neutral. A white person who commits a crime that isn't obvious is less likely to be suspected than a black person. Whites are more likely to be let off with a warming. Whites are more likely to make arrangements that don't get them charged. Fifth Amendment protections are not enforced nearly enough. The net result is that a black who does a specific thing is a lot more likely to wind up as a criminal than a white who does that thing.
There's other feedback loops in play. Someone who starts with respect for the law, and is consistently treated badly by police, will likely lose that respect. Someone who's been convicted of a crime, and therefore has great difficulty in making a living by lawful means, is likely to commit more crimes.
However, it suits many people to quote slanted statistics as if they were gospel, as long as they conform to the people's preconceptions.
Typically, primitive people don't kill each other in great numbers. That normally requires outside influence.
Until the pro-gun crowd realizes that there are people getting shot, although not necessarily in their neighborhoods, I don't care to hear anything they're screaming.
Heck, the Daily Stormer got a new host when the old one decided it was violating the ToS, so there's no reason anybody else can't. Anyone with a few bucks can get on the Internet and say almost whatever stupid thing they want. (They'll take you down for child pornography or obviously facilitating illegal activity, typically.)