EU privacy laws don't cover servers in the US. That's why some companies are investigating moving their servers to the EU. If it's not hosted in Europe, the laws of the hosting country apply, and ONLY those laws.
Where do you get your info that the Danish court wouldn't touch this case because the servers are in the USA?
The EU is strict enough that I'm pretty sure that if one of the complainants were in, say, Denmark and the 'researchers' were also in Denmark then the fact that the data was on servers in the USA wouldn't matter to a Danish court; the person infringed upon and the alleged infringer were in Denmark therefore Danish law applies.
No one except you is using the word phobia to talk about disliking gays. If you don't get it, that's fine, everyone else knows what the perfectly cromulant word means.
And no one but you is getting butthurt over it.
'homophobia' includes 'phobia', show some respect for people with genuine mental issues. See what I mean? You are part of the problem that was originally described in the post I responded to; lack of comprehension of actual mental health issues. You probably think that people suffering severe depression are just sad.
The great thing about freedom of speech is that conservatives are allowed to say things (mostly that I disagree with, but it's a free country). They're allowed to make their own social networking sites and news media and all that. They do have a venue, talk radio, in which they dominate. The leftist reaction has been to try to get leftist talk radio going, which is entirely as it should be. The fact that it has been largely unsuccessful doesn't mean that talk radio needs to change. Now, Facebook is favoring liberal causes, and conservatives whine that they should favor conservative causes rather than to set up their own site and try to compete.
So if a cellular network provider kept dropping calls between conservatives that'd be ok and an appropriate response would be "find a different provider"?
Okay. Then my point partly aligns (and partly doesn't) with yours- that the "phobia" in "homophobia" *isn't* being used in the medical sense, but as a term meaning more general fear or revulsion. For that reason, it's inaccurate to suggest that "homophobes" have ever- for the most part- been considered mentally ill.
Indeed. The lack of understanding of the nature of mental states is so bad that many people actually believe that a phobic person is actually just afraid of something. They might even see a phobic persons response to the object of their phobia and think that they are overdoing it. They don't get that phobia is way way more than just being afraid of something, that it can be a debilitating condition.
Hence, to many people, it seems totally reasonable to label someone who dislikes homosexuals as 'homophobic' without grasping the nature of the phenomenon that they are referring to.
This dilutes the public perception of phobia even more. It devalues the term and belittles the people who suffer from genuine phobias. Just as a gamer saying "Dude you got totally raped!" dilutes and belittles the term 'rape'.
Its not that the modern use of the term 'homophobe' says anything about mental illness; its that it says something about lack of awareness of mental illness.
(disclaimer: I'm not phobic, in fact I may have a 'fear deficit disorder').
Yeah, and how does the US treat it's veterans when they have no more use for them?
They said we have a great military, not compassion or morality
Interestingly, the US veterans get so very very fucked up in the head. I was watching a documentary about the rise of fascism. Mussolini used WW1 veterans to crush opposition. I doubt that US veterans could be used in this way...
The country with the actual claim to inventing the internet has one of the shittest internets. If any ISP around here even thought of having a cap on anything but the most basic of service they'd be laughed right out of business.
USA is amazingly backward in oh so many ways... except the military. Great military, shitty everything else.
So how about just getting a bunch of conservatists and building your own, pro-conservatist social media site instead of complaining that everybody involved with social media is not supporting your anti-social viewpoints.
my own?
I'm not a conservative. But I'd fight for the right of conservatives to get their views across.
Clearly not everybody involved in social media agrees with The Lying Weasel because they are coming out and calling him out on it. But he wants to use his social media platform to promote his views and quash opposing views.
You aren't getting my point. I'm simply illustrating how fucked up peoples perceptions of mental states are. To use the suffix 'phobia' in 'homophobia' shows a complete lack of understanding about the mental condition 'phobia'.
Its a bit like gamers etc who use the term 'rape' not getting that rape isn't something to be taken lightly. They just don't get it.
Same with people who refer to 'homophobes'. Do they even know what phobia is? Do they think a phobia is simple fear? Or are they just using the term 'phobia' as a perjorative? Either is wrong. You shouldn't use terms like phobia or rape or cancer in the pejorative, its offensive and inappropriate.
If homophobia is a real phobia it should be treated as an illness. If homophobia is not a real phobia then this term should not be used at all. But people don't understand what phobia is AT ALL; they don't understand mental states or illnesses AT ALL.
there is a widespread belief that 'homophobia' is a real thing and that 'homophobes' really are phobic. Hey, if that WERE the case then these 'homophobes' should be given understanding and compassion, right? Because they are ill.
No, you're selectively (and intentionally) imposing your own over-literal interpretation of the word "homophobia"- as if it was what everyone meant by the word- because it suits the flow of your argument.
I appreciate that the persecuted-turned-hypocritical-persecutors narrative suits your rationalisation of a sense of victimhood (stemming from the fact it's not as socially acceptable to be a bigot in this respect as it used to be).
However, when you need to selectively interpret the general meaning of words and twist the facts to suit that argument, it's rather obvious nonsense.
You aren't getting my point. I'm simply illustrating how fucked up peoples perceptions of mental states are. To use the suffix 'phobia' in 'homophobia' shows a complete lack of understanding about the mental condition 'phobia'.
Its a bit like gamers etc who use the term 'rape' not getting that rape isn't something to be taken lightly. They just don't get it.
Same with people who refer to 'homophobes'. Do they even know what phobia is? Do they think a phobia is simple fear? Or are they just using the term 'phobia' as a perjorative? Either is wrong. You shouldn't use terms like phobia or rape or cancer in the pejorative, its offensive and inappropriate.
If homophobia is a real phobia it should be treated as an illness. If homophobia is not a real phobia then this term should not be used at all. But people don't understand what phobia is AT ALL; they don't understand mental states or illnesses AT ALL.
Unfortunately, there persists this stubborn subset of morons in society that continue to believe that mental diseases are imaginary, so people with autism or clinical depression must be "faking it", that they just have to "toughen up" or some shit like that.
Public perception of mental illness is just so very fucked up.
Eg People might recall that there was a time when homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. Nowadays we are 'enlightened' and homosexuality isn't generally regarded as a mental illness. No, these days people who "don't like homosexuality" are regarded as having a mental illness; there is a widespread belief that 'homophobia' is a real thing and that 'homophobes' really are phobic. Hey, if that WERE the case then these 'homophobes' should be given understanding and compassion, right? Because they are ill. But no, the LBGT community demand they be treated like criminals... Shoe is on the other foot, kind of thing.
The world of the mental is such a huge fucking mystery to people, anything concerning the mental world just gets shrouded in so much mythology and misunderstanding and sheer lies, its a wonder we as a society can actually do anything positive at all with it.
Ignorance of the law is an accepted excuse for law enforcement's mistakes, but not an acceptable excuse for the mistakes of people being punished by law enforcement. That's fair, right?
At least in Toronto the city and the police just threw their arms up in the air and said "You know what? The laws and regulations concerning taxis are just so complicated we just don't know what the fuck to enforce so we aren't enforcing anything and uber can just carry right on."
This is a huge problem in North America; so many layers of laws and regulations and by-laws no one knows what the law is, not Joe public, not the cops, not the courts.
To handle the suits from all of the families of the deceased spectators from misaimed turbo-lasers and the like.
Not that it's stop me from watching mind you. Just saying it's probably the first venue you may want to consider tickets with an obstructed view as a plus.
LRM's will be banned, they can only use SRM's so problem solved!
well its a california based company so... yeah not the US
Not Canada. Not anywhere in Europe. Probably not South America nor middle east. Most likely East Asia. Though Mongolia could be good, battling it out in the open air on the wide open steppe.
"MegaBots is evaluating potential host countries and working with governments that may be interested in and willing to host such an event, and future tournaments."
We all know it's gonna be in Dubai. There is no way this won't be in Dubai.
It would be so wrong to build up a good sweat piloting a battling robot and not be able to have a good cold beer afterwards.
The 2nd A is not there to have people shoot each other because they disagree politically. People were well armed in the 19th C and we did not have political violence. (Although we did have a civil war from 1860-1865). People are still well armed - and we still do not have political violence. Although progressives are being real d!cks with their anti-free-speech movement.
Huh, an outside observer could be forgiven for thinking that armed conflict is an essential and respected part of American democracy...
Everyone - be it Fox News or the NY Times, or CNN - is selling an agenda. They choose the news they report and all of them put their own political spin on it to advance that agenda. The line between hard news and political commentary is blurred and has been for some time. I believe that the only way to get the real story is to view it from both a right wing and a left wing perspective. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
One of the funniest moments I've seen in 'Murcan 'news' coverage was on CNN, fairly early on in the republican primaries. They were interviewing some big Republican guy after Trump had made some inflammatory comments. They were clearly hoping to get an outraged response from the guy.
So, anyway, he says to the CNN talking heads "I watch a lot of CNN, I watch CNN all the time. I've never seen you cover anything about the Democrat primaries, why is that?" The talking heads looked momentarily dazed and confused and finally blurted out "We'll cover that when it comes to the general election". The Republican guy just rolled his eyes and carried on with their 'interview'.
Free Speech zones is a little more complicated. People going to an abortion clinic should not have to walk through a gauntlet of people shouting murderer at them, just as people going to a Trump speech shouldn't have to go through a gauntlet of people yelling racist at them. How do we draw the line between competing rights on public property? It's not cut and dried and and it certainly is not censorship. (Unless there is more to free speech zones than I'm aware of).
Surely in the USA, with the second amendment and right to keep and bear firearms, both sides would be armed and we'd let them sort it out among themselves. Just keep the police away, put up some bullet proof shielding around them and wait until they have settled down.
You're right, although, if they actually do get lasers right, you could have one plane shoot down missiles that are fired BVR. That would then require the opposition force to close to visual range to intercept the incoming.
Of course, nobody has really mentioned ground-based laser anti-aircraft weaponry, which is much, much more feasible than jet lasers, and would have both the stability, and the ability to have a big generator to actually fire those thousands of high power shots per minute. Then all you need is BVR radar and you can pick off thousands of incoming missiles as soon as they enter visual range.
A jet is a much better firing platform for a laser weapon, mostly because a jet always has a look-down ability to ensure they have line of sight on a target, but an AA weapon with sufficient visibility would seem a much better first project for the technology.
I guess its totally feasible to have an anti-missile laser system on an aircraft but I doubt you'd want the same laser system for antimissile work as you want for air to air combat or air to ground, so that means your F35 now has to carry two or more laser systems around and complicates things even more. Having specialist anti-missile laser carrying aircraft might be an option, but again thats complicating things more.
Slashdot Mirror
As has already been said, under EU law the data belongs to the user not to the company with the servers. The jurisdiction of the user would apply.
EU privacy laws don't cover servers in the US. That's why some companies are investigating moving their servers to the EU. If it's not hosted in Europe, the laws of the hosting country apply, and ONLY those laws.
Where do you get your info that the Danish court wouldn't touch this case because the servers are in the USA?
The EU is strict enough that I'm pretty sure that if one of the complainants were in, say, Denmark and the 'researchers' were also in Denmark then the fact that the data was on servers in the USA wouldn't matter to a Danish court; the person infringed upon and the alleged infringer were in Denmark therefore Danish law applies.
Cool, so this works for protecting websites from DDOS too?
ANY site that discusses politics has this happen to it IMMEDIATELY.
Really? I've never seen it happen here, and we discuss politics all the fucking time. In fact, That mountain is clearly a mole hill.
Lets amend that;
Any site that discusses politics unfriendly to SJW's has this happen to it immediately
Possession of the command and control apparatus of a botnet (so to speak) should be a felony with an automatic 20 year sentence.
Yeah I can see Putin and Xi Jinping totally going along with that.
My question is what happens when a little Jewish or Muslim kid swallows a battery? Pork casing indeed!
Those damned anti-Semitic folks at MIT.
Obviously the survival of their children takes priority over their religious beliefs.
Oh... wait...
No one except you is using the word phobia to talk about disliking gays. If you don't get it, that's fine, everyone else knows what the perfectly cromulant word means.
And no one but you is getting butthurt over it.
'homophobia' includes 'phobia', show some respect for people with genuine mental issues. See what I mean? You are part of the problem that was originally described in the post I responded to; lack of comprehension of actual mental health issues. You probably think that people suffering severe depression are just sad.
The great thing about freedom of speech is that conservatives are allowed to say things (mostly that I disagree with, but it's a free country). They're allowed to make their own social networking sites and news media and all that. They do have a venue, talk radio, in which they dominate. The leftist reaction has been to try to get leftist talk radio going, which is entirely as it should be. The fact that it has been largely unsuccessful doesn't mean that talk radio needs to change. Now, Facebook is favoring liberal causes, and conservatives whine that they should favor conservative causes rather than to set up their own site and try to compete.
So if a cellular network provider kept dropping calls between conservatives that'd be ok and an appropriate response would be "find a different provider"?
Okay. Then my point partly aligns (and partly doesn't) with yours- that the "phobia" in "homophobia" *isn't* being used in the medical sense, but as a term meaning more general fear or revulsion. For that reason, it's inaccurate to suggest that "homophobes" have ever- for the most part- been considered mentally ill.
Indeed. The lack of understanding of the nature of mental states is so bad that many people actually believe that a phobic person is actually just afraid of something. They might even see a phobic persons response to the object of their phobia and think that they are overdoing it. They don't get that phobia is way way more than just being afraid of something, that it can be a debilitating condition.
Hence, to many people, it seems totally reasonable to label someone who dislikes homosexuals as 'homophobic' without grasping the nature of the phenomenon that they are referring to.
This dilutes the public perception of phobia even more. It devalues the term and belittles the people who suffer from genuine phobias. Just as a gamer saying "Dude you got totally raped!" dilutes and belittles the term 'rape'.
Its not that the modern use of the term 'homophobe' says anything about mental illness; its that it says something about lack of awareness of mental illness.
(disclaimer: I'm not phobic, in fact I may have a 'fear deficit disorder').
Yeah, and how does the US treat it's veterans when they have no more use for them?
They said we have a great military, not compassion or morality
Interestingly, the US veterans get so very very fucked up in the head. I was watching a documentary about the rise of fascism. Mussolini used WW1 veterans to crush opposition. I doubt that US veterans could be used in this way...
The country with the actual claim to inventing the internet has one of the shittest internets. If any ISP around here even thought of having a cap on anything but the most basic of service they'd be laughed right out of business.
USA is amazingly backward in oh so many ways... except the military. Great military, shitty everything else.
So how about just getting a bunch of conservatists and building your own, pro-conservatist social media site instead of complaining that everybody involved with social media is not supporting your anti-social viewpoints.
my own?
I'm not a conservative. But I'd fight for the right of conservatives to get their views across.
Clearly not everybody involved in social media agrees with The Lying Weasel because they are coming out and calling him out on it. But he wants to use his social media platform to promote his views and quash opposing views.
Homophobia is a word. It does not mean fear of gay people. Are hydrophobic coatings afraid of water? No.
http://www.grammarphobia.com/b...
Still not getting it...
The lying weasel actually came out and said it in plain words:
If we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment that we will take additional steps to address it."
Conservatism is against their principles and they are addressing it.
You aren't getting my point. I'm simply illustrating how fucked up peoples perceptions of mental states are. To use the suffix 'phobia' in 'homophobia' shows a complete lack of understanding about the mental condition 'phobia'.
Its a bit like gamers etc who use the term 'rape' not getting that rape isn't something to be taken lightly. They just don't get it.
Same with people who refer to 'homophobes'. Do they even know what phobia is? Do they think a phobia is simple fear? Or are they just using the term 'phobia' as a perjorative? Either is wrong. You shouldn't use terms like phobia or rape or cancer in the pejorative, its offensive and inappropriate.
If homophobia is a real phobia it should be treated as an illness. If homophobia is not a real phobia then this term should not be used at all. But people don't understand what phobia is AT ALL; they don't understand mental states or illnesses AT ALL.
Get it now?
there is a widespread belief that 'homophobia' is a real thing and that 'homophobes' really are phobic. Hey, if that WERE the case then these 'homophobes' should be given understanding and compassion, right? Because they are ill.
No, you're selectively (and intentionally) imposing your own over-literal interpretation of the word "homophobia"- as if it was what everyone meant by the word- because it suits the flow of your argument.
I appreciate that the persecuted-turned-hypocritical-persecutors narrative suits your rationalisation of a sense of victimhood (stemming from the fact it's not as socially acceptable to be a bigot in this respect as it used to be).
However, when you need to selectively interpret the general meaning of words and twist the facts to suit that argument, it's rather obvious nonsense.
You aren't getting my point. I'm simply illustrating how fucked up peoples perceptions of mental states are. To use the suffix 'phobia' in 'homophobia' shows a complete lack of understanding about the mental condition 'phobia'.
Its a bit like gamers etc who use the term 'rape' not getting that rape isn't something to be taken lightly. They just don't get it.
Same with people who refer to 'homophobes'. Do they even know what phobia is? Do they think a phobia is simple fear? Or are they just using the term 'phobia' as a perjorative? Either is wrong. You shouldn't use terms like phobia or rape or cancer in the pejorative, its offensive and inappropriate.
If homophobia is a real phobia it should be treated as an illness. If homophobia is not a real phobia then this term should not be used at all. But people don't understand what phobia is AT ALL; they don't understand mental states or illnesses AT ALL.
Get it now?
Unfortunately, there persists this stubborn subset of morons in society that continue to believe that mental diseases are imaginary, so people with autism or clinical depression must be "faking it", that they just have to "toughen up" or some shit like that.
Public perception of mental illness is just so very fucked up.
Eg People might recall that there was a time when homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. Nowadays we are 'enlightened' and homosexuality isn't generally regarded as a mental illness. No, these days people who "don't like homosexuality" are regarded as having a mental illness; there is a widespread belief that 'homophobia' is a real thing and that 'homophobes' really are phobic. Hey, if that WERE the case then these 'homophobes' should be given understanding and compassion, right? Because they are ill. But no, the LBGT community demand they be treated like criminals... Shoe is on the other foot, kind of thing.
The world of the mental is such a huge fucking mystery to people, anything concerning the mental world just gets shrouded in so much mythology and misunderstanding and sheer lies, its a wonder we as a society can actually do anything positive at all with it.
Ignorance of the law is an accepted excuse for law enforcement's mistakes, but not an acceptable excuse for the mistakes of people being punished by law enforcement. That's fair, right?
At least in Toronto the city and the police just threw their arms up in the air and said "You know what? The laws and regulations concerning taxis are just so complicated we just don't know what the fuck to enforce so we aren't enforcing anything and uber can just carry right on."
This is a huge problem in North America; so many layers of laws and regulations and by-laws no one knows what the law is, not Joe public, not the cops, not the courts.
To handle the suits from all of the families of the deceased spectators from misaimed turbo-lasers and the like.
Not that it's stop me from watching mind you. Just saying it's probably the first venue you may want to consider tickets with an obstructed view as a plus.
LRM's will be banned, they can only use SRM's so problem solved!
well its a california based company so... yeah not the US
Not Canada. Not anywhere in Europe. Probably not South America nor middle east. Most likely East Asia. Though Mongolia could be good, battling it out in the open air on the wide open steppe.
"MegaBots is evaluating potential host countries and working with governments that may be interested in and willing to host such an event, and future tournaments."
We all know it's gonna be in Dubai. There is no way this won't be in Dubai.
It would be so wrong to build up a good sweat piloting a battling robot and not be able to have a good cold beer afterwards.
The 2nd A is not there to have people shoot each other because they disagree politically. People were well armed in the 19th C and we did not have political violence. (Although we did have a civil war from 1860-1865). People are still well armed - and we still do not have political violence. Although progressives are being real d!cks with their anti-free-speech movement.
Huh, an outside observer could be forgiven for thinking that armed conflict is an essential and respected part of American democracy...
Everyone - be it Fox News or the NY Times, or CNN - is selling an agenda. They choose the news they report and all of them put their own political spin on it to advance that agenda. The line between hard news and political commentary is blurred and has been for some time. I believe that the only way to get the real story is to view it from both a right wing and a left wing perspective. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
One of the funniest moments I've seen in 'Murcan 'news' coverage was on CNN, fairly early on in the republican primaries. They were interviewing some big Republican guy after Trump had made some inflammatory comments. They were clearly hoping to get an outraged response from the guy.
So, anyway, he says to the CNN talking heads "I watch a lot of CNN, I watch CNN all the time. I've never seen you cover anything about the Democrat primaries, why is that?" The talking heads looked momentarily dazed and confused and finally blurted out "We'll cover that when it comes to the general election". The Republican guy just rolled his eyes and carried on with their 'interview'.
Free Speech zones is a little more complicated. People going to an abortion clinic should not have to walk through a gauntlet of people shouting murderer at them, just as people going to a Trump speech shouldn't have to go through a gauntlet of people yelling racist at them. How do we draw the line between competing rights on public property? It's not cut and dried and and it certainly is not censorship. (Unless there is more to free speech zones than I'm aware of).
Surely in the USA, with the second amendment and right to keep and bear firearms, both sides would be armed and we'd let them sort it out among themselves. Just keep the police away, put up some bullet proof shielding around them and wait until they have settled down.
You're right, although, if they actually do get lasers right, you could have one plane shoot down missiles that are fired BVR. That would then require the opposition force to close to visual range to intercept the incoming.
Of course, nobody has really mentioned ground-based laser anti-aircraft weaponry, which is much, much more feasible than jet lasers, and would have both the stability, and the ability to have a big generator to actually fire those thousands of high power shots per minute. Then all you need is BVR radar and you can pick off thousands of incoming missiles as soon as they enter visual range.
A jet is a much better firing platform for a laser weapon, mostly because a jet always has a look-down ability to ensure they have line of sight on a target, but an AA weapon with sufficient visibility would seem a much better first project for the technology.
I guess its totally feasible to have an anti-missile laser system on an aircraft but I doubt you'd want the same laser system for antimissile work as you want for air to air combat or air to ground, so that means your F35 now has to carry two or more laser systems around and complicates things even more. Having specialist anti-missile laser carrying aircraft might be an option, but again thats complicating things more.