Right now, the same way everyone having a "dissenting" opinion is called a Russian bot,
I agree that this line of "refutation" is overused. And it's been added to the toolbox of anyone without a real argument. But given that Dutch authorities caught some actual physical people casing a building, this creates a credible reason to name them.
BTW, do you remember when it was revealed the NSA was tapping 125 phones of German officials, including Angela Merkel phone? Don't you think the US government hacking and spying pretty much the whole German government for 20 years is a bit more serious than some Russian spies casing a building in the Netherlands?
I don't think it's relevant to this case. You said it wasn't credible that those individuals' names were known. And I would agree with that had some of them not been physically apprehended. They were though. This case stands on its own for this reason alone.
People are angry because they've been told a lot of lies. Free speech doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want at work. Nor does it protect you from getting fired. If you think it should, do explain why Rosanne got fired. And if you still think it should, then consider the fact that these employees were budding their nose into free speech of another employee. Only that other employee was engaging in his conduct on his own time, while the letter signers were doing it at work.
If you want to go accusing people of not being who they are, do it form a non-AC account with a user id that doesn't look like you made in the last 10 minutes. Otherwise, shut up.
Government also has people in cars with guns who can stop you and arrest on those roads, you know. You already have to REGISTER your car to drive it on a "public" (i.e. government) road. That means the government keeps track of what cars you own and such. Why should operating heavy machinery on a piece of land made by the government not come with no expectation of privacy? You wouldn't expect that you could operate a train and stay private about it. Just because cars are more versatile, doesn't mean the same principle doesn't apply. The only reason people care is that tracking cars used to be outside of the realm of what was possible. But the expectation of privacy that came with the fact no one cared to look was not the same a guaranteed privacy.
I don't know about spam on your behalf, but it has a creative way of verifying that people still work where they claim to work. It asks all contacts to congratulate on "work anniversaries." So if you plan on lying about where you work, you may want to avoid LinkedIn.
There is a fairly well-known solution to a potential problem they are describing. Assume it's already happening and act accordingly. And that means encouraging wide use of strong cryptographic signatures of all digital content as the only content to be trusted. But they won't encourage that. They want to look like they are fighting foreign influence, but want to continue peddling the same bullshit that they accuse others of doing.
For example, what's the difference if it is a foreign power doing this or a nefarious political rival? Well, none really. Both foist a lie on the voting public. But politicians want one of those lies to trusted.
They could create a new division of the copyright office which would track signatures of verifiable facts (eg. "this set of public signatures belong to a US citizen whose name shall remain unknown", "this set of signatures belong to someone with a medical license", etc.). But that would mean that you can't have verifiable anonymous sources. So you can't make anonymous accusations. Come to think of it, why doesn't everyone who is entitled to being called a "senior White House official" have access to the same 1 private key PGP key? This way any newsource claiming that a statement was made by a senior White House official would have to be able to produce a signature of that statement that can only be produced by senior WH officials. But there is more politicking to be done by making this shit up. So it won't happen.
It's not a fair question. It's a related question. But it assumes the premise of the stated argument (that Russia influenced the election). It's an attempt to drive past the sale. Mexico, England, and to some degree France, exerted most of the foreign influence in the past election cycle.
This wishful thinking gone awry (ie "Russian got Trump elected because they were scared of Hillary") will backfire when you all of a sudden find out that you and everyone you know needs a license to speak.
If they purport to have AI sufficiently intelligent to drive cars, can't it be use to discern scams? Any time Google (or any company which purports "to almost" have working scalable AI) complains that it can't make a simple decision rapidly and it's the kind of decision that millions of people make every day, it should give them and everyone else a pause.
But Fox has higher ratings than CNN. So why would CNN show up more often than Fox? It's entirely plausible that there is a reason. But the simplest reason (more interest) doesn't quite work here.
So the whole Feudal system didn't exist? Castles as economic units controlled by a hierarchical power system were also a myth? So this is just wrong on facts. It's also wrong on conclusions. Without decimal numbers there would not have been a technology leap which occured in Europe after the crusades. That means no algebra. No subsequent cartesian geometry. And no calculus. No industrial revolution. Oh and all social orders stayed the same during all of these advances. It was all happening during the feudal time. Technology enables social changes. Sometimes they subsequently occur and sometimes they don't.
You made the argument that FB made their decision about Alex Jones in order to maximize their profitability. If FB determined that adopting the opinion that there is only 2 sexes on their platform would maximize their profitability, would you be equally ok with FB "misgendering" people who do not fully fall into M or F gender? They are a private company and they are simply a platform for expressing opinions which (according to your own argument). So would that be a position they could adopt for profitability and would that not amount to editorial decision-making? You see why this is a problem, do you not? They either make editorial decisions or they don't. On this particular point, the dichotomy is not a false dichotomy, but a genuine it's-either-one-or-the-other dichotomy.
Policy is what guides an organizations' internal procedures. How it interacts with entities external to the organization is guided by laws and by contracts. Verizon's policy is for the birds when it comes to how it justifies its actions to outsiders. A Fire Department should have known better and it should have had a contract which stipulated this eventuality. If they didn't, they should be suing their lawyers for malpractice.
NJ Supreme Court has ruled that shopping malls have replaced town squares and that when it comes to speech they have the same responsibilities to accommodate it as a public square would. It was a case about NJ malls. The mall owners wanted to have a right ask anyone to leave if they tried to distribute pamphlets on the malls' sidewalks. The NJ Supreme Court sided with those who wanted to distribute the pamphlets. I don't know if the case made it to SCOTUS. According to https://educateforlife.org/fre..., 34 states have laws which mandate sidewalks to be available for public speech use (which is even further on the side of permissive speech than the 1st Amendment). California is one of those states. And I believe FB is domiciled in California. So the principle holds. If they are disallowing speech in a way that California malls cannot, then they are making editorial decisions.
It's just not always a message about you. Sometimes the other person's conduct is entirely unacceptable. And it's not your job to teach adults how to behave. It's not your job to lecture them as if they were children. But you can send a message by exercising your freedom of association. It's not that different from quitting a job because you find the workplace unacceptable. It's not your job to change personalities of people around you. It's their job if they really want to grow. Having said that, if you are not showing up because you are flaking out, people will see it. And that's on you.
It's not that "people" got it in for FB. FB stepped into it with Alex Jones. The moment social media companies start making editorial decisions (or at least look like it), they stop being open platforms. And now they carry partial responsibility for what's posted on them. The whole "violation of TOS" won't fly in court because Alex Jones didn't do anything that millions of other posters didn't do. FB wants to be a town square, but it wants the right to remove any barker it wants from the town square. But barkers have 1st Amendment rights. Except that FB is a private property, right? Sure. But then it's not a town square and has liability for its content. And if it has liability for its content, get ready for the law suits.
You are talking about tariff. I don't think anyone argued that SK can't impose tariffs. The question was how could they impose corporate tax on corporations without which don't have physical footprints.
Slashdot Mirror
I am just going to assume from now on that any AC accusing anyone else of being a Russian bot is himself a Russian bot working for the Democrat party.
Right now, the same way everyone having a "dissenting" opinion is called a Russian bot,
I agree that this line of "refutation" is overused. And it's been added to the toolbox of anyone without a real argument. But given that Dutch authorities caught some actual physical people casing a building, this creates a credible reason to name them.
BTW, do you remember when it was revealed the NSA was tapping 125 phones of German officials, including Angela Merkel phone? Don't you think the US government hacking and spying pretty much the whole German government for 20 years is a bit more serious than some Russian spies casing a building in the Netherlands?
I don't think it's relevant to this case. You said it wasn't credible that those individuals' names were known. And I would agree with that had some of them not been physically apprehended. They were though. This case stands on its own for this reason alone.
People are angry because they've been told a lot of lies. Free speech doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want at work. Nor does it protect you from getting fired. If you think it should, do explain why Rosanne got fired. And if you still think it should, then consider the fact that these employees were budding their nose into free speech of another employee. Only that other employee was engaging in his conduct on his own time, while the letter signers were doing it at work.
You just slandered a federal judge. And no, you didn't do it anonymously.
why aren't they fired for crying at work though?
No, *witness* testimony is evidence. Accuser testimony is not.
What the hell business is it of their who someone else supports? Hopefully they can be fired without harm to the company.
If you want to go accusing people of not being who they are, do it form a non-AC account with a user id that doesn't look like you made in the last 10 minutes. Otherwise, shut up.
They caught them casing a building in Netherlands.
Government also has people in cars with guns who can stop you and arrest on those roads, you know. You already have to REGISTER your car to drive it on a "public" (i.e. government) road. That means the government keeps track of what cars you own and such. Why should operating heavy machinery on a piece of land made by the government not come with no expectation of privacy? You wouldn't expect that you could operate a train and stay private about it. Just because cars are more versatile, doesn't mean the same principle doesn't apply. The only reason people care is that tracking cars used to be outside of the realm of what was possible. But the expectation of privacy that came with the fact no one cared to look was not the same a guaranteed privacy.
No and no. You are not having a stroke. And, no, it does not make any sense.
I don't know about spam on your behalf, but it has a creative way of verifying that people still work where they claim to work. It asks all contacts to congratulate on "work anniversaries." So if you plan on lying about where you work, you may want to avoid LinkedIn.
There is a fairly well-known solution to a potential problem they are describing. Assume it's already happening and act accordingly. And that means encouraging wide use of strong cryptographic signatures of all digital content as the only content to be trusted. But they won't encourage that. They want to look like they are fighting foreign influence, but want to continue peddling the same bullshit that they accuse others of doing.
For example, what's the difference if it is a foreign power doing this or a nefarious political rival? Well, none really. Both foist a lie on the voting public. But politicians want one of those lies to trusted.
They could create a new division of the copyright office which would track signatures of verifiable facts (eg. "this set of public signatures belong to a US citizen whose name shall remain unknown", "this set of signatures belong to someone with a medical license", etc.). But that would mean that you can't have verifiable anonymous sources. So you can't make anonymous accusations. Come to think of it, why doesn't everyone who is entitled to being called a "senior White House official" have access to the same 1 private key PGP key? This way any newsource claiming that a statement was made by a senior White House official would have to be able to produce a signature of that statement that can only be produced by senior WH officials. But there is more politicking to be done by making this shit up. So it won't happen.
Does anyone know what the terms/prices are? An MS link anyone?
It's not a fair question. It's a related question. But it assumes the premise of the stated argument (that Russia influenced the election). It's an attempt to drive past the sale. Mexico, England, and to some degree France, exerted most of the foreign influence in the past election cycle.
This wishful thinking gone awry (ie "Russian got Trump elected because they were scared of Hillary") will backfire when you all of a sudden find out that you and everyone you know needs a license to speak.
If they purport to have AI sufficiently intelligent to drive cars, can't it be use to discern scams? Any time Google (or any company which purports "to almost" have working scalable AI) complains that it can't make a simple decision rapidly and it's the kind of decision that millions of people make every day, it should give them and everyone else a pause.
But Fox has higher ratings than CNN. So why would CNN show up more often than Fox? It's entirely plausible that there is a reason. But the simplest reason (more interest) doesn't quite work here.
So the whole Feudal system didn't exist? Castles as economic units controlled by a hierarchical power system were also a myth? So this is just wrong on facts. It's also wrong on conclusions. Without decimal numbers there would not have been a technology leap which occured in Europe after the crusades. That means no algebra. No subsequent cartesian geometry. And no calculus. No industrial revolution. Oh and all social orders stayed the same during all of these advances. It was all happening during the feudal time. Technology enables social changes. Sometimes they subsequently occur and sometimes they don't.
You made the argument that FB made their decision about Alex Jones in order to maximize their profitability. If FB determined that adopting the opinion that there is only 2 sexes on their platform would maximize their profitability, would you be equally ok with FB "misgendering" people who do not fully fall into M or F gender? They are a private company and they are simply a platform for expressing opinions which (according to your own argument). So would that be a position they could adopt for profitability and would that not amount to editorial decision-making? You see why this is a problem, do you not? They either make editorial decisions or they don't. On this particular point, the dichotomy is not a false dichotomy, but a genuine it's-either-one-or-the-other dichotomy.
Policy is what guides an organizations' internal procedures. How it interacts with entities external to the organization is guided by laws and by contracts. Verizon's policy is for the birds when it comes to how it justifies its actions to outsiders. A Fire Department should have known better and it should have had a contract which stipulated this eventuality. If they didn't, they should be suing their lawyers for malpractice.
NJ Supreme Court has ruled that shopping malls have replaced town squares and that when it comes to speech they have the same responsibilities to accommodate it as a public square would. It was a case about NJ malls. The mall owners wanted to have a right ask anyone to leave if they tried to distribute pamphlets on the malls' sidewalks. The NJ Supreme Court sided with those who wanted to distribute the pamphlets. I don't know if the case made it to SCOTUS. According to https://educateforlife.org/fre..., 34 states have laws which mandate sidewalks to be available for public speech use (which is even further on the side of permissive speech than the 1st Amendment). California is one of those states. And I believe FB is domiciled in California. So the principle holds. If they are disallowing speech in a way that California malls cannot, then they are making editorial decisions.
It's just not always a message about you. Sometimes the other person's conduct is entirely unacceptable. And it's not your job to teach adults how to behave. It's not your job to lecture them as if they were children. But you can send a message by exercising your freedom of association. It's not that different from quitting a job because you find the workplace unacceptable. It's not your job to change personalities of people around you. It's their job if they really want to grow. Having said that, if you are not showing up because you are flaking out, people will see it. And that's on you.
It's not that "people" got it in for FB. FB stepped into it with Alex Jones. The moment social media companies start making editorial decisions (or at least look like it), they stop being open platforms. And now they carry partial responsibility for what's posted on them. The whole "violation of TOS" won't fly in court because Alex Jones didn't do anything that millions of other posters didn't do. FB wants to be a town square, but it wants the right to remove any barker it wants from the town square. But barkers have 1st Amendment rights. Except that FB is a private property, right? Sure. But then it's not a town square and has liability for its content. And if it has liability for its content, get ready for the law suits.
You are talking about tariff. I don't think anyone argued that SK can't impose tariffs. The question was how could they impose corporate tax on corporations without which don't have physical footprints.