People seem to forget when they bring up a company Foxconn, that they actually do a rather exceptional job meeting the customers needs and producing a quality product.
They do indeed. And many people believe that they are less abusive of their staff than their local competitors in China. Foxconn continues to get targeted due to their high profile, in the hope that as Foxconn moves, so will the rest of China follow.
But Foxconn produce incredible quality, and they have to be congratulated on being able to guarantee that quality even as their staff fall asleep at their stations due to overwork and lack of sleep.
And of course, even where legislation does target "high-risk groups", it often descends into harassment of your minority demographic du jour. Right now, that tends to mean black people and Muslims. When I was child, here in the UK, Irish people in a certain age-band were targeted by police as potential terrorists. A lot of people are happy as long as they're the us that's being protected at the cost of some other "them".
Ah, but we're only taking away free speech from those who would take away free speech. You know, dangerous people like political protesters who might threaten our politicians' way of life.
All well and good inside, but when you put it on the front cover, you inevitably expose it to people who don't understand the point of the magazine. And as the immigrant community is mostly composed of immigrants, they're pretty likely to misunderstand and be offended.
Yes, but they made a point of licensing it as CC-BY-SA, not CC-ND, as though they're expecting derivative works... but then they put up a barrier to adaptation by publishing in a delivery format that is notorious for breaking even simple copy-and-paste operations.
I don't find it sexual. My point is that I believe, rightly or wrongly, that had this not come out on the same day as the attack happened, the tabloid press would have whipped up a confected outrage, and people would be baying for blood. People who had never watched the video would be demanding that broadcasters refuse to air it, and debate would be stymied by people's refusal to watch the video for themselves because they are already convinced it's paedophilia.
I never said I found anything sexual about that video. That you read that into my message says much about you, and nothing else.
My main point was that it really isn't offensive, but that people are decrying it as such. I believe if the tabloid press wasn't occupied with the CH shootings, they would already have manufactured a global scandal out of this.
The difference between the two things is only about the outcome. I'm not talking about boycottings, bannings, legal actions or even shootings. The underlying issue of "should they publish this" is all I'm talking about. I personally believe (and I accept that I cannot prove this) that a great many people who are currently speaking in favour of Charlie Hebdo's right to deliberately offend a "them" would take offense to the Sia video and would be denouncing her right to incidentally offend the "us".
Just as people have a right to offend, people who are offended have a right to protest what offends them. The difference is that the protests of that video would have consisted of angry posts online and boycotts, not shootings. Declaring you are offended and "fighting back" with words is fine. Fighting back by killing those who offend you isn't fine.
I agree wholeheartedly, and I never said otherwise. I was responding to koan's post and his suggestion that the appropriate response to the killings was to repeatedly publish offensive images. Now that I do disagree with. My point was that we will collectively still call for the banning of material we find offensive while simultaneously standing up for the right to publish material that others find offensive. I fully believe that if the CH attack hadn't happened on the same day as the Sia video launch, we would already have seen public announcements from major broadcasters telling us that the video would never be played on their channels. I may be wrong, but that is what I believe.
Hmm... you mean like the time they used the adbuction of between a hundred and two hundred Nigerian schoolgirls (powerful!) to make jokes about Muslims in France (oh the power of the banlieues!) being benefits scroungers? Yes, they really love knocking the powerful down a peg or two, don't they.
Did I imagine this video? Did I imagine these reactions? As I said, I believe this is what we'd all be outraged about if the CH attacks hadn't occurred the exact same day that the video was released.
On Wednesday, Sia launched the video for her single Elastic Heart. In it, Shia LaBeouf is in skin-colour briefs, play-fighting with a 12-year old dancer and actress by the name of Maddie Ziegler.
Some consider it controversial and claim it is a depiction of child abuse. I have absolutely no doubt that it would have made the headlines had it not been that the Charlie Hebdo attack occurred on the exact same day.
It is my contention that if we weren't now all crying for freedom to offend, we would all instead be crying for the censorship of offensive material. That's the human race now.
No it doesn't. You know what the internet would be outraged about right now if this attack had never happened? A pop video featuring a 28 year old man and a 12 year old girl playfighting in their underwear. We would all be incensed about the "pedophilic" content and we'd be calling for it to be banned as gross indecency. The fact that there's no overtly sexual content, and that the two actors in fact represent different facets of a single psyche, would be irrelevant, and we would all be calling for the censoring of offensive imagery. Hypocrisy.
Sorry, that's free market economics. You either restrict the market (protectionism) or labour goes where it's cheapest. The only thing approaching middle ground is worker protection laws that apply to imports -- if you weren't allowed to buy from companies that have worse employee rights policies than are applicable in your country, Foxconn would go out of business overnight. Alternatively, if not having laws protecting workers' rights in your country meant import tarriffs that compensated for the unfair competitive advantage of (for example) no paid holidays, then some level of parity could be achieved. It's always surprised me that countries haven't used this strategy to justify import tarriffs...
Sadly, despite all the criticism of the issue 1 release, they've stuck to their guns and released most of their articles as "object files" in PDF. To me, that feels like their being purposefully obstructive -- it is such a faff to extract text from a PDF file, and they must already have the article text in an editable format.
I hope we don't get an announcement for every single issue from now on in. Let's wait until there's some actual news before running another/. story....
No, it's for the chaos involved. Brazil is ridiculous. People get kidnapped off the streets for a paltry few hundred dollars' ransom.
A decade ago, the travel advice for visitors to Amsterdam was to carry a €10 note within easy reach. Low-order mugging was big business and if you handed over a reasonable sized note, the mugger would walk away without harming you, and without demanding a wallet. This meant that there was a lot of crimes that were officially classified as "violent", but not a lot of violence. If the mugger hasn't hurt anyone, he's not facing a long sentence, and most were happy to stay that way. Furthermore, the police were never going to expend all that much energy trying to track down guys who have never injured anyone and only walk away with €10 at a time.
The low-ransom kidnap market runs on similar principles. Keep the price down, and most people will pay up, because it's not worth the risk. This means that the kidnappers almost never have to follow through on threats of injury or murder -- human beings generally don't like hurting each other. The end result is a series of crimes that are rarely reported, and even if reported are unlikely to be pursued aggressively by the police.
Both situations are wrong, but they represent a sort of "sustainability", a steady-state equilibrium of crime. It's not pleasant, but it's not a chaotic system.
but a few minutes with google seems to indicate that they [Nintendo] treat the whole of the Americas as a single region for locking purposes.
That is moronic. The whole point of region locking is that you can adjust prices to fit the local disposable income. Having Bolivia (GDP per capita $2700) in the same region as the USA ($53001) makes a mockery of the whole thing.
Personally I would like the U.S. to have a healthier manufacturing sector, I am just pretty sure protectionism would be about the worst way for us to achieve that goal.
The most effective way is for your working class to accept the same level of wages as are paid in China. Unfortunately that defeats the whole purpose of the exercise, as the reason most North Americans and Europeans can afford to buy so much stuff is that an hour of their time is more valuable than an hour of the time of the guys making the stuff. Domestic production means most of your consumer base have an hour that is no more valuable than an hour of the time of your workers, so they can't buy as much stuff. "Made in the USA" is too expensive for most Americans, just as "made in China" is too expensive for most Chinese people.
Slashdot Mirror
People seem to forget when they bring up a company Foxconn, that they actually do a rather exceptional job meeting the customers needs and producing a quality product.
They do indeed. And many people believe that they are less abusive of their staff than their local competitors in China. Foxconn continues to get targeted due to their high profile, in the hope that as Foxconn moves, so will the rest of China follow.
But Foxconn produce incredible quality, and they have to be congratulated on being able to guarantee that quality even as their staff fall asleep at their stations due to overwork and lack of sleep.
And of course, even where legislation does target "high-risk groups", it often descends into harassment of your minority demographic du jour. Right now, that tends to mean black people and Muslims. When I was child, here in the UK, Irish people in a certain age-band were targeted by police as potential terrorists. A lot of people are happy as long as they're the us that's being protected at the cost of some other "them".
Ah, but we're only taking away free speech from those who would take away free speech. You know, dangerous people like political protesters who might threaten our politicians' way of life.
All well and good inside, but when you put it on the front cover, you inevitably expose it to people who don't understand the point of the magazine. And as the immigrant community is mostly composed of immigrants, they're pretty likely to misunderstand and be offended.
Congratulations -- you too can use your right of free speech to act like a dick. Anonymously. How very big of you.
Yes, but they made a point of licensing it as CC-BY-SA, not CC-ND, as though they're expecting derivative works... but then they put up a barrier to adaptation by publishing in a delivery format that is notorious for breaking even simple copy-and-paste operations.
I don't find it sexual. My point is that I believe, rightly or wrongly, that had this not come out on the same day as the attack happened, the tabloid press would have whipped up a confected outrage, and people would be baying for blood. People who had never watched the video would be demanding that broadcasters refuse to air it, and debate would be stymied by people's refusal to watch the video for themselves because they are already convinced it's paedophilia.
I never said I found anything sexual about that video. That you read that into my message says much about you, and nothing else.
My main point was that it really isn't offensive, but that people are decrying it as such. I believe if the tabloid press wasn't occupied with the CH shootings, they would already have manufactured a global scandal out of this.
The difference between the two things is only about the outcome. I'm not talking about boycottings, bannings, legal actions or even shootings. The underlying issue of "should they publish this" is all I'm talking about. I personally believe (and I accept that I cannot prove this) that a great many people who are currently speaking in favour of Charlie Hebdo's right to deliberately offend a "them" would take offense to the Sia video and would be denouncing her right to incidentally offend the "us".
Just as people have a right to offend, people who are offended have a right to protest what offends them. The difference is that the protests of that video would have consisted of angry posts online and boycotts, not shootings. Declaring you are offended and "fighting back" with words is fine. Fighting back by killing those who offend you isn't fine.
I agree wholeheartedly, and I never said otherwise. I was responding to koan's post and his suggestion that the appropriate response to the killings was to repeatedly publish offensive images. Now that I do disagree with. My point was that we will collectively still call for the banning of material we find offensive while simultaneously standing up for the right to publish material that others find offensive. I fully believe that if the CH attack hadn't happened on the same day as the Sia video launch, we would already have seen public announcements from major broadcasters telling us that the video would never be played on their channels. I may be wrong, but that is what I believe.
Hmm... you mean like the time they used the adbuction of between a hundred and two hundred Nigerian schoolgirls (powerful!) to make jokes about Muslims in France (oh the power of the banlieues!) being benefits scroungers? Yes, they really love knocking the powerful down a peg or two, don't they.
Nope. Our current outrage won't magically conjure up consistency.
This.
Nope -- Shia LaBeouf and Maddie Zeigler.
Did I imagine this video? Did I imagine these reactions? As I said, I believe this is what we'd all be outraged about if the CH attacks hadn't occurred the exact same day that the video was released.
On Wednesday, Sia launched the video for her single Elastic Heart. In it, Shia LaBeouf is in skin-colour briefs, play-fighting with a 12-year old dancer and actress by the name of Maddie Ziegler.
Some consider it controversial and claim it is a depiction of child abuse. I have absolutely no doubt that it would have made the headlines had it not been that the Charlie Hebdo attack occurred on the exact same day.
It is my contention that if we weren't now all crying for freedom to offend, we would all instead be crying for the censorship of offensive material. That's the human race now.
No it doesn't. You know what the internet would be outraged about right now if this attack had never happened? A pop video featuring a 28 year old man and a 12 year old girl playfighting in their underwear. We would all be incensed about the "pedophilic" content and we'd be calling for it to be banned as gross indecency. The fact that there's no overtly sexual content, and that the two actors in fact represent different facets of a single psyche, would be irrelevant, and we would all be calling for the censoring of offensive imagery. Hypocrisy.
The copyright terms thing still makes N America/S America a rather hetergenous "region", as does the upstream rights thing.
Sorry, that's free market economics. You either restrict the market (protectionism) or labour goes where it's cheapest. The only thing approaching middle ground is worker protection laws that apply to imports -- if you weren't allowed to buy from companies that have worse employee rights policies than are applicable in your country, Foxconn would go out of business overnight. Alternatively, if not having laws protecting workers' rights in your country meant import tarriffs that compensated for the unfair competitive advantage of (for example) no paid holidays, then some level of parity could be achieved. It's always surprised me that countries haven't used this strategy to justify import tarriffs...
Sadly, despite all the criticism of the issue 1 release, they've stuck to their guns and released most of their articles as "object files" in PDF. To me, that feels like their being purposefully obstructive -- it is such a faff to extract text from a PDF file, and they must already have the article text in an editable format.
I hope we don't get an announcement for every single issue from now on in. Let's wait until there's some actual news before running another /. story....
No, it's for the chaos involved. Brazil is ridiculous. People get kidnapped off the streets for a paltry few hundred dollars' ransom.
A decade ago, the travel advice for visitors to Amsterdam was to carry a €10 note within easy reach. Low-order mugging was big business and if you handed over a reasonable sized note, the mugger would walk away without harming you, and without demanding a wallet. This meant that there was a lot of crimes that were officially classified as "violent", but not a lot of violence. If the mugger hasn't hurt anyone, he's not facing a long sentence, and most were happy to stay that way. Furthermore, the police were never going to expend all that much energy trying to track down guys who have never injured anyone and only walk away with €10 at a time.
The low-ransom kidnap market runs on similar principles. Keep the price down, and most people will pay up, because it's not worth the risk. This means that the kidnappers almost never have to follow through on threats of injury or murder -- human beings generally don't like hurting each other. The end result is a series of crimes that are rarely reported, and even if reported are unlikely to be pursued aggressively by the police.
Both situations are wrong, but they represent a sort of "sustainability", a steady-state equilibrium of crime. It's not pleasant, but it's not a chaotic system.
This means that the policy is working up to a point, but it doesn't mean that it's a good thing,
but a few minutes with google seems to indicate that they [Nintendo] treat the whole of the Americas as a single region for locking purposes.
That is moronic. The whole point of region locking is that you can adjust prices to fit the local disposable income. Having Bolivia (GDP per capita $2700) in the same region as the USA ($53001) makes a mockery of the whole thing.
Personally I would like the U.S. to have a healthier manufacturing sector, I am just pretty sure protectionism would be about the worst way for us to achieve that goal.
The most effective way is for your working class to accept the same level of wages as are paid in China. Unfortunately that defeats the whole purpose of the exercise, as the reason most North Americans and Europeans can afford to buy so much stuff is that an hour of their time is more valuable than an hour of the time of the guys making the stuff. Domestic production means most of your consumer base have an hour that is no more valuable than an hour of the time of your workers, so they can't buy as much stuff. "Made in the USA" is too expensive for most Americans, just as "made in China" is too expensive for most Chinese people.
Google "bare metal rust"
Oxy(disation)moron.