It's reasonable for people to be able to understand how they're being assessed as a fraud risk, especially given the automated nature of those assessments.
Missing the point here...
YOU are not being assessed as a fraud risk.
Individual transactions are being evaluated to determine if they are likely fraudulent.
Put another way: It is not assessing whether or not you are likely to commit fraud, but attempting to determine if a charge being made to your account is likely you vs someone attempting to impersonate you and defraud the merchant.
Human eyes can't discern more than about 4000x4000 pixels in their field of vision.
Why would you want to discern the individual pixels of the image you are viewing? That would make for a shitty viewing experience. I want to see the image, not its component pixels.
The "Golden Age of YouTube" died when people discovered that they could make money posting videos.
Once people started making money on their videos instead of doing it as a hobby (read: income vs expense) it became dominated by entitled shits who felt that they were owed something. Sensationalism became the norm, and outrage the response... advertisers reacted to protect their image, and the heavy hand of control slammed down -and the entitled shits whined about how they were owed a living for their efforts.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) states:
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of —
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
There is no exception to subsection 2 a because you think they are a "public square" -they are defined by law as a platform.
The EFF has an analysis and explanation of the law as well.
That "variety of reasons" does not include being a conservative. They also don't get to define what exactly constitutes "abuse".
Again I refer to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230, Part C, subsection 2...
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of —
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
Anything they consider to be objectionable they can censor.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) states:
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of —
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
I wonder how they convince Amazon, Netflix, and HBO to allow them to stream their content rather than having customers go to their individual apps/sites/boxes/whatever.
This part isn't new. They already have most of the various streaming apps available under the "apps" menu on the xfinity cable tv box. They also integrate most subscribed services (Amazon, Netflix, HBO, Showtime, etc) into the "on demand" (filter : "Free to Me") heading as a single alphabetical listing of shows/movies to watch. If the movie is available from more than one source, it will give you the choice of which source you want to watch from.
It works surprisingly well as an integrated source.
In my area, the TV + Internet bundle is $20/mo less than the Internet only service (for the same bandwidth) and they waive the cap -which is a big deal for us. They will have to change their pricing structure (again) to make this device/service appealing.
It's not the number of steps, it's the defaulting. Most people don't think about their search engine (or browser). So even one step that's not in their face is too many.
wrong. Most people don't care. They want to USE their device, not spend time setting it up and configuring it. So even one step that IS in their face is too many.
The article (and even the summary) go into detail about how it is NOT Google that is the source of the bad data...
Re:Now's your chance, go outside!
on
Facebook is Down
·
· Score: 1
59 degrees Fahrenheit (that's 15 C to you foreigners) and sunny with a light breeze here on the central coast of California today... Surf's up, and the beer is cold.
Why would anyone give away 2% of the profits to a payment processor?
Because I make significantly more sales by accepting cards than I would if I only accepted cash.
The convenience factor of paying by card encourages people to spend more than they would otherwise. Often customers come in, pick out an item, see more items that are of interest, ask if I accept cards, and then buy several items.
Some people carry cash. Some carry only a card. Some carry only a phone. Most can pay multiple ways. As a merchant it is part of my job to make it convenient for customers to pay me.
So why should the Federal government come first? Surely under the US constitution one is a citizen of your state first and then of the union, since the states make up the Union?
Based on this, we should pay state taxes only. The states should then pay a portion of their income to support the federal government.
Of course this logic would also require that states appoint senators so as to represent the states in congress (in order to avoid the "no taxation without representation" issue..)
The news agencies see that Google has created an entire business where (1) it obtains content that it didn't create or pay for, (2) it uses that content to get ad impressions and revenue.
Wrong on both points.
1. No content is "obtained". Only headlines and snippets are shown -with hyperlinks to the original site for further reading. (see fair-use exceptions in the relevant copyright laws.)
2. Google news contains no advertisements. (at least, none from google... some of the news articles may be viewed as advertisements by some people.)
Both Mozilla and Facebook are American companies... This is an example of jurisdiction shopping (trying to find a regulator who is friendly to your point of view instead of the one who is appropriate to your location.)
Independent charging stations ala gas stations are not the way forward.
Around here, offices and shopping areas (grocery stores, malls, etc) are putting in charging stations in their parking lots as a perk to draw customers in. Public parking garages have charging stations -again to draw in business.
Small businesses are partnering with companies providing charging infrastructure as well. My business has a small parking lot with 10 spaces. One of the charging companies is paying for the right to operate a 2 port charging station in my lot. They provided the equipment. They pay their own utility bill. They are responsible for the maintenance. I get paid a small amount monthly, and customers can charge their vehicles while they shop.
Slashdot Mirror
It's reasonable for people to be able to understand how they're being assessed as a fraud risk, especially given the automated nature of those assessments.
Missing the point here...
YOU are not being assessed as a fraud risk.
Individual transactions are being evaluated to determine if they are likely fraudulent.
Put another way: It is not assessing whether or not you are likely to commit fraud, but attempting to determine if a charge being made to your account is likely you vs someone attempting to impersonate you and defraud the merchant.
Human eyes can't discern more than about 4000x4000 pixels in their field of vision.
Why would you want to discern the individual pixels of the image you are viewing? That would make for a shitty viewing experience. I want to see the image, not its component pixels.
The "Golden Age of YouTube" died when people discovered that they could make money posting videos.
Once people started making money on their videos instead of doing it as a hobby (read: income vs expense) it became dominated by entitled shits who felt that they were owed something. Sensationalism became the norm, and outrage the response... advertisers reacted to protect their image, and the heavy hand of control slammed down -and the entitled shits whined about how they were owed a living for their efforts.
No.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) states:
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of —
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
There is no exception to subsection 2 a because you think they are a "public square" -they are defined by law as a platform.
The EFF has an analysis and explanation of the law as well.
That "variety of reasons" does not include being a conservative. They also don't get to define what exactly constitutes "abuse".
Again I refer to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230, Part C, subsection 2...
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of —
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
Anything they consider to be objectionable they can censor.
The law is clear.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) states:
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of —
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
1. They are not liable for what you post.
2. They can censor you if they want to.
Let's hope that they won't raise the poorest regions' prices up to the level of the richest regions' levels.
Of course they will. One market = one price for everyone. That is fair, no?
I wonder how they convince Amazon, Netflix, and HBO to allow them to stream their content rather than having customers go to their individual apps/sites/boxes/whatever.
This part isn't new. They already have most of the various streaming apps available under the "apps" menu on the xfinity cable tv box. They also integrate most subscribed services (Amazon, Netflix, HBO, Showtime, etc) into the "on demand" (filter : "Free to Me") heading as a single alphabetical listing of shows/movies to watch. If the movie is available from more than one source, it will give you the choice of which source you want to watch from.
It works surprisingly well as an integrated source.
In my area, the TV + Internet bundle is $20/mo less than the Internet only service (for the same bandwidth) and they waive the cap -which is a big deal for us. They will have to change their pricing structure (again) to make this device/service appealing.
It's not the number of steps, it's the defaulting. Most people don't think about their search engine (or browser). So even one step that's not in their face is too many.
wrong. Most people don't care. They want to USE their device, not spend time setting it up and configuring it. So even one step that IS in their face is too many.
Why the hate for Google?
The article (and even the summary) go into detail about how it is NOT Google that is the source of the bad data...
59 degrees Fahrenheit (that's 15 C to you foreigners) and sunny with a light breeze here on the central coast of California today... Surf's up, and the beer is cold.
Doesn't change the fact that the US bugged the hell out of it. All the superpowers and wannabe superpowers do this shit.
Which certainly does not imply that we should trust Huawei/China with our critical infrastructure.
That functionality is built into the "Amazon Shopping" app for your cell phone.
Slower.
More expensive.
Made in China.
pass....
what exactly are we getting for this increase of money paid in?
Remember those EU laws requiring that Netflix stuff their catalog with a certain percentage of locally produced content?
Gotta pay for that somehow.
Why are they sending a French flag to the moon?
So that the Nazis in the secret base on the dark side of the moon know that they aren't a threat...
Hush you! Stop with that honesty and thoughtfulness!
This is about OUTRAGE and INVASION OF PRIVACY... and other whiny bullshit.
Why would anyone give away 2% of the profits to a payment processor?
Because I make significantly more sales by accepting cards than I would if I only accepted cash.
The convenience factor of paying by card encourages people to spend more than they would otherwise. Often customers come in, pick out an item, see more items that are of interest, ask if I accept cards, and then buy several items.
Some people carry cash. Some carry only a card. Some carry only a phone. Most can pay multiple ways. As a merchant it is part of my job to make it convenient for customers to pay me.
So why should the Federal government come first? Surely under the US constitution one is a citizen of your state first and then of the union, since the states make up the Union?
Based on this, we should pay state taxes only. The states should then pay a portion of their income to support the federal government.
Of course this logic would also require that states appoint senators so as to represent the states in congress (in order to avoid the "no taxation without representation" issue..)
The news agencies see that Google has created an entire business where (1) it obtains content that it didn't create or pay for, (2) it uses that content to get ad impressions and revenue.
Wrong on both points.
1. No content is "obtained". Only headlines and snippets are shown -with hyperlinks to the original site for further reading. (see fair-use exceptions in the relevant copyright laws.)
2. Google news contains no advertisements. (at least, none from google... some of the news articles may be viewed as advertisements by some people.)
DoJ is America, European Commission is European.
Both Mozilla and Facebook are American companies... This is an example of jurisdiction shopping (trying to find a regulator who is friendly to your point of view instead of the one who is appropriate to your location.)
You are looking at it wrong.
Independent charging stations ala gas stations are not the way forward.
Around here, offices and shopping areas (grocery stores, malls, etc) are putting in charging stations in their parking lots as a perk to draw customers in. Public parking garages have charging stations -again to draw in business.
Small businesses are partnering with companies providing charging infrastructure as well. My business has a small parking lot with 10 spaces. One of the charging companies is paying for the right to operate a 2 port charging station in my lot. They provided the equipment. They pay their own utility bill. They are responsible for the maintenance. I get paid a small amount monthly, and customers can charge their vehicles while they shop.
So how can he just jump ship from one company to another, and start doing the same thing there? What happened to non-compete agreements?
Apple HQ is in Cupertino, California, USA.
California law specifically disallows non-compete agreements.
If Apple chooses to locate him at Apple HQ, any non-compete agreements he may have signed are null and void.
Update your "about:config" settings or edit your "user.js" file - problem solved.
// Disable Firefox Screenshots
user_pref("extensions.screenshots.disabled", true);
user_pref("extensions.screenshots.system-disabled", true);
user_pref("extensions.screenshots.upload-disabled", true);
My god, that is so obvious! I should have thought of doing it in the first place!
There is no privacy on the internet.
If you would be harmed by it being shouted down the hall (at work/home/school/church/etc.) do not post it on the internet (or in an e-mail).