"self-censorship" is - except perhaps in psychological terms - a contradiction in terms, when you're talking about a single person. As you've no doubt noted in the dictionary, "self-censorship" refers to the actions of a group, which controls expression within that group. There is no choice as long as you want to be a member of that group and be subject to its authority over your actions as part of that group.
This isn't just semantics. The term "censorship" is wildly mis-used, all the time. It's important to get it right.
dropbox examined content and deemed it inappropriate
... but has no central authority, as a censor must in order actually censor things. The author didn't censor, he retracted, removed, etc., on his own volition. Censorship requires authority, and doesn't include choice.
they clearly want a open source program off the internet
No. What they clearly want is to not have their reputation and business model tarnished by having their system turned into a big content piracy farm by people who are violating their very reasonable TOS.
This isn't censoring. This isn't the government. That word is going to stop meaning something if people can't use it in some sort of rational context. Never mind that Dropbox is just trying to prevent their system from being turned into a big anonymous piracy farm - a very real concern, and one that they have every reason (and latitude within their TOS) to fight. But... "censoring?" Why not just call them fascists, while we're at it? Idiots. This article it inaccurate, alarmist trolling.
Nobody's forcing you to buy an Apple product or use their services. If they were, you might be able to ask "how can that be legal" without it being an empty rhetorical bit of muttering.
it's seriously fucked up that they can expect you to sign something like this and be held to it, when they're providing no meaningful information at all about what actually happens with the data.
No, it would be fucked up if they did provide specifics, and then didn't do the things they said the would/wouldn't. You're willingly signing a very vague contract that's fairly open-ended on this topic, so there's no complaints when open-ended things happen. It's not really very different than an employment contract that says, "... and other duties as required," Do you really think that Apple, or Google (since they do the same thing) should tell people - at the outset of a two year contract - every possible (and exact) thing they're going to be doing with that data, right down to which project will use it in what way? If you're expecting that, you should also expect that sort of limitation on what they can do to substantially drive up the cost of a service contract or the app space overhead (because of the clamp down it would have on their ability to innovate, and the huge bookeeping they'd have to do to know that one user from an earlier contract is NOT allowed to use a certain location-related app, while a newer user who signed a more up to date contract IS allowed). Or would you prefer a constant barrage of contract updates to which you must continually respond?
who (like wall street and finance in general) builds nothing and has no productive business function
Ah, so you've self-financed all of the businesses you've started, and handled large growth in factory floor size or hiring by... sacrificing unicorns? Do you actually understand what a share of a company is, and why it's important that they can change hands?
You're missing the point. The conservative preference for letting private agencies compete to provide such services is such because that way idiotic contractors like this bunch can get thrown out, and the contracting agency can choose from others that will compete to show they're more serious about how they put taxpayers' money to work. If this had been a government agency, the people in it couldn't be fired, and would have little to no incentive for doing a better job. They wouldn't be competing with people in another agency to provide the same services in a better way or for less money.
These guys aren't any different than a road construction company that the state pays for a job, but who get busted doing it badly and are ripe for replacement. Nice of you to give it your all, though.
Regardless, the "debate" absolutely needs to be muddied, with things like facts. The crystal clear propogandist version, as delivered by people just like Al Gore, is full of exactly the sort of Hollywood hooey you seem to be pretending isn't exactly the problem.
In short, the scientists were probably right, but the propagandaists were wrong.
And yet it's the propogandists that influence the minds of Hollywood celebrities and other high-profile people who then spout off on the subject and encourage people to vote one way or another on politicians that want to involve trillions of dollars on the subject, or use it as a vehicle by which to tax one group and give it to another group. That's the problem.
Except he completely misunderstands why companies overseas are sucking up the business. It's not just (or for long) cheap labor. It's a less expensive tax/regulatory environment.We aren't just losing manufacturing in the US, we're actively, aggressively driving it out of the US. Want less debt? Have a giant new pile of corporate and personal income tax by reducing the rates. The US is in the top 3 spots in the world when it comes to taxing a company for operating on our soil. And we act surprised that basic market economics finds more welcoming spots elsewhere, with open arms? Gee, it's such a mystery.
Please name for me the 4 or 5 companies that are competing in your neighborhood for your business.
In my neighborhood, I have high speed access available from Verizon, Comcast, RCN and a slew of smaller telecom/data companies if I don't want to bundle in cable/phone type stuff. And they all compete viciously with each other. Not a week goes by that I don't receive a piece of mail, a notice on my door, or an actual human knocking on the door trying to get me to switch to a better/cheaper/faster configuration and pricing program for my connectivity. Those main three have all offered me a series of lower, lower, and lower prices just by my showing them what the other guy is offering. Gee, it's almost like they're competing for my business or something.
The best thing my local government did was get out of the way and allow that competition to take place. Prices dropped immediately, and performance increased. Shocking, huh?
Who on earth... Would spend hundreds of dollars buying Windows just to run the newest version of IE?
Wrong question. The question is, "Why would someone who's already using Win7 not want a browser that's optimized to take advantage of that wildly superior (to previous versions) OS, instead of towing around a browser that's less useful because of its need for legacy support?"
For a nation made up of 'We The People', Corporations have the one and only voice.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own broadband company, and then charging a flat rate with absolutely no limits on usage. There may be some trouble with you keeping that going, though, because you'll have to charge higher than the ongoing rates to keep it alive, or will go out of business. This isn't about who has a "voice," it's about businesses providing services, and people who want higher speeds deciding whether or not that higher speed - with a usage cap - is a good fit for how they use bandwidth every month.
Constitution should read 'We The Patrons Of The Companies'
You'd prefer, "We the people who get to force each other to do whatever we tell them to do, but not me, because if I run a company myself, I don't want anyone telling me what prices to charge, only other people should be told that."... right? Do you even understand the purpose of the Constitution? It essentially defines the things that government may not do to interfere with your life. It also outlines the manner in which the government is structured and managed. It doesn't say anything about getting involved in telling one person what to charge another person for a basket of vegetables (or what color those vegetables should be), the use of a piece of fiber attached to their network, or what it should cost to have your car waxed.
Just say what you mean. You want a centrally managed economy that prevents Eeeevil companies from competing with each other and trying to price things to win your business while managing to also stay in business. You consider that all to be too messy and unfair to you. So you'd rather that The People get to dictate prices by way of... what? The Bureau Of What All Things Should Cost? Do you understand that you, yourself, would be one of those things that has a price set on it?
Wait a minute... I get it now. You don't actually work for a living. You don't actually charge anyone for your time, and you don't have any patrons of your own. This explains a few things.
Yup! I knew you couldn't bring yourself to actually answer that question. Just like with all UFO True Believers, that pesky reality thing takes all the fun out of your conversations, doesn't it. Well, thanks for living down to my expectations, anyway. It's nice to see that predictable is still predictable.
I'm not rejecting a government document, you idiot. I'm rejecting your completely incorrect understanding of what the document is. The document doesn't say that the government got three flying saucers and bodies. It says that an investigator wrote down the rambling BS of someone telling a story along those lines. Just like they write down when someone says that Elvis is still alive and threatening the president, or that they were attacked by a Yeti in suburban Los Angeles.
Answer this question in one sentence, to show that you're back on your meds: Is the document about the government actually having flying saucers, or is the document about a single guy's hearsay, evidence-less ramblings to an investigator, claiming that's what he thinks is true (or wants someone to think is true)? Careful, if you answer that incorrectly, it will be the actual evidence that you really, truly haven't bothered to read the damn thing.
Of course you have, and you do understand it, and you're just trolling. Your mastery of sounding like one of the nutcases is pretty convincing, though! You need to polish up the act, and include some references to the Illuminati, Chinese weather control technology causing earthquakes, and perhaps something about the government shutting down research into cars that run on water.
Are you really that unable to process the words in front of you? The USAF did not say there were flying saucers. Nothing in the document says anything about any investigator concluding anything about flying saucers. Read each word slowly, out loud, so that you can take the time to double-check your understanding of the plain English that's being used.
No, it's not. You obviously don't know the law on the subject. A finding of Fair Use involves some pretty specific critieria. Running an advertising-oriented service that scrapes images from others' content is sure as hell not one of them.
As for "the photographer" he's already been paid for the image to be used on the original news site that is being indexed. I doubt that's even his problem anymore.
Another nice display of not knowing what you're talking about. Photographers frequently retain the copyrights on images they shoot as stringers/contractors, and they license the images to a publication for use. A photographer licensing an image for editorial use to Some Daily Newspaper is not also licensing Google to run it as a revenue generating source of eyeball-collecting content for Google's users.
You're (deliberately, obviously) completely mischaracterizing what it's a report about. Your local police department is full of "official government reports" filed by police officers who have to write down what completely insane people tell them.
The "report" doesn't admit anything, other than admitting that some guy told somebody something, made up from whole cloth, with nothing backing it up, and no evidence to support it ever presented by anybody. An FBI agent essentially writes down the fact that somebody BSing about something that didn't happen did, none the less, BS about it. And so it's now a document, because he wrote down the fact that he had that conversation. Are you actually understanding the fact that the document in question doesn't establish anything with regard to UFOs, in any way? Sure you are, and you're just pretending you don't. Because you can't possibly be that foolish, otherwise.
It isn't like your photo has any value in a 1.5x1.5cm format
If the photo has no value, why is Google using it? If Google's ad-selling news area doesn't benefit from using the photo, why are they using it?
Google makes an unlicensed copy of the photographer's image, and makes money selling ads along side of their display of that pirated image. They use the fact that they've collected a lot of pirated images as a way to attract visitors to their news area. It's mysterious to you, somehow, why the people who create the content find that to be contrary to copyright law, and otherwise basically douchebaggery on Google's part?
We've had confirmation of what for years? That someone told an FBI agent some nonsense? Yes, we've seen plenty of that over the years. I'm sure there are FBI interview reports indcating that they've been told about people's experiences with Leprechauns, Bigfoot, the Chupacabra, and the Arkansas state trooper that took them to Bill Clinton's hotel room when he was governor, too.
So, your point is that since it's just a report filed about the fact that some (non-FBI) guy said some ridiculous, unverifiable nonsense, that the report shouldn't have been filed away (let alone secretly) in the first place, right?
Slashdot Mirror
"self-censorship" is - except perhaps in psychological terms - a contradiction in terms, when you're talking about a single person. As you've no doubt noted in the dictionary, "self-censorship" refers to the actions of a group, which controls expression within that group. There is no choice as long as you want to be a member of that group and be subject to its authority over your actions as part of that group.
This isn't just semantics. The term "censorship" is wildly mis-used, all the time. It's important to get it right.
dropbox examined content and deemed it inappropriate
they clearly want a open source program off the internet
No. What they clearly want is to not have their reputation and business model tarnished by having their system turned into a big content piracy farm by people who are violating their very reasonable TOS.
This isn't censoring. This isn't the government. That word is going to stop meaning something if people can't use it in some sort of rational context. Never mind that Dropbox is just trying to prevent their system from being turned into a big anonymous piracy farm - a very real concern, and one that they have every reason (and latitude within their TOS) to fight. But ... "censoring?" Why not just call them fascists, while we're at it? Idiots. This article it inaccurate, alarmist trolling.
Why is that even legal?
Nobody's forcing you to buy an Apple product or use their services. If they were, you might be able to ask "how can that be legal" without it being an empty rhetorical bit of muttering.
it's seriously fucked up that they can expect you to sign something like this and be held to it, when they're providing no meaningful information at all about what actually happens with the data.
No, it would be fucked up if they did provide specifics, and then didn't do the things they said the would/wouldn't. You're willingly signing a very vague contract that's fairly open-ended on this topic, so there's no complaints when open-ended things happen. It's not really very different than an employment contract that says, "... and other duties as required," Do you really think that Apple, or Google (since they do the same thing) should tell people - at the outset of a two year contract - every possible (and exact) thing they're going to be doing with that data, right down to which project will use it in what way? If you're expecting that, you should also expect that sort of limitation on what they can do to substantially drive up the cost of a service contract or the app space overhead (because of the clamp down it would have on their ability to innovate, and the huge bookeeping they'd have to do to know that one user from an earlier contract is NOT allowed to use a certain location-related app, while a newer user who signed a more up to date contract IS allowed). Or would you prefer a constant barrage of contract updates to which you must continually respond?
who (like wall street and finance in general) builds nothing and has no productive business function
Ah, so you've self-financed all of the businesses you've started, and handled large growth in factory floor size or hiring by ... sacrificing unicorns? Do you actually understand what a share of a company is, and why it's important that they can change hands?
You're missing the point. The conservative preference for letting private agencies compete to provide such services is such because that way idiotic contractors like this bunch can get thrown out, and the contracting agency can choose from others that will compete to show they're more serious about how they put taxpayers' money to work. If this had been a government agency, the people in it couldn't be fired, and would have little to no incentive for doing a better job. They wouldn't be competing with people in another agency to provide the same services in a better way or for less money.
These guys aren't any different than a road construction company that the state pays for a job, but who get busted doing it badly and are ripe for replacement. Nice of you to give it your all, though.
What is an "anti-climate change group?"
Regardless, the "debate" absolutely needs to be muddied, with things like facts. The crystal clear propogandist version, as delivered by people just like Al Gore, is full of exactly the sort of Hollywood hooey you seem to be pretending isn't exactly the problem.
In short, the scientists were probably right, but the propagandaists were wrong.
And yet it's the propogandists that influence the minds of Hollywood celebrities and other high-profile people who then spout off on the subject and encourage people to vote one way or another on politicians that want to involve trillions of dollars on the subject, or use it as a vehicle by which to tax one group and give it to another group. That's the problem.
Except he completely misunderstands why companies overseas are sucking up the business. It's not just (or for long) cheap labor. It's a less expensive tax/regulatory environment.We aren't just losing manufacturing in the US, we're actively, aggressively driving it out of the US. Want less debt? Have a giant new pile of corporate and personal income tax by reducing the rates. The US is in the top 3 spots in the world when it comes to taxing a company for operating on our soil. And we act surprised that basic market economics finds more welcoming spots elsewhere, with open arms? Gee, it's such a mystery.
Please name for me the 4 or 5 companies that are competing in your neighborhood for your business.
In my neighborhood, I have high speed access available from Verizon, Comcast, RCN and a slew of smaller telecom/data companies if I don't want to bundle in cable/phone type stuff. And they all compete viciously with each other. Not a week goes by that I don't receive a piece of mail, a notice on my door, or an actual human knocking on the door trying to get me to switch to a better/cheaper/faster configuration and pricing program for my connectivity. Those main three have all offered me a series of lower, lower, and lower prices just by my showing them what the other guy is offering. Gee, it's almost like they're competing for my business or something.
The best thing my local government did was get out of the way and allow that competition to take place. Prices dropped immediately, and performance increased. Shocking, huh?
Yeah, they should install one of the following: Firefox, Chrome or Opera
Yeah, or IE 10. Or they could choose not to. What's your point?
Who on earth ... Would spend hundreds of dollars buying Windows just to run the newest version of IE?
Wrong question. The question is, "Why would someone who's already using Win7 not want a browser that's optimized to take advantage of that wildly superior (to previous versions) OS, instead of towing around a browser that's less useful because of its need for legacy support?"
For a nation made up of 'We The People', Corporations have the one and only voice.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own broadband company, and then charging a flat rate with absolutely no limits on usage. There may be some trouble with you keeping that going, though, because you'll have to charge higher than the ongoing rates to keep it alive, or will go out of business. This isn't about who has a "voice," it's about businesses providing services, and people who want higher speeds deciding whether or not that higher speed - with a usage cap - is a good fit for how they use bandwidth every month.
Constitution should read 'We The Patrons Of The Companies'
You'd prefer, "We the people who get to force each other to do whatever we tell them to do, but not me, because if I run a company myself, I don't want anyone telling me what prices to charge, only other people should be told that." ... right? Do you even understand the purpose of the Constitution? It essentially defines the things that government may not do to interfere with your life. It also outlines the manner in which the government is structured and managed. It doesn't say anything about getting involved in telling one person what to charge another person for a basket of vegetables (or what color those vegetables should be), the use of a piece of fiber attached to their network, or what it should cost to have your car waxed.
... what? The Bureau Of What All Things Should Cost? Do you understand that you, yourself, would be one of those things that has a price set on it?
... I get it now. You don't actually work for a living. You don't actually charge anyone for your time, and you don't have any patrons of your own. This explains a few things.
Just say what you mean. You want a centrally managed economy that prevents Eeeevil companies from competing with each other and trying to price things to win your business while managing to also stay in business. You consider that all to be too messy and unfair to you. So you'd rather that The People get to dictate prices by way of
Wait a minute
pointless to discuss further
Yup! I knew you couldn't bring yourself to actually answer that question. Just like with all UFO True Believers, that pesky reality thing takes all the fun out of your conversations, doesn't it. Well, thanks for living down to my expectations, anyway. It's nice to see that predictable is still predictable.
I'm not rejecting a government document, you idiot. I'm rejecting your completely incorrect understanding of what the document is. The document doesn't say that the government got three flying saucers and bodies. It says that an investigator wrote down the rambling BS of someone telling a story along those lines. Just like they write down when someone says that Elvis is still alive and threatening the president, or that they were attacked by a Yeti in suburban Los Angeles.
Answer this question in one sentence, to show that you're back on your meds: Is the document about the government actually having flying saucers, or is the document about a single guy's hearsay, evidence-less ramblings to an investigator, claiming that's what he thinks is true (or wants someone to think is true)? Careful, if you answer that incorrectly, it will be the actual evidence that you really, truly haven't bothered to read the damn thing.
Of course you have, and you do understand it, and you're just trolling. Your mastery of sounding like one of the nutcases is pretty convincing, though! You need to polish up the act, and include some references to the Illuminati, Chinese weather control technology causing earthquakes, and perhaps something about the government shutting down research into cars that run on water.
Are you really that unable to process the words in front of you? The USAF did not say there were flying saucers. Nothing in the document says anything about any investigator concluding anything about flying saucers. Read each word slowly, out loud, so that you can take the time to double-check your understanding of the plain English that's being used.
It's fair use... get over it.
No, it's not. You obviously don't know the law on the subject. A finding of Fair Use involves some pretty specific critieria. Running an advertising-oriented service that scrapes images from others' content is sure as hell not one of them.
As for "the photographer" he's already been paid for the image to be used on the original news site that is being indexed. I doubt that's even his problem anymore.
Another nice display of not knowing what you're talking about. Photographers frequently retain the copyrights on images they shoot as stringers/contractors, and they license the images to a publication for use. A photographer licensing an image for editorial use to Some Daily Newspaper is not also licensing Google to run it as a revenue generating source of eyeball-collecting content for Google's users.
You're (deliberately, obviously) completely mischaracterizing what it's a report about. Your local police department is full of "official government reports" filed by police officers who have to write down what completely insane people tell them.
The "report" doesn't admit anything, other than admitting that some guy told somebody something, made up from whole cloth, with nothing backing it up, and no evidence to support it ever presented by anybody. An FBI agent essentially writes down the fact that somebody BSing about something that didn't happen did, none the less, BS about it. And so it's now a document, because he wrote down the fact that he had that conversation. Are you actually understanding the fact that the document in question doesn't establish anything with regard to UFOs, in any way? Sure you are, and you're just pretending you don't. Because you can't possibly be that foolish, otherwise.
Copyright holders (and more typically mere owners) are the parasites
Ah, so the people who create things are the leeches, and the people who pirate the works are the creators? Are you actually listening to yourself?
Copyrights, like patents and other forms of intellectual monopoly, are detrimental to society, and we would all be better off if they ceased to exist.
Really? You're going to all of that toxic, intellectually dishonest trouble just to justify your habit of ripping off entertainment?
Never mind, I realize that you're just trolling.
It isn't like your photo has any value in a 1.5x1.5cm format
If the photo has no value, why is Google using it? If Google's ad-selling news area doesn't benefit from using the photo, why are they using it?
Google makes an unlicensed copy of the photographer's image, and makes money selling ads along side of their display of that pirated image. They use the fact that they've collected a lot of pirated images as a way to attract visitors to their news area. It's mysterious to you, somehow, why the people who create the content find that to be contrary to copyright law, and otherwise basically douchebaggery on Google's part?
and ?
Well, it's just that your comment, above, is full of complete nonsense. I just wondered if when you read it back to yourself, later, you notice that.
Do you ever, you know, come back a couple of days later and actually read the things you've said? Just asking.
We've had confirmations for years
We've had confirmation of what for years? That someone told an FBI agent some nonsense? Yes, we've seen plenty of that over the years. I'm sure there are FBI interview reports indcating that they've been told about people's experiences with Leprechauns, Bigfoot, the Chupacabra, and the Arkansas state trooper that took them to Bill Clinton's hotel room when he was governor, too.
So, your point is that since it's just a report filed about the fact that some (non-FBI) guy said some ridiculous, unverifiable nonsense, that the report shouldn't have been filed away (let alone secretly) in the first place, right?