Shouldn't this article be under the censorship icon? That's what we're talking about, isn't it? props to the slashdot strawman. Well, if there were an "equal opportunity censorship" icon, then yeah.
The article's point was that Facebook shuts down all kinds of objectionable content, but not this one. Which raises the question, why not this one? So no, I don't think it was a strawman at all.
Relevent prohibitions from the TOS
upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that, in the sole judgment of Company, is objectionable or which restricts or inhibits any other person from using or enjoying the Site, or which may expose Company or its users to any harm or liability of any type.
intimidate or harass another
upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable
The rate of drivers involved in fatal accidents who had been drinking is over half during this hour, and only about one fourth in general. Good times. Define "had been drinking."
Because that sure sounds like a case of "lies, damned lies and statistics." If all it takes to qualify as "had been drinking" is a single drink then no fucking duh that a lot more people who have accidents late at night "had been drinking" - more people in general drink at night then they do the rest of the day so the average population of people on the road who "had been drinking" will be much higher then too.
By the way, if you come to California and you breathe.08% or higher, the cops will impound your vehicle and suspend your license, nevermind your DUI trial. If you refuse the breath test and request blood test, your vehicle and license will be taken pending the outcome of the test. If you blow.08% higher because the breathalyser makes an error it sounds like you are really fucked. I'll take an hour or two of inconvenience and impound versus the days and weeks of having to fight a bogus DUI trial.
The only borderline-objective source for normalcy seems, to me, to be what the market actually produces in response to consumer desires. Nice theory, too bad it depends on a free market. When the whitehouse can dole out interviews and 'leaks' to favored networks and many news agencies are themselves just subsidiaries of larger companies with larger agendas that can easily conflict with the simple goal of unbiased reporting, then simple market-based theories aren't very meaningful.
people abandoned CNN in the late 90s and early 2000s to watch Fox News instead. That's an indicator to me, that the public is actually quite -- perhaps frighteningly -- conservative. That's certainly one interpretation. But not the only one. There are more dimensions to news reporting than just "left and right." A few years ago, I saw an interview with one of the original program directors for Fox News. He attributed much of their success over CNN to their style of reporting -- not their content. Fox made a deliberate presentation decision to be more "folksy," to have their anchors and reporters speak more in the fashion of one neighbor talking to another than a reporter "handing down the truth" like God to Moses.
First, it's rude. You don't deny a derivative work to the original author. It is not rude if the original author explicitly gave you permission to do it. And that's exactly what the BSD license is -- explicit permission to deny any derivative works to the original author.
Second, it's ilelgal. You may not file off someone's license just because you disagree with it. Hey Don Quixote, nice strawman. Nobody here is 'filing off someone's license' they are strictly obeying the terms and conditions of the license.
Sure, there are tons of stupid terrorists, the whole recent non-explosive 'car-bombs' in the UK is proof of that, as was Richard Reid and Jose Padilla and those guys who thought they could blow up JFK or the other ones in Florida who had no resources or training or even transportation but thought they could blow up some buildings in Chicago.
But, this stuff works the same way it does with internet-hacking. Just think of all the dumb criminals as the equivalent of script-kiddies. It only takes one smart guy to get his hands on it and write up a tool to exploit it and all of the dummies are now just as smart as that one guy.
"Congratulations! You have received an eavesdropping attempt from the German Police. Click here to falsely implicate that guy who stole your girlfriend."
...terror suspects will know they are being investigated.
If I were a terrorist, or really any kind of nefarious criminal (because you just know there are foolish people salivating about doing the same to any criminal suspects) I would welcome this decision. If was a bad guy and I was worried that 'they' were on to me, receiving this trojan would be proof positive.
And then I would take the opportunity to feed false information back to the people who sent me the trojan. Hooo boy, what a great way to make trouble for people I don't like, better than falsely reporting them to the IRS.
"Stolen identity" has nothing to do with the problem. It was just a counter to your example.
The problem is your focus on intent-by-proxy.
You seem to think that 'research' can determine some sort of reliable proxy for intent - be it muslim, be it texans with an SUV or whatever. It can not. Again, intent-by-proxy is not useful because no proxy can be made reliable for any feasible about of dollars. You can come up with a bunch of example proxies and I will shoot each on down with counter examples just like I did the first time.
If there is one airline that has a terrorist problem it's El Al. Yet even El Al does not use intent-by-proxy. They screen for intent directly. They ask questions of each and every passenger - platinum frequent flying jewish surgeon-general and dirt poor palestinian alike. They observe the responses to each question - both what they say and how they act. They also have observers that examine the behavior of everyone from afar from the moment they arrive at the terminal to the moment they board the plane.
If intent-by-proxy was actually effective, don't you think El Al would use it?
I am writing from China so the Wikip-links are blocked - thank you golden shield. However, I can not see how the base-rate applies to my comment since I have never been in a plane, hijacked by Muslims suicide bombers. It applies in that you are making a probability judgment based on a single occurrence, possibly two. That's a meaningless sample size. The next argument that people hypnotized by the base-rate fallacy want to make is typically, "look at the intent" - well your criteria of 'muslim' covers a billion people. Out of which how many might possibly have the intent to blow up a plane? Somewhere in the realm of what, a thousand? I'll be generous, ten thousand. That makes your criteria for selection 99.999% inaccurate. Do you really think that is an effective improvement?
Stopping a platinum fliers with 25 years of flight history and ask them to remove the belt is useless at best. And this is where you are 100% wrong. What you want is a system that identifies the intent of each passenger. But no such system exists. So you are trying to fall back on intent-by-proxy - muslim means intent is bad, frequent fly means intent is good. Well now, how do you know that man who says he is someone with 25 years of flight history and a platinum frequent flier card really is who he says he is? How do you know it isn't a bomber who has figured out that the system now gives a free pass to such people and he's figured out how to impersonate one of them? What good is intent-by-proxy when the proxy isn't reliable?
All your suggestion does is reduce security by building in back doors of reduced scrutiny.
That said, in history of aviation have there even been a white suicide bomber or a woman or anyone but muslims? For the sake of future mental stability, start reviewing history and learn from it. Even if your suggestion was true (PKK,LTTE), you would be a sucker to fall for the base rate fallacy.
I held a TS with SBI once upon a time. The main reason for background checks, as I understand it, is to ferret out any levers that could be used against you by hostile agent. However, disclosing the information doesn't necessary help the candidate either. The typical case is of someone who says, yes I did do some illegal drugs 5 years ago. I've heard of plenty of people who honestly admitted to that sort of thing from their college days on their SF-86 or during their interview. I've never heard of anyone who did admit that sort of thing ever actually getting their clearance. Even though the "lever" ought to be useless at that point since their's no proof and the 'secret' has been admitted.
I have met people who claimed they lied about prior drug use and did get their clearances. Of course they could have been bullshitting me.
There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed by what is right with America So, what do you think is right with America that can do the fixing? Apparently not anyone who identifies the problems and speaks up about them - you want to send them off to China.
So, if the people who recognize what's wrong need to step off, who's going to do the fixing?
Here's an option that could be considered: buy a BeyondTV license from Snapstream, then use your username and password along with a little reverse engineering to login legally to their guide service. BeyondTV's guide data is included with your purchase -- no monthly fees. Currently it costs $70, so after a year it would have paid for itself at the proposed $5/month. I've got an old ReplayTV (the kind that could automagically skip commercials and came with a lifetime schedule subscription) sitting on a shelf. I would love to make use of that lifetime subscript for my myth setup.
I am not a lawyer but the issue seems to be the language in GPL3 regarding the term "conveyance," and what it means to "convey a work" or "cause it to be conveyed." Read it and see what you think. When it comes to copyright law it seems like the law means whatever the lawyers involved can convince a judge to think it means. After all, if there is such a thing as "contributory infringement" where merely telling someone where to find pirated content counts as a copyright violation, then it sure seems like the MS/Suse voucher scheme should count too.
I use a 3.3GHz(OC) dual-core Intel-whatever-the-fuck-the-marketing-name-is running XP in my home theater system. I still regularly have a/v sync issues when playing back demanding material (high-bit rate h264 HD from blu-ray and hd-dvd). Fortunately the excellent open-source AC3Filter has a real-time adjustable delay. So I can usually fix any timing problems just by fiddling with that knob.
But, fiddling with AC3Filter controls for about 1 out of every 10 titles is not a viable option for some cluebie running MS's media-center.
So, they don't record either? There's no recorded correlation of route, time and customer, even in separate systems that just aren't cross-referenced yet?
Anyway, my usage has remained the same for about three years. Seems to me that if your usage is unchanged for that long of a period, then without a formal contract change, Comcast has implicitly accepted your usage as fair and reasonable.
Seems like a smart lawyer out to be able to be able to take comcast to court for failing to meet their contractual obligations. Maybe even put together a class action suit if there are enough people with some sort of documentation of long-term consistent usage getting the same treatment out of the blue.
The thing you're describing is called an APU. It's used to start the jet engines, and to power the aircraft on the ground, but in most commercial aircraft, it does not provide in-flight power once the main engines are running. Does it also run the slushie machine?
Mind you GPS nav units that are common in the cabs here (Austria) are great, and don't invade anyones privacy. Are you sure about that? Or is it that nobody's been burnt so far so they just haven't realized the full consequences yet?
If your working (IE serving the public), I don't see the problem with GPS tracking.
Only state employees 'serve the public' - private businesses serve themselves.
Who's talking about commercial enterprise? We were talking about the government tracking people here, not commercial enterprise. But that's pretty silly too. How exactly is one commercial company going to get everyone else to share data with them so they can track people? How naive you are. Today, and now going on for about a decade, there are services that companies, especially super-markets, use to track their customers with varying levels of specificity. Each company subscribes to the service where they feed all transaction details (cc#, any loyalty card info, list of purchases, etc) to the service. The service amalgamates all of the incoming data, cross-references as much information as possible (so the info you gave up for your super-market loyalty card ends up cross-referenced with the your cc# that you used to buy prescription medicine at the pharmacy down the road) and builds profiles.
Over time, those profiles become amazingly complete - all it takes is one little leak of information between stores and zip, the entire history you have at each store is merged into a single profile. Now, those supermarkets don't care about (or pay for) their customer's full jacket, but that information is right there in the database just waiting for someone to purchase it (like the FBI, which has outsourced a lot of its investigation procedures in a surprisingly effective sidestep around the constitution).
How is it invading a cabbie's privacy to know where he is when he's at work? My boss knows where I am when I'm at work. Many (all?) NYC cabbies are NOT employees. They are independent contractors. They pay to lease their cars, they pay for their own (government mandated) cab-driver licenses. They pay commission to their dispatcher. They do not file W-2 personal income forms with the IRS.
GPS trackers are being mandated by the government, not their employers. The same people could just as easily mandate that your car be outfitted with a GPS tracker too.
If reproduction was painful, I'd wager the human species would not be so nearly plentiful. It just makes evolutionary sense to encourage reproduction. Sure, procreation is fun. But to say that the fun is only for procreation is the theological falsehood.
Err no its not. Thats like wiping out every social security number, watching the social safety net system collapse, and saying "SEE SOCIAL SAFETY DOESNT WORK AND IS WRONG." Or beating up your mailman, not getting mail, and saying "SEE, THE POSTAL SERVICE OUT HERE SUCKS." What, you couldn't come up with a car analogy worse than those?
Now, God gave us sex to not only enjoy but also procreate however those 2 goals are supposed to be done at the same time, not separate. This is the root of all your evil. It's false by the way and your own theology will prove it to so. Start with this question - do people have free-will because they have souls or in spite of having souls?
Slashdot Mirror
props to the slashdot strawman. Well, if there were an "equal opportunity censorship" icon, then yeah.
The article's point was that Facebook shuts down all kinds of objectionable content, but not this one.
Which raises the question, why not this one? So no, I don't think it was a strawman at all.
Relevent prohibitions from the TOS
Because that sure sounds like a case of "lies, damned lies and statistics." If all it takes to qualify as "had been drinking" is a single drink then no fucking duh that a lot more people who have accidents late at night "had been drinking" - more people in general drink at night then they do the rest of the day so the average population of people on the road who "had been drinking" will be much higher then too. By the way, if you come to California and you breathe
Sure, there are tons of stupid terrorists, the whole recent non-explosive 'car-bombs' in the UK is proof of that, as was Richard Reid and Jose Padilla and those guys who thought they could blow up JFK or the other ones in Florida who had no resources or training or even transportation but thought they could blow up some buildings in Chicago.
But, this stuff works the same way it does with internet-hacking. Just think of all the dumb criminals as the equivalent of script-kiddies. It only takes one smart guy to get his hands on it and write up a tool to exploit it and all of the dummies are now just as smart as that one guy.
"Congratulations!
You have received an eavesdropping attempt from the German Police.
Click here to falsely implicate that guy who stole your girlfriend."
...terror suspects will know they are being investigated.
If I were a terrorist, or really any kind of nefarious criminal (because you just know there are foolish people salivating about doing the same to any criminal suspects) I would welcome this decision. If was a bad guy and I was worried that 'they' were on to me, receiving this trojan would be proof positive.
And then I would take the opportunity to feed false information back to the people who sent me the trojan. Hooo boy, what a great way to make trouble for people I don't like, better than falsely reporting them to the IRS.
"Stolen identity" has nothing to do with the problem. It was just a counter to your example.
The problem is your focus on intent-by-proxy.
You seem to think that 'research' can determine some sort of reliable proxy for intent - be it muslim, be it texans with an SUV or whatever. It can not. Again, intent-by-proxy is not useful because no proxy can be made reliable for any feasible about of dollars. You can come up with a bunch of example proxies and I will shoot each on down with counter examples just like I did the first time.
If there is one airline that has a terrorist problem it's El Al. Yet even El Al does not use intent-by-proxy. They screen for intent directly. They ask questions of each and every passenger - platinum frequent flying jewish surgeon-general and dirt poor palestinian alike. They observe the responses to each question - both what they say and how they act. They also have observers that examine the behavior of everyone from afar from the moment they arrive at the terminal to the moment they board the plane.
If intent-by-proxy was actually effective, don't you think El Al would use it?
All your suggestion does is reduce security by building in back doors of reduced scrutiny.
I have met people who claimed they lied about prior drug use and did get their clearances. Of course they could have been bullshitting me.
Apparently not anyone who identifies the problems and speaks up about them - you want to send them off to China.
So, if the people who recognize what's wrong need to step off, who's going to do the fixing?
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
No, AV playback was not conquered years ago.
I use a 3.3GHz(OC) dual-core Intel-whatever-the-fuck-the-marketing-name-is running XP in my home theater system. I still regularly have a/v sync issues when playing back demanding material (high-bit rate h264 HD from blu-ray and hd-dvd). Fortunately the excellent open-source AC3Filter has a real-time adjustable delay. So I can usually fix any timing problems just by fiddling with that knob.
But, fiddling with AC3Filter controls for about 1 out of every 10 titles is not a viable option for some cluebie running MS's media-center.
So, they don't record either?
There's no recorded correlation of route, time and customer, even in separate systems that just aren't cross-referenced yet?
Seems like a smart lawyer out to be able to be able to take comcast to court for failing to meet their contractual obligations. Maybe even put together a class action suit if there are enough people with some sort of documentation of long-term consistent usage getting the same treatment out of the blue.
Over time, those profiles become amazingly complete - all it takes is one little leak of information between stores and zip, the entire history you have at each store is merged into a single profile. Now, those supermarkets don't care about (or pay for) their customer's full jacket, but that information is right there in the database just waiting for someone to purchase it (like the FBI, which has outsourced a lot of its investigation procedures in a surprisingly effective sidestep around the constitution).
GPS trackers are being mandated by the government, not their employers. The same people could just as easily mandate that your car be outfitted with a GPS tracker too.
But to say that the fun is only for procreation is the theological falsehood.