Assuming the summary is correct (I know, I know), the legislation doesn't require payment by Google, it only allows the original publisher to collect payment from Google. If the small publishers want to have links to their sites show up in Google News without Google paying them, all they would have to do is send a letter to Google granting them permission. It would be up to each publisher to decide which way they want to go.
From what I've read the Spanish law specifically does not allow publishers to opt out.
"If you are a digital editor that publishes with a copyleft license, like myself, and you minimally understand how the internet actually works, you cannot decide to not charge Google News. It is compulsory. More than a right it is an obligation. Therefore, Google cannot exclude sites requiring payment from Google News. It would still need to pay for those it includes, even if they do not want to be compensated."
I think that we need to fundamentally change the web so that Google and Facebook share their profits with us. They are after all making profits by selling your data. Now obviously they do lots of complicated analysis which is where a lot of the value added is but the raw resource is your data. You should be compensated for it.
You are being compensated just not monetarily. You get free access to search engines and social networking sites.
Why should they be forced to lease it at less than optimal rates to a competitor? They built the network. It's their capital. No, that is an unacceptable infringement of economic liberty and property rights.
Why should I be forced to allow ATT to run cables for their network across my property? ATT wants to claim that it's their network and they should be free to do whatever they want with it? Fine, no more legal right-of-ways for you. You want to bury cables on my property? Pay me rent.
that is why we have dmca safe harbor laws the one good part of the dmca. its why gmail isn't shutdown for facilitating drug sales as well
I could be wrong but I think the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act only applies to copyright infringement. It's not a blanket protection against all criminal acts.
Yes you're correct. I didn't over Tor. Perhaps I misunderstood that signing up over Tor was a requirement.
GGP: "I would never give Google or anyone else my cell phone number"
GP: "You cant sign up without giving them your number anymore."
Me: "Yes you can."
I have not tested it but I'm entirely willing to believe that account creation over Tor is more difficult.
You cant sign up without giving them your number anymore.
That's just not true. I just tested this and I was able to create a new Gmail account without specifying either a phone number or an alternate email address. Go try it yourself. There's a phone number field on the form but it's not mandatory.
This is obviously a harmful security feature. It locks people out of their accounts by assuming that they always have access to a cell phone.
Yeah if they'd been thinking at all they would have made this an optional feature that you're under no obligation to use....oh wait they totally did that. *eye roll*
Or did you never want to be able to travel abroad?
You can also print out a list of codes ahead of time to take with you when travelling abroad if you so desire. But...you know...don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.
It's been quite some time since I read that book but as I remember it 10,000 hours was never presented as some iron clad rule defining how long it took to achieve mastery but rather it was a convenient notational shorthand for "lots and lots of practice is required". To nit-pick over the specific number of hours is to completely miss the point. The point was that lots of practice is required, and those that don't put in that practice (because of lack of passion or lack of opportunity) will never achieve mastery.
You mean, greedy Third World swine with nothing to contribute, who think that they're "entitled" to live in a rich country because Whitey is rich and they are poor?
As opposed to the greedy First World swine with nothing to contribute who think they're "entitled" to live in a rich country because of who's uterus they happened to be expelled from?
Which would only be other Tor nodes. All traffic on the Tor network routes through several hops before traveling through an exit node. That's the entire basis of the technology. If it was as simple as tracing back one hop, it wouldn't be very effective, would it?
Beside the point. Comcast doesn't need to know where your traffic ultimately exits. All they need to know is whether or not you're using Tor. For that purpose detecting traffic being sent to a known Tor entry node is sufficient.
why must we force equal distribution of gender/race/etc in everything?
Oh we don't have to force an equal distribution into everything. For example the prison population is drastically gender imbalanced and no one seems terribly bothered.
I liked this comment: "Her arguments [are] open to plenty of valid criticism that the female gender is not always misused in video games."
So many things wrong with this sentence. Somehow, people have the urge to bend their view so the troll side, and their means of death threats, is also justified.
Wait, what? How does suggesting that her arguments might be open to valid criticism in any way attempt to justify death threats? In fact if you read the entirety of the comment you're quoting they say pretty much exactly the opposite
Yes the subject is uncomfortable and no she isn't completely correct. Her arguments open to plenty of valid criticism that the female gender is not always misused in video games.
The problem is and will always be a reactionary subset of people who cannot be peer pressured into behaving like sane human beings on the Internet. You don't respond to a feminist critique by sending her death threats.
If the government developed and manufactured drugs, what criteria would determine which diseases are targeted for cures? It would be those diseases with the largest and most obnoxious lobbying groups.
I'm not sure that's any worse than what we have now where the deciding factor seems to be "will rich people buy it". So we'll spend billions researching the next Viagra but almost no one manufactures malaria medication anymore because there's no money it. We focus on symptom relief rather than cures because "repeat business".
Your path is pretty much "how to make a semi-competent corporate drone from someone with vague interest in something useful to corporate". People with innate passion for something don't need to be spoonfed and trained up to having interest.
Perhaps but not everyone has an innate passion for CS. And most people won't know they're passionate about something like CS until they're given at least a little cursory exposure to it.
If you don't care, why are you in CS, and not something you do care about? Is it because your real passion is the almighty dollar?
Because we're talking about the core high school curriculum that everybody has to take regardless of what they're actually passionate about.
> We spend our enitre schooling lives learning things, then the next year, learning that actually, that was an abstraction to make it easier, and it *actually* works like this.
I found this endlessly frustrating in primary school.
Good for you. But did it ever occur to you that perhaps not everyone is as smart as you are?
No one forces you to provide a search engine that accepts illegal content. Just screen everything before it goes into the index or don't host it, as simple as that.
Sure no problem. We'll just lookup each file uploader and check to see if they're authorized to distribute the material in question...what's that you say? It's impossible to verify the identify of most uploaders? Well we can at least check every file against the master database of copyrighted material...wait, you're saying there is no such database? Hmm...maybe your plan needs a little more work.
If the cost of ethically maintaining their services becomes excessive, they can bear the cost ir shut down.
The cost of "ethically" maintaining their service is that sometimes a case will fall through the cracks and information that probably should have remained available will be unduly censored because Google can't afford to do exhaustive analysis of every request that comes in. And that's a cost we all get to bear.
The rest of the world does not need America or American software developers. They have their own...
...who would also be subject to European laws and thus likewise potentially unable to run a successful search engine business without being sued into oblivion.
Thats their own problem. If they want to do business in europe, they have to respect european laws. They are free to close services there.
The phrase "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.
Remember that this ruling will apply to every search engine or other public index. Does anyone in Europe really want them all to just pull out of Europe because the European legal system makes it impractical to do business there?
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming the summary is correct (I know, I know), the legislation doesn't require payment by Google, it only allows the original publisher to collect payment from Google. If the small publishers want to have links to their sites show up in Google News without Google paying them, all they would have to do is send a letter to Google granting them permission. It would be up to each publisher to decide which way they want to go.
From what I've read the Spanish law specifically does not allow publishers to opt out.
"If you are a digital editor that publishes with a copyleft license, like myself, and you minimally understand how the internet actually works, you cannot decide to not charge Google News. It is compulsory. More than a right it is an obligation. Therefore, Google cannot exclude sites requiring payment from Google News. It would still need to pay for those it includes, even if they do not want to be compensated."
I think that we need to fundamentally change the web so that Google and Facebook share their profits with us. They are after all making profits by selling your data. Now obviously they do lots of complicated analysis which is where a lot of the value added is but the raw resource is your data. You should be compensated for it.
You are being compensated just not monetarily. You get free access to search engines and social networking sites.
Why should they be forced to lease it at less than optimal rates to a competitor? They built the network. It's their capital. No, that is an unacceptable infringement of economic liberty and property rights.
Why should I be forced to allow ATT to run cables for their network across my property? ATT wants to claim that it's their network and they should be free to do whatever they want with it? Fine, no more legal right-of-ways for you. You want to bury cables on my property? Pay me rent.
Old Testament allows men to have female children as brides, so does Islam, so do the Vedic religions.
The old testament also allows for stoning people for being "a stubborn and rebellious son". That does not, to my mind, make it a good idea.
that is why we have dmca safe harbor laws the one good part of the dmca. its why gmail isn't shutdown for facilitating drug sales as well
I could be wrong but I think the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act only applies to copyright infringement. It's not a blanket protection against all criminal acts.
What I'm trying to get at is that employers - as a group represented in the media - are schizophrenic or at least do not know what the fuck they want.
Yeah, it's almost as if "employers" referred to some vast group of different people with different goals and motivations...
Yes you're correct. I didn't over Tor. Perhaps I misunderstood that signing up over Tor was a requirement.
GGP: "I would never give Google or anyone else my cell phone number"
GP: "You cant sign up without giving them your number anymore."
Me: "Yes you can."
I have not tested it but I'm entirely willing to believe that account creation over Tor is more difficult.
You cant sign up without giving them your number anymore.
That's just not true. I just tested this and I was able to create a new Gmail account without specifying either a phone number or an alternate email address. Go try it yourself. There's a phone number field on the form but it's not mandatory.
This is obviously a harmful security feature. It locks people out of their accounts by assuming that they always have access to a cell phone.
Yeah if they'd been thinking at all they would have made this an optional feature that you're under no obligation to use....oh wait they totally did that. *eye roll*
Or did you never want to be able to travel abroad?
You can also print out a list of codes ahead of time to take with you when travelling abroad if you so desire. But...you know...don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.
...or you could do it yourself, BASH is open source.
Maybe the GP is not a programmer and is thus not able to do it himself. Open source is great but it's not a magic panacea.
I suppose he could hire someone to do it for him but complaining on /. is just way easier ;-)
It's been quite some time since I read that book but as I remember it 10,000 hours was never presented as some iron clad rule defining how long it took to achieve mastery but rather it was a convenient notational shorthand for "lots and lots of practice is required". To nit-pick over the specific number of hours is to completely miss the point. The point was that lots of practice is required, and those that don't put in that practice (because of lack of passion or lack of opportunity) will never achieve mastery.
Well, yes, Lemaitre was a Catholic priest as well as a physicist.
And Einstein was a patent clerk. Does that mean that the patent system has a lot to teach us about the theory of relativity?
Aren't sweeping generalizations fun!
Not if they're wrong.
all sweeping generalizations are wrong....including this one ;-)
You mean, greedy Third World swine with nothing to contribute, who think that they're "entitled" to live in a rich country because Whitey is rich and they are poor?
As opposed to the greedy First World swine with nothing to contribute who think they're "entitled" to live in a rich country because of who's uterus they happened to be expelled from?
Aren't sweeping generalizations fun!
Which would only be other Tor nodes. All traffic on the Tor network routes through several hops before traveling through an exit node. That's the entire basis of the technology. If it was as simple as tracing back one hop, it wouldn't be very effective, would it?
Beside the point. Comcast doesn't need to know where your traffic ultimately exits. All they need to know is whether or not you're using Tor. For that purpose detecting traffic being sent to a known Tor entry node is sufficient.
why must we force equal distribution of gender/race/etc in everything?
Oh we don't have to force an equal distribution into everything. For example the prison population is drastically gender imbalanced and no one seems terribly bothered.
Okay. Suppose that's true. This justifies graphic torture/death threats?
To be fair the GP never claimed that it justified any such thing.
I liked this comment: "Her arguments [are] open to plenty of valid criticism that the female gender is not always misused in video games." So many things wrong with this sentence. Somehow, people have the urge to bend their view so the troll side, and their means of death threats, is also justified.
Wait, what? How does suggesting that her arguments might be open to valid criticism in any way attempt to justify death threats? In fact if you read the entirety of the comment you're quoting they say pretty much exactly the opposite
Yes the subject is uncomfortable and no she isn't completely correct. Her arguments open to plenty of valid criticism that the female gender is not always misused in video games.
The problem is and will always be a reactionary subset of people who cannot be peer pressured into behaving like sane human beings on the Internet. You don't respond to a feminist critique by sending her death threats.
If the government developed and manufactured drugs, what criteria would determine which diseases are targeted for cures? It would be those diseases with the largest and most obnoxious lobbying groups.
I'm not sure that's any worse than what we have now where the deciding factor seems to be "will rich people buy it". So we'll spend billions researching the next Viagra but almost no one manufactures malaria medication anymore because there's no money it. We focus on symptom relief rather than cures because "repeat business".
Your path is pretty much "how to make a semi-competent corporate drone from someone with vague interest in something useful to corporate". People with innate passion for something don't need to be spoonfed and trained up to having interest.
Perhaps but not everyone has an innate passion for CS. And most people won't know they're passionate about something like CS until they're given at least a little cursory exposure to it.
If you don't care, why are you in CS, and not something you do care about? Is it because your real passion is the almighty dollar?
Because we're talking about the core high school curriculum that everybody has to take regardless of what they're actually passionate about.
> We spend our enitre schooling lives learning things, then the next year, learning that actually, that was an abstraction to make it easier, and it *actually* works like this.
I found this endlessly frustrating in primary school.
Good for you. But did it ever occur to you that perhaps not everyone is as smart as you are?
No one forces you to provide a search engine that accepts illegal content. Just screen everything before it goes into the index or don't host it, as simple as that.
Sure no problem. We'll just lookup each file uploader and check to see if they're authorized to distribute the material in question...what's that you say? It's impossible to verify the identify of most uploaders? Well we can at least check every file against the master database of copyrighted material...wait, you're saying there is no such database? Hmm...maybe your plan needs a little more work.
Yeah, only when their lips are moving.
If the cost of ethically maintaining their services becomes excessive, they can bear the cost ir shut down.
The cost of "ethically" maintaining their service is that sometimes a case will fall through the cracks and information that probably should have remained available will be unduly censored because Google can't afford to do exhaustive analysis of every request that comes in. And that's a cost we all get to bear.
The rest of the world does not need America or American software developers. They have their own...
...who would also be subject to European laws and thus likewise potentially unable to run a successful search engine business without being sued into oblivion.
Thats their own problem. If they want to do business in europe, they have to respect european laws. They are free to close services there.
The phrase "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.
Remember that this ruling will apply to every search engine or other public index. Does anyone in Europe really want them all to just pull out of Europe because the European legal system makes it impractical to do business there?