you associate, and even equate, steve jobs and apple, with "inventions"? lol. - musk and companies are indeed like jobs and his, lots of very creative hype to con people and governments in to buying mediocre products.
Re:The most surprising part of all of this
on
YouTube is Down
·
· Score: 1
typical result when npcs run a website that needs dynamism and intelligence. - parent is moderated "funny". but this isn't funny, especially for old user, it is sad.
why is media and slashdot falling for these corporate spin campaigns? this is not even a contract, no significant amount of money changed hands, it is a mere letter of intent for something, if serious, would take years to happen, but more likely never happen. main purpose of this is to create good press for amazon. but media and meta media, ignores all that, believes the corporate spin at face value.
That Christian one where it is alright to rape some virgin girl, as long as you buy her off her parents for fifty shekels https://www.biblegateway.com/p..., well you are stuck with it as it is legal to hand out a bible which recommends criminal acts to minors. If you tried to do it today it would be criminal but the bible and Christians get away with handing out publications to minors which recommend criminal acts, saying nobody reads it anyhow, is not an excuse;D.
you are free to willfully misunderstand a verse in deuteronomy book in jewish bible to fit your antisemitic agenda. but don't expect others to smile at that.
you are obviously ignorant how the bible is interpreted by judaism and christianity. not everything in bible is taken literally as you seem to believe due to your ignorance. unlike modern judaism, and unlike christianity throughout, lot of leaders and followers in modern islam do take such sayings in the islamic scripture literally. that is the difference.
i will again repeat the questions you failed to answer- could you point out christian leaders forcing rape victims to marry the perpetrator. or same leaders saying its all "fine" if some criminal, falsely calling himself to be "christian", tried doing it? etc.
can you point out where jesus or his disciples said anything of the sort in new testament? (btw new testament dealing with jesus and his teschings, is the part that chistians follow primarily, since you are ignorant of it, i thought i would point out that fact. ) or where we can find any doctrine of the kind on the part of any established christian church?
don't try to avoid these questions by turning the discussion to your anti semitic prejudices.
Remember, forcing rape victims to marry the perpetrator is only bad if the Muslims do it, if it is good Christians who do it then it is all fine. Killing gays is fine because the Bible says so, unless it is the Muslims who do it, then it is bad again.
It is almost as if they are following the same book.
could you point out christian leaders forcing rape victims to marry the perpetrator. or same leaders saying its all "fine" if some criminal, falsely calling himself to be "christian", tried doing it? etc.
can you point out where jesus or his disciples said anything of the sort in new testament? or where we can find any doctrine of the kind on the part of any established christian church?
perhaps you have read something of the sort in jewish bible? are you saying modern judaism practice whatever you misunderstood it said? do point to specifics. because if you can't, you are being anti semitic in the worst way possible.
or are you trying to force an equivalence where there is none? if so, you must be desperate in the face of facts.
sorry but state of one's surveillance shouldn't be decided by "tech heavyweights" listening to "experts". this legislation is bad, and as you say stupid, but trusting profit motivated "tech heavyweights" to secretly make decisions on surveillance, in league with unaccountable bureaucrats of usa, is also stupid.
Or do you really think it's a good idea to put your banking information out somewhere where pretty much anyone can get at it (to pay their own bills, for instance)?
you are confused.
as the other comment says, governments(which by your own logic is "somewhere where pretty much anyone can get at it ") already have access to payment and banking data (hence the propaganda promoting cashless society btw). this bill is something else.
bill should be opposed for very good reasons, but goodwill and motives of "tech heavyweights" should be doubted. two different things. don't get confused.
opposition to this legislation is probably warranted from everyone, but "strong opposition from tech heavyweights", instead of strengthening the case for such opposition, is suspicious and needs explaining, given the joined at the hip relationship between all the main "tech heavyweights" and surveillance apparatus of government of usa.
it is quite possible that what "tech heavyweights" really don't like is the open scrutiny and democratically accountable oversight of surveillance (especially by non usa government entities) they already implement on their users( and in some cases non registered users) for their own private benefit and usa intelligence agency benefit.
proponents of privacy, and opponents of surveillance, should be wary of "tech heavyweights" at all times and muct keep them at a distance.
"The $148 million settlement announced Wednesday will be divided among all 50 states and the District of Columbia"
but does any of that goes to riders and drivers whose data got breached? or is this "settlement" a mere pay off to government lawyers in 50 states and dc? a bribe in another name?
you are running from questions, like a dog from a stick. here are the main questions you run from in short form, details are in my earlier comments. 1/ who does the "categorizing" of speech here? be specific, 2/ why do you think "conservatives", including ones in office, in known "conservative" parties, and in organizations serving "conservative" causes for along time, cannot define what "conservative speech" is, but censorious "liberal" leaders of tech megacops can? 3/ did a court convict everyone censored, of "hate speech? did a court convict everyone censored for "outright harassment"? 4/ are there universally valid definitions of words like "far-right", "hate speech" etc? also wikipedia is not universal truth or definitions, why do you think it is? - now for your irrational ignorant non answers. you are the one living a "post truth" bubble and can't deal with facts and reason; based on your comment, you basically think, "what we in bubble say about others have more validity than what same others say about themselves and things that affect them, damn the facts and reason"!
only such a bubble mentality will let anyone think leaders of "mega tech corps" "track word meanings through history and scrutinize attempted interpretations with logic in a politically impartial way" . you realize are talking of people like those in the tgif video right?
in reality, it is you and censorious "liberal" leaders of "mega tech corps", "who spin their meanings around on a dime to suit their own political purposes." - as you admit, law and legal definitions don't matter to them, only what they say matters. if what they say and do affect their own ordinary private companies and those who use them, that is true, as i said from start. but as i also said from start, if they are effective monopolies, or oligopolies acting in concert, or if public services use their platforms (for example used for disaster data gathering and alerts) , or if public funds and tax breaks are involved, or if gov agencies like education department is in partnership with them on some projects, or if there are violations of discrimination laws and privacy laws, or if they engage in anti competitive practices, etc, etc, their, "we are private companies with liberty to do as we wish in our property" claim is no longer valid.
again who does the "categorizing" of speech here? be specific, don't run!
why do you think, you, and those who do the categorizing, are more qualified to categorize which speech is "conservative" or not, than those who say what has been censored is conservative speech? those who say that include not just racists, but republicans( in office, including the president and those in congress, and party outside), trump voters of many kinds, traditionalists, isolationists and others who oppose intervention in global wars, both free traders and anti free traders, libertarians, religious, nationalists, gun right activists, pro life activists, anti immigrant activists, anti sjws of all sorts, etc etc, and others, who were and are publicly referred to as conservatives. what give you the power define what is "conservative" over all those others i mentioned?
iow, why do you think those "conservatives" cannot define what "conservative speech" is, but censorious "liberal" leaders of tech megacops can? - also to repeat other questions you ran from,, did a court convict everyone censored, of "hate speech? did a court convict everyone censored for "outright harassment"?
are there universally valid definitions of words like "far-right", "hate speech" etc? sorry that you are ignorant that wikipedia is not universally valid source for anything. wikipedia which recently categorized california republican party as nazi(with google repeating that in search). wikipedia which only acknowledge "genocides", "apartheid regimes", etc, according to "liberal" ideology and political alliances of the current globalist establishment, which for instance, makes anyone speaking about grievances of palestinians guilty of "hate speech" by its own definition.
why do you think wikipedia has the right to define speech for universe? and why do you think anyone should abide by wikipedia definitions? ideological bubble mentality can lead to unspoken irrational consolations like yours about wikipedia its seems.
as always when facebook is involved, question should be asked whether it is all of internet that is connected, or internet filtered by facebook? don't forget that india decided it was the later and declined, when facebook offered "free internet" to all indians.
As far as I can tell, the supposed tech megacorp censorship against conservatives is some mix of categorizing far-right hate speech and outright harassment as "conservative" speech,
again who does the "categorizing" here? who decided which is "conservative speech"? are there universally valid definitions of words like "far-right", "hate speech" etc? did a court convict everyone censored for "outright harassment"? instead, wasn't it "tech megacorps" with leaders steeped in liberal ideology that categorize, convict, and censor, speech?
personally as private corps it is their right to censor whatever speech they want, and being liberals, they do censor conservatives. but all this pretending they are unbiased is idiotic and dishonest. - also if they are effective monopolies, or oligopolies acting in concert, or if public services use their platforms (for example used for disaster data gathering and alerts) , or if public funds and tax breaks are involved, or if gov agencies like education department is in partnership with them on some projects, or if there are violations of discrimination laws and privacy laws, etc, etc their freedom to act and censor as they wish, because they are private corps, is no longer a valid justification.
i get the feeling these changes, most of which depend on tracking users continuously, were designed to make google as different from duckduckgo as possible. duckduckgo cannot do any of this. only a massive privacy invader can do them. but that also indicate google is feeling the competition from duckduckgo and others(even ones who track users, but don't have the resources to do all this) catching up. hope google go down this path and lose all the users with any brains.
lol@bubbleboy, shifting goal posts from "provide evidence" to "prove it isn't happening to "the other side". rejecting evidence because project veritas allegedly edited a video to make a point forcefully (like any other media outlets; wapo, nyt, cnn, big tv networks, etc have done the same many more times and admitted it sometimes when called out) about another abortion related story(unlike other media's errors, point veritas were making was valid and true even without editing btw). and because they were convicted of separate minor crime that isn't a crime in majority of states. on this issue, authenticity of project veritas videos has not been challenged successfully. that is valid evidence.
btw did project veritas,"admit in court that they regularly lie"? do provide the evidence where they admit they "regularly lie". evidence please!
more important question is whether government agencies (local, state, federal,...), and taxpayer supported (tax credit, subsidies, etc) entities, should have information and help delivery apps(also information collection apps), and other such things, in private corporate controlled platforms that can censor or ban users (for whatever reason)? isn't that discrimination against citizens who are banned and censored? isn't that illegal?
happy in your bubble? to live in the "don't be evil" is real, fantasy! what bliss!! don't forget to hug each other if the bubble bursts for a day or two due real world events, as weepy google cfo urged at tgif meeting after 2016 election.
person who resigned is virtue signaling. and covering up for google at same time, by acting as if this something new for the company * google has been spying on everyone to make money for years. its how they make money. * it has been sharing info with usa intelligence agencies. * it actively helped usa's interfering political agenda's in other countries, for example actively helping and making apps for syria's mostly islamic terrorist opposition to assad. now just before a major military operation( with already heated propaganda claims and counter claims about chemical weapons) google is censoring regimes's media, only regime's not opposition's. * conservatives and trump supporters claim they have been targeted by google through censorship, blocking, shadow banning , etc,. some have indeed been subjected to all that. * google companies are now actively propping up visibility of legacy media, with their bias and establishment views, allegedly to combat "fake news".
ode to joy existed before eu and will exist long after the demise of that undemocratic bureaucratic authoritarian state with its out of touch unelected leaders.
" use paper ballots in an effort to secure elections from hackers... russian interference in the 2016 presidential election"
how many slashdoters believe russians changed the votes cast in 2016 election? seriously? remind me how low the site has fallen.
or is it that they allegedly attempted change what voters think, to do something(since it is far from clear that allegedly russian linked ads, etc,, costing less than 0.1% of election spending, were siding with one side or other)? use of "allegedly" is a must, since no evidence of any russian connection is available for verification.
Slashdot Mirror
you associate, and even equate, steve jobs and apple, with "inventions"? lol.
-
musk and companies are indeed like jobs and his, lots of very creative hype to con people and governments in to buying mediocre products.
typical result when npcs run a website that needs dynamism and intelligence.
-
parent is moderated "funny".
but this isn't funny, especially for old user, it is sad.
why is media and slashdot falling for these corporate spin campaigns?
this is not even a contract, no significant amount of money changed hands, it is a mere letter of intent for something, if serious, would take years to happen, but more likely never happen. main purpose of this is to create good press for amazon. but media and meta media, ignores all that, believes the corporate spin at face value.
That Christian one where it is alright to rape some virgin girl, as long as you buy her off her parents for fifty shekels https://www.biblegateway.com/p..., well you are stuck with it as it is legal to hand out a bible which recommends criminal acts to minors. If you tried to do it today it would be criminal but the bible and Christians get away with handing out publications to minors which recommend criminal acts, saying nobody reads it anyhow, is not an excuse ;D.
you are free to willfully misunderstand a verse in deuteronomy book in jewish bible to fit your antisemitic agenda. but don't expect others to smile at that.
you are obviously ignorant how the bible is interpreted by judaism and christianity. not everything in bible is taken literally as you seem to believe due to your ignorance.
unlike modern judaism, and unlike christianity throughout, lot of leaders and followers in modern islam do take such sayings in the islamic scripture literally. that is the difference.
i will again repeat the questions you failed to answer-
could you point out christian leaders forcing rape victims to marry the perpetrator. or same leaders saying its all "fine" if some criminal, falsely calling himself to be "christian", tried doing it? etc.
can you point out where jesus or his disciples said anything of the sort in new testament? (btw new testament dealing with jesus and his teschings, is the part that chistians follow primarily, since you are ignorant of it, i thought i would point out that fact. ) or where we can find any doctrine of the kind on the part of any established christian church?
don't try to avoid these questions by turning the discussion to your anti semitic prejudices.
link and how and why you consider the law, if it existed, as "christian"? again be specific.
Remember, forcing rape victims to marry the perpetrator is only bad if the Muslims do it, if it is good Christians who do it then it is all fine.
Killing gays is fine because the Bible says so, unless it is the Muslims who do it, then it is bad again.
It is almost as if they are following the same book.
could you point out christian leaders forcing rape victims to marry the perpetrator. or same leaders saying its all "fine" if some criminal, falsely calling himself to be "christian", tried doing it? etc.
can you point out where jesus or his disciples said anything of the sort in new testament? or where we can find any doctrine of the kind on the part of any established christian church?
perhaps you have read something of the sort in jewish bible? are you saying modern judaism practice whatever you misunderstood it said? do point to specifics. because if you can't, you are being anti semitic in the worst way possible.
or are you trying to force an equivalence where there is none? if so, you must be desperate in the face of facts.
sorry but state of one's surveillance shouldn't be decided by "tech heavyweights" listening to "experts".
this legislation is bad, and as you say stupid, but trusting profit motivated "tech heavyweights" to secretly make decisions on surveillance, in league with unaccountable bureaucrats of usa, is also stupid.
"arnold is only the fifth woman to be awarded the prize for chemistry. the last female scientist to scoop the award was ada e. yonath in 2009"
does that matter? it shouldn't. in my opinion.
and shouldn't be highlighted. as if noting the fulfillment, or not, of some quota.
Or do you really think it's a good idea to put your banking information out somewhere where pretty much anyone can get at it (to pay their own bills, for instance)?
you are confused.
as the other comment says, governments(which by your own logic is "somewhere where pretty much anyone can get at it ") already have access to payment and banking data (hence the propaganda promoting cashless society btw). this bill is something else.
bill should be opposed for very good reasons, but goodwill and motives of "tech heavyweights" should be doubted. two different things. don't get confused.
opposition to this legislation is probably warranted from everyone, but "strong opposition from tech heavyweights", instead of strengthening the case for such opposition, is suspicious and needs explaining, given the joined at the hip relationship between all the main "tech heavyweights" and surveillance apparatus of government of usa.
it is quite possible that what "tech heavyweights" really don't like is the open scrutiny and democratically accountable oversight of surveillance (especially by non usa government entities) they already implement on their users( and in some cases non registered users) for their own private benefit and usa intelligence agency benefit.
proponents of privacy, and opponents of surveillance, should be wary of "tech heavyweights" at all times and muct keep them at a distance.
"The $148 million settlement announced Wednesday will be divided among all 50 states and the District of Columbia"
but does any of that goes to riders and drivers whose data got breached?
or is this "settlement" a mere pay off to government lawyers in 50 states and dc? a bribe in another name?
you are running from questions, like a dog from a stick.
here are the main questions you run from in short form, details are in my earlier comments.
1/ who does the "categorizing" of speech here? be specific,
2/ why do you think "conservatives", including ones in office, in known "conservative" parties, and in organizations serving "conservative" causes for along time, cannot define what "conservative speech" is, but censorious "liberal" leaders of tech megacops can?
3/ did a court convict everyone censored, of "hate speech? did a court convict everyone censored for "outright harassment"?
4/ are there universally valid definitions of words like "far-right", "hate speech" etc? also wikipedia is not universal truth or definitions, why do you think it is?
-
now for your irrational ignorant non answers.
you are the one living a "post truth" bubble and can't deal with facts and reason; based on your comment, you basically think, "what we in bubble say about others have more validity than what same others say about themselves and things that affect them, damn the facts and reason"!
only such a bubble mentality will let anyone think leaders of "mega tech corps" "track word meanings through history and scrutinize attempted interpretations with logic in a politically impartial way" . you realize are talking of people like those in the tgif video right?
in reality, it is you and censorious "liberal" leaders of "mega tech corps", "who spin their meanings around on a dime to suit their own political purposes."
-
as you admit, law and legal definitions don't matter to them, only what they say matters.
if what they say and do affect their own ordinary private companies and those who use them, that is true, as i said from start.
but as i also said from start,
if they are effective monopolies, or oligopolies acting in concert,
or if public services use their platforms (for example used for disaster data gathering and alerts) ,
or if public funds and tax breaks are involved, or if gov agencies like education department is in partnership with them on some projects,
or if there are violations of discrimination laws and privacy laws,
or if they engage in anti competitive practices, etc, etc,
their, "we are private companies with liberty to do as we wish in our property" claim is no longer valid.
*conclusions
running from questions as usual. typical.
again who does the "categorizing" of speech here? be specific, don't run!
why do you think, you, and those who do the categorizing, are more qualified to categorize which speech is "conservative" or not, than those who say what has been censored is conservative speech?
those who say that include not just racists, but republicans( in office, including the president and those in congress, and party outside), trump voters of many kinds, traditionalists, isolationists and others who oppose intervention in global wars, both free traders and anti free traders, libertarians, religious, nationalists, gun right activists, pro life activists, anti immigrant activists, anti sjws of all sorts, etc etc, and others, who were and are publicly referred to as conservatives.
what give you the power define what is "conservative" over all those others i mentioned?
iow, why do you think those "conservatives" cannot define what "conservative speech" is, but censorious "liberal" leaders of tech megacops can?
-
also to repeat other questions you ran from,,
did a court convict everyone censored, of "hate speech?
did a court convict everyone censored for "outright harassment"?
are there universally valid definitions of words like "far-right", "hate speech" etc?
sorry that you are ignorant that wikipedia is not universally valid source for anything. wikipedia which recently categorized california republican party as nazi(with google repeating that in search). wikipedia which only acknowledge "genocides", "apartheid regimes", etc, according to "liberal" ideology and political alliances of the current globalist establishment, which for instance, makes anyone speaking about grievances of palestinians guilty of "hate speech" by its own definition.
why do you think wikipedia has the right to define speech for universe? and why do you think anyone should abide by wikipedia definitions? ideological bubble mentality can lead to unspoken irrational consolations like yours about wikipedia its seems.
as always when facebook is involved, question should be asked whether it is all of internet that is connected, or internet filtered by facebook?
don't forget that india decided it was the later and declined, when facebook offered "free internet" to all indians.
As far as I can tell, the supposed tech megacorp censorship against conservatives is some mix of categorizing far-right hate speech and outright harassment as "conservative" speech,
again who does the "categorizing" here?
who decided which is "conservative speech"? are there universally valid definitions of words like "far-right", "hate speech" etc? did a court convict everyone censored for "outright harassment"?
instead, wasn't it "tech megacorps" with leaders steeped in liberal ideology that categorize, convict, and censor, speech?
personally as private corps it is their right to censor whatever speech they want, and being liberals, they do censor conservatives.
but all this pretending they are unbiased is idiotic and dishonest.
-
also if they are effective monopolies, or oligopolies acting in concert,
or if public services use their platforms (for example used for disaster data gathering and alerts) ,
or if public funds and tax breaks are involved, or if gov agencies like education department is in partnership with them on some projects,
or if there are violations of discrimination laws and privacy laws, etc, etc
their freedom to act and censor as they wish, because they are private corps, is no longer a valid justification.
i get the feeling these changes, most of which depend on tracking users continuously, were designed to make google as different from duckduckgo as possible. duckduckgo cannot do any of this. only a massive privacy invader can do them.
but that also indicate google is feeling the competition from duckduckgo and others(even ones who track users, but don't have the resources to do all this) catching up.
hope google go down this path and lose all the users with any brains.
lol@bubbleboy,
shifting goal posts from "provide evidence" to "prove it isn't happening to "the other side".
rejecting evidence because project veritas allegedly edited a video to make a point forcefully (like any other media outlets; wapo, nyt, cnn, big tv networks, etc have done the same many more times and admitted it sometimes when called out) about another abortion related story(unlike other media's errors, point veritas were making was valid and true even without editing btw). and because they were convicted of separate minor crime that isn't a crime in majority of states. on this issue, authenticity of project veritas videos has not been challenged successfully. that is valid evidence.
btw did project veritas,"admit in court that they regularly lie"? do provide the evidence where they admit they "regularly lie". evidence please!
more important question is whether government agencies (local, state, federal, ...), and taxpayer supported (tax credit, subsidies, etc) entities, should have information and help delivery apps(also information collection apps), and other such things, in private corporate controlled platforms that can censor or ban users (for whatever reason)?
isn't that discrimination against citizens who are banned and censored? isn't that illegal?
happy in your bubble? to live in the "don't be evil" is real, fantasy! what bliss!!
don't forget to hug each other if the bubble bursts for a day or two due real world events, as weepy google cfo urged at tgif meeting after 2016 election.
person who resigned is virtue signaling. and covering up for google at same time, by acting as if this something new for the company
* google has been spying on everyone to make money for years. its how they make money.
* it has been sharing info with usa intelligence agencies.
* it actively helped usa's interfering political agenda's in other countries, for example actively helping and making apps for syria's mostly islamic terrorist opposition to assad. now just before a major military operation( with already heated propaganda claims and counter claims about chemical weapons) google is censoring regimes's media, only regime's not opposition's.
* conservatives and trump supporters claim they have been targeted by google through censorship, blocking, shadow banning , etc,. some have indeed been subjected to all that.
* google companies are now actively propping up visibility of legacy media, with their bias and establishment views, allegedly to combat "fake news".
ode to joy existed before eu and will exist long after the demise of that undemocratic bureaucratic authoritarian state with its out of touch unelected leaders.
jvm written in c++
Either you are trolling or you are full of shyte.
Re read the article.
its called sarcasm.
congrats to gp ac for triggering the humorless ignorant.
" use paper ballots in an effort to secure elections from hackers ... russian interference in the 2016 presidential election"
how many slashdoters believe russians changed the votes cast in 2016 election? seriously? remind me how low the site has fallen.
or is it that they allegedly attempted change what voters think, to do something(since it is far from clear that allegedly russian linked ads, etc,, costing less than 0.1% of election spending, were siding with one side or other)? use of "allegedly" is a must, since no evidence of any russian connection is available for verification.