I hope someone files a lawsuit and wins. Florida state government is a continual disgrace under Rick Scott.
I don't know anything about Florida's government, but this sounds like a case tailor-made for a class action lawsuit. The fact that the Dept. of Corrections made money off of the song sales makes it a slam dunk, regardless of what unenforceable language was in the original user/inmate agreement. I don't think they can arbitrarily cancel previously purchased licenses like this, in favor of some new for-profit scheme. I hope someone pursues this, and I hope they win, because the concept and existence of incarceration as an industry is evil, inhumane, and morally reprehensible, not to mention counterproductive for society.
"Unlimited movies - any movie, any time." ...but now only 3 movies a month, not 30. And only certain movies are available, our choice. And when everybody really wants to go, we'll tell you to pick another time. And if you already paid and want what you paid for and what we promised when we took your money, fuck off, because our business model was a lie and we'll be dead soon anyway. It's your fault for actually trying to use the service you paid for, you freeloaders.
It did indeed sound too good to be true, and the naysayers were right - it was.
Being able to gamble with a particular provider is not a right, or a necessity, or a job. Gambling doesn't have to be fair. Expert players are welcome to shop around but crying about discrimination is pretty weak.
Casinos have existed for centuries, as have most casino games. In 2018 it's absolutely pathetic for professional players to cry about the system being unfair. You don't have to play - people don't have to let you play. Suck it up.
Being able to set up shop as a gambling house in my community is also not a right or necessity. In many areas not called Las Vegas, gambling licenses are very limited, meaning their business is well protected. We have already regulated the "gaming" industry pretty heavily - just ask the casino operators, they'll all fall all over themselves to agree, and yet they still make a lot of money. So I see no problem with telling them they can't ban people who abide by their rules simply because they win. Gambling in its most common form will never be "fair" or it won't exist because the casinos aren't in the business of gambling - they're simply in hospitality and making money hand over fist. Adding a bit of protection for us seems like common sense, though of course the gambling lobby won't admit that they can sustain it.
You'r right - we don't have to play. What you're missing is that we don't have to permit casinos and the like to operate at all, and we sure as hell don't need to let them stack the deck. It works both ways.
I got $50 that says there will be blackmarket workarounds for this.
I grew up around bookies. There was a social club around the corner from my house where you could get a bet down, and everyone from the local bartender to the local barber had a shirt pocket filled with slips of paper of action they'd taken from working guys.
Are you telling me that Fat Tony and Uncle Vito won't ban you if you win on a regular basis because you're too smart for their games? They won't send Rocco, Angelo or Joey The Snake to your house to tell you that you have beautiful children and that you should probably consider maybe not going back to the club? Most players are losers long term and thus are always welcome, even when they happen to win, but I'm sure the real wise guys don't make regular winners feel too welcome. I'm not sure your workaround is all that workable, and I'd rather see gaming regulations prevent the casinos from banning players who play by the rules simply because they are good. If we let them set up shop and we limit their competition for them, they shouldn't be able to change the rules at will or choose who they do business with.
I'm not anti-gambling, but I believe that if we allow it, us (the customers, the bettors) should have a certain level of protection. There are certainly already a lot of regulations that bookmakers and casinos must abide by, ranging from which games they may offer, how the games are played, the equipment used, minimum payouts and maximum house cuts, limitations on comps and promos, and limiting or banning players that admit to being addicts.
It seems like common sense that those who we allow to make a fortune in the business shouldn't be allowed to ban us, the citizens, simply because we win while playing by the mutually agreed upon rules. Being good should not be grounds for a ban, and if they don't want to follow that, we should pull their gaming licenses. If they are allowed to take every penny we have, we should be allowed to win as much as we can, too. Either allow everyone to play a particular game, or no one, their choice.
But everyone (except Trump) knows that IQ tests are a terrible measure of actual intelligence. And between 67% and 73% of statistics are made up on the spot, like yours. And you still come across as a racist/sexist.
This just in: The fourth of July drone celebration at Travis Air Force Base has been cancelled, because no one wants to see that shit instead of fireworks.
Pay more for less, and have fewer, crappier locations to choose from? Um, okay AMC, how's that working for you?
I don't see a lot of movies any more, and we mainly go to a few local-ish Cinemarks. Last winter I hit up an AMC that had been remodeled a few years back, and it still seemed like a throwback to 1995. The chairs were nicer now but the seating position was simply bizarre, with the screen seemingly way too high up. The headrests of the cushy seats push your head forward while you really need to put it back because they half-assed the remodel and didn't go with stadium-style tiers. The concession area was also weakly stocked and poorly attended. Price? Same as a nearby Cinemark, where the seats are more comfortable, the screen is in the right place, the concession options are better, and they have enough staff to serve everyone efficiently. I may just sign up for Moviepass, but I see zero reason to try AMC's in-house version.
Do this somewhere interesting, like on a beach or something, and explicitly allow booze, and I'm in. Vacations are already a crapshoot, so if you give me something resort-like AND pay me for it, I'll take my chances knowing I might get the flu.
On second thought, I could use $3500. Count me in, St. Louis and all, but those catered meals had better include some good local barbecue.
Popular Mechanics? Sweet, this will be a world changer in no time, just like the space planes we had 20 years ago, the robots that have been everywhere for decades, and the military-grade nanomaterials that have already changed every aspect of our everyday lives. It's a fun read sometimes, but PM is not exactly a hotbed for real science and accurate predictions of the immediate future.
There is no outright ban in question here. Valve can absolutely choose whether or not to do business with other companies, and do so with impunity. They are not forced to eschew all sense of morality, they are choosing to. My company buys products from other companies and sells them to consumers. Any notion that Valve MUST allow access to all game devs, regardless of content, is like telling me I need to buy from every supplier out there that wants to sell through my consumer conduit, which is ludicrous. I don't believe that corporations should have the same rights as people, but they should certainly have the right to decide with whom to partner, and they do.
Steam should not be a place to express a viewpoint. It's a platform to hook game devs and game players up. Nothing more.
No one is forcing you to buy a game you find objectionable.
They have every right to express a viewpoint, just as every game dev has a right (and the ability - Steam isn't a monopoly) to sell their games elsewhere. I'm as liberal as they come, so please pardon me, but by your logic every store that sell magazines should be forced to provide shelf space for porn mags, gun mags, and those with extreme viewpoints. Companies like Valve shouldn't be able to push their viewpoints on their industry, but they have the right (though not a responsibility) to form their own definitions of what is objectionable and decide how to enforce that.
Devs don't have an absolute right to access every distribution platform just because the platforms exist, regardless of their content.
I stand corrected. For many years I've said cigarettes were the only product that proved to be fatal 100% of the time (nearly, at least) if used as intended (for long enough, anyway).
Promoting euthanasia is one thing, and I support it under some circumstances. If you want to promote brain embalming and "digital brain uploads," that's fine too - sounds intriguing. But if your "upload" requires euthanasia, you're a quacky snake oil salesman and nothing more, because the technology to replicate brains digitally simply doesn't exist. This company is going nowhere.
"Facebook CEO Says Not Planning To Extend European Privacy Law Globally"
Business as usual. Zuckerberg likes to come out and talk about how FB cares and wants the best for humanity, but in reality they consistently put the company's survival first and do the bare minimum for the rest of us. That's how huge companies become huge companies and stay in business, so this shouldn't come as a shock.
Zuckerberg seems like a decent enough chap but he's out of his depth running such a big, pervasive company, and he doesn't even realize it. Hard to fault him, but hard to trust him.
Please consider supporting replicant. It's a free mobile OS that desperately needs support.
And how do we do that if we are not developers or owners of any of the 9 measly, ancient Samsung devices that Replicant supports (poorly)? I don't make enough money to be able to fund fringe projects that seem to be at death's door - my only donations anymore go to the Red Cross.
So Youtube will take their main revenue stream and intentionally misuse it to try to convince their main target audience that they'd like to join the company's other revenue stream? This is bad business for so many reason...
Advertisers should be ticked that their ads are being used not to convince people to buy their products, but to drive people away from the advertising model as a whole, and this is being done intentionally.
Content creators shouldn't be too happy about this either, as the intended result also lowers their potential revenue base.
Users obviously won't like this for obvious reasons, and many will never pay for Youtube services. If they become frustrated enough they'll simply turn to alternatives. Anyone remember Pandora?
Admitting that you're going to try to make users mad is a bad look, and this doesn't seem like a sustainable way to structure a business, given that advertising is the main revenue stream. Adblockers will continue to get better, especially if the impetus grows stronger.
Because fuck the intent of the law. Intent has long been an important consideration in the courts, but not anymore when that gets in the way of your preferred outcome, which is not to upload established law and you can nitpick technical detail that aren't well-defined by non-technical lawmakers. Bizzarro America persists.
It's disappointing that this is currently scored 0.
It's disappointing that you think 16 minutes (including the time it took for you to type your post) is too long for an anonymous post to get modded up. I'm rather glad that AC posts don't just start at Score:2 for no good reason. The post in question is proof that the moderation system is working correctly and effectively, even if not instantly.
The video doesn't seem to provide evidence of "impossible speed", without knowing the distance to the object the angle of the camera plus the movement of the jet could mean this is anything from impossible speed to a slow moving object that the camera is making appear fast.
The speed we've seen mentioned here is mach.5 or mach.6, which has not been refuted, so the "impossible speed" hype of the summary (and headlines elsewhere) seems to be some over-excited and misleading BS, as expected.
Really? A bug at 25k feet going mach.6. Because for that sensor to pick up a bug like that it would have had to have been flying with the jet and been maybe a couple feet from the sensor. Not quite even remotely pissible in this realm of realuty. It picked up something moving fast 1000s of feet below it.
Wait, mach.6 is a "seemingly impossible" speed? Since when? Even if this is supposed to say mach 6, we've seen things that fly that fast, like various rockets and experimental scram jets.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope someone files a lawsuit and wins. Florida state government is a continual disgrace under Rick Scott.
I don't know anything about Florida's government, but this sounds like a case tailor-made for a class action lawsuit. The fact that the Dept. of Corrections made money off of the song sales makes it a slam dunk, regardless of what unenforceable language was in the original user/inmate agreement. I don't think they can arbitrarily cancel previously purchased licenses like this, in favor of some new for-profit scheme. I hope someone pursues this, and I hope they win, because the concept and existence of incarceration as an industry is evil, inhumane, and morally reprehensible, not to mention counterproductive for society.
"Unlimited movies - any movie, any time."
...but now only 3 movies a month, not 30. And only certain movies are available, our choice. And when everybody really wants to go, we'll tell you to pick another time. And if you already paid and want what you paid for and what we promised when we took your money, fuck off, because our business model was a lie and we'll be dead soon anyway. It's your fault for actually trying to use the service you paid for, you freeloaders.
It did indeed sound too good to be true, and the naysayers were right - it was.
Being able to gamble with a particular provider is not a right, or a necessity, or a job. Gambling doesn't have to be fair. Expert players are welcome to shop around but crying about discrimination is pretty weak.
Casinos have existed for centuries, as have most casino games. In 2018 it's absolutely pathetic for professional players to cry about the system being unfair. You don't have to play - people don't have to let you play. Suck it up.
Being able to set up shop as a gambling house in my community is also not a right or necessity. In many areas not called Las Vegas, gambling licenses are very limited, meaning their business is well protected. We have already regulated the "gaming" industry pretty heavily - just ask the casino operators, they'll all fall all over themselves to agree, and yet they still make a lot of money. So I see no problem with telling them they can't ban people who abide by their rules simply because they win. Gambling in its most common form will never be "fair" or it won't exist because the casinos aren't in the business of gambling - they're simply in hospitality and making money hand over fist. Adding a bit of protection for us seems like common sense, though of course the gambling lobby won't admit that they can sustain it.
You'r right - we don't have to play. What you're missing is that we don't have to permit casinos and the like to operate at all, and we sure as hell don't need to let them stack the deck. It works both ways.
I got $50 that says there will be blackmarket workarounds for this.
I grew up around bookies. There was a social club around the corner from my house where you could get a bet down, and everyone from the local bartender to the local barber had a shirt pocket filled with slips of paper of action they'd taken from working guys.
Are you telling me that Fat Tony and Uncle Vito won't ban you if you win on a regular basis because you're too smart for their games? They won't send Rocco, Angelo or Joey The Snake to your house to tell you that you have beautiful children and that you should probably consider maybe not going back to the club? Most players are losers long term and thus are always welcome, even when they happen to win, but I'm sure the real wise guys don't make regular winners feel too welcome. I'm not sure your workaround is all that workable, and I'd rather see gaming regulations prevent the casinos from banning players who play by the rules simply because they are good. If we let them set up shop and we limit their competition for them, they shouldn't be able to change the rules at will or choose who they do business with.
I'm not anti-gambling, but I believe that if we allow it, us (the customers, the bettors) should have a certain level of protection. There are certainly already a lot of regulations that bookmakers and casinos must abide by, ranging from which games they may offer, how the games are played, the equipment used, minimum payouts and maximum house cuts, limitations on comps and promos, and limiting or banning players that admit to being addicts.
It seems like common sense that those who we allow to make a fortune in the business shouldn't be allowed to ban us, the citizens, simply because we win while playing by the mutually agreed upon rules. Being good should not be grounds for a ban, and if they don't want to follow that, we should pull their gaming licenses. If they are allowed to take every penny we have, we should be allowed to win as much as we can, too. Either allow everyone to play a particular game, or no one, their choice.
The average American has an IQ of 98...
But everyone (except Trump) knows that IQ tests are a terrible measure of actual intelligence. And between 67% and 73% of statistics are made up on the spot, like yours. And you still come across as a racist/sexist.
No, it's an extension for Latex to markup bell-choir music.
Are you sure it isn't about Vandelay Industries expanding its reach in South America?
C is a decent language.
Your auto-correct corrected "dead" to "decent."
This just in: The fourth of July drone celebration at Travis Air Force Base has been cancelled, because no one wants to see that shit instead of fireworks.
Pay more for less, and have fewer, crappier locations to choose from? Um, okay AMC, how's that working for you?
I don't see a lot of movies any more, and we mainly go to a few local-ish Cinemarks. Last winter I hit up an AMC that had been remodeled a few years back, and it still seemed like a throwback to 1995. The chairs were nicer now but the seating position was simply bizarre, with the screen seemingly way too high up. The headrests of the cushy seats push your head forward while you really need to put it back because they half-assed the remodel and didn't go with stadium-style tiers. The concession area was also weakly stocked and poorly attended. Price? Same as a nearby Cinemark, where the seats are more comfortable, the screen is in the right place, the concession options are better, and they have enough staff to serve everyone efficiently.
I may just sign up for Moviepass, but I see zero reason to try AMC's in-house version.
You can cash out the 3.500$ check any time you like, But you can no leave for ten days (or more)!
That sounds like something weird and European that wouldn't be worth much in the US. Better make it a $3,500 check.
Do this somewhere interesting, like on a beach or something, and explicitly allow booze, and I'm in. Vacations are already a crapshoot, so if you give me something resort-like AND pay me for it, I'll take my chances knowing I might get the flu.
On second thought, I could use $3500. Count me in, St. Louis and all, but those catered meals had better include some good local barbecue.
Popular Mechanics? Sweet, this will be a world changer in no time, just like the space planes we had 20 years ago, the robots that have been everywhere for decades, and the military-grade nanomaterials that have already changed every aspect of our everyday lives. It's a fun read sometimes, but PM is not exactly a hotbed for real science and accurate predictions of the immediate future.
There is no outright ban in question here. Valve can absolutely choose whether or not to do business with other companies, and do so with impunity. They are not forced to eschew all sense of morality, they are choosing to. My company buys products from other companies and sells them to consumers. Any notion that Valve MUST allow access to all game devs, regardless of content, is like telling me I need to buy from every supplier out there that wants to sell through my consumer conduit, which is ludicrous. I don't believe that corporations should have the same rights as people, but they should certainly have the right to decide with whom to partner, and they do.
Steam should not be a place to express a viewpoint. It's a platform to hook game devs and game players up. Nothing more.
No one is forcing you to buy a game you find objectionable.
They have every right to express a viewpoint, just as every game dev has a right (and the ability - Steam isn't a monopoly) to sell their games elsewhere. I'm as liberal as they come, so please pardon me, but by your logic every store that sell magazines should be forced to provide shelf space for porn mags, gun mags, and those with extreme viewpoints. Companies like Valve shouldn't be able to push their viewpoints on their industry, but they have the right (though not a responsibility) to form their own definitions of what is objectionable and decide how to enforce that.
Devs don't have an absolute right to access every distribution platform just because the platforms exist, regardless of their content.
It's called Global Thermonuclear War. But maybe we should play tic tac toe, Joshua.
I stand corrected. For many years I've said cigarettes were the only product that proved to be fatal 100% of the time (nearly, at least) if used as intended (for long enough, anyway).
Promoting euthanasia is one thing, and I support it under some circumstances. If you want to promote brain embalming and "digital brain uploads," that's fine too - sounds intriguing. But if your "upload" requires euthanasia, you're a quacky snake oil salesman and nothing more, because the technology to replicate brains digitally simply doesn't exist. This company is going nowhere.
"Facebook CEO Says Not Planning To Extend European Privacy Law Globally"
Business as usual. Zuckerberg likes to come out and talk about how FB cares and wants the best for humanity, but in reality they consistently put the company's survival first and do the bare minimum for the rest of us. That's how huge companies become huge companies and stay in business, so this shouldn't come as a shock.
Zuckerberg seems like a decent enough chap but he's out of his depth running such a big, pervasive company, and he doesn't even realize it. Hard to fault him, but hard to trust him.
Please consider supporting replicant. It's a free mobile OS that desperately needs support.
And how do we do that if we are not developers or owners of any of the 9 measly, ancient Samsung devices that Replicant supports (poorly)? I don't make enough money to be able to fund fringe projects that seem to be at death's door - my only donations anymore go to the Red Cross.
So Youtube will take their main revenue stream and intentionally misuse it to try to convince their main target audience that they'd like to join the company's other revenue stream? This is bad business for so many reason...
Advertisers should be ticked that their ads are being used not to convince people to buy their products, but to drive people away from the advertising model as a whole, and this is being done intentionally.
Content creators shouldn't be too happy about this either, as the intended result also lowers their potential revenue base.
Users obviously won't like this for obvious reasons, and many will never pay for Youtube services. If they become frustrated enough they'll simply turn to alternatives. Anyone remember Pandora?
Admitting that you're going to try to make users mad is a bad look, and this doesn't seem like a sustainable way to structure a business, given that advertising is the main revenue stream. Adblockers will continue to get better, especially if the impetus grows stronger.
Because fuck the intent of the law. Intent has long been an important consideration in the courts, but not anymore when that gets in the way of your preferred outcome, which is not to upload established law and you can nitpick technical detail that aren't well-defined by non-technical lawmakers. Bizzarro America persists.
It's disappointing that this is currently scored 0.
It's disappointing that you think 16 minutes (including the time it took for you to type your post) is too long for an anonymous post to get modded up. I'm rather glad that AC posts don't just start at Score:2 for no good reason. The post in question is proof that the moderation system is working correctly and effectively, even if not instantly.
The Russians are just testing the new hypersonic Kinzhal missile. It can go up to Mach 10, who knows how much it is still at sea level.
This thing was moving far SLOWER than any missile I'm aware of. That means it must be aliens.
The video doesn't seem to provide evidence of "impossible speed", without knowing the distance to the object the angle of the camera plus the movement of the jet could mean this is anything from impossible speed to a slow moving object that the camera is making appear fast.
The speed we've seen mentioned here is mach .5 or mach .6, which has not been refuted, so the "impossible speed" hype of the summary (and headlines elsewhere) seems to be some over-excited and misleading BS, as expected.
Really? A bug at 25k feet going mach .6. Because for that sensor to pick up a bug like that it would have had to have been flying with the jet and been maybe a couple feet from the sensor. Not quite even remotely pissible in this realm of realuty. It picked up something moving fast 1000s of feet below it.
Wait, mach .6 is a "seemingly impossible" speed? Since when? Even if this is supposed to say mach 6, we've seen things that fly that fast, like various rockets and experimental scram jets.