I think it's better that a media outlet openly gives away it's stance, rather than silently nudges each and every item in that direction. There is no denying that every media outlet is biased, since they are all run by people, so I think it is better that their direction is obvious rather than obscured.
You don't understand!! Argh, slashdot makes me so aggrivated. Don't you understand that you can't just dump stuff on the tubes? It's not like a truck, you know.
I mostly agree with you, but I hear the American busses are really shoddy. I'm from Sweden, me and my family all use public transportaition quite a bit. It's nice.
My older sister was in the US about 6 months ago, as she and her boyfriend were going to go on a Greyhound bus, it turned out to be so dirty, old, beaten and shoddy that they instead chose to rent a car. Note that they have no problem using public transportation here in Sweden, they don't own a car.
I don't know how, but if the US want to keep their quality of life as high as they have it, they'll also need to spend some serious money on public transportation.
I agree that their algos aren't perfect (unless you love Radiohead and other "indie" bands), but doing it Pandora-style is not scalable. Pandora have people labeling everything by hand. Need to change the labeling system? Add a lable? Have fun re-listening to everything.
Retro active law? Where the is your constitution now?
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
This method of collecting evidence assumes that the email addresses aren't collected using the same zombie computers that send the spam.
Two things can happen: 1) Spammers used their own computers, and (maybe) face the consequences - after this lawsuit the collecting is distributed onto zombies aswell. As long as there's a market, there'll be new people exploiting it.
or
2) The spammers didn't use their own computers to collect addresses, and will continue that way.
Well, I didn't start out with an argument either. I kneejerked a response to somebody who wrote
This is why the first amendment matters. You can say what you want about the US, but our founding fathers got a few things right.
I thought it implied that "the europeans" had done something wrong, which I think is wrong for a number of reasons (there not being any union between europeans at that time, and many europeans getting constitutions along the way.)
The long argument after that has probably been useless to anybody but myself (as I'll explain soon,) and I apologize for it.
Just like we Americans get [rightly] told to not believe everything we hear in the domestic press about the rest of the world, you shouldn't always believe everything you hear about us.
Ah, yes. I always find myself having to revise my world view again and again, as things I've previously taken for granted (eg UK constitution) turn out to be false. I appreciate the process, though.:)
Ah, no, I haven't heard of Jose Padilla - but even when assuming you hear of every action that is taken against somebody under the PATRIOT Act, you still won't hear anything from those who have been subjected to it's chilling effect. Those who have been frightened into not speaking because of bad prospects will hardly go public about it.
Assuming that this is not a good enough argument that speech is not fully protected in the US, have a look at the more accurate parallels between this "Move" and the DMCA (censorship-wise) that I posted in this same thread, in reply to another poster: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=232255&cid=188 82723
Also note that the FCC has a ban on "indecent" things in certain situations (on TV/radio.) Is this relevant? I say yes.
Ah, oops. My argument is still valid for most EU countries, though.
For the sake of staying on topic, I want to note that this Move to Ban Hate-Speech is likely to be rejected by some countries since it does go against their constitutions. I say some because others might not reject it. Sweden, for example, labels any (hate)speech that incites violence or threats as illegal.
Back to our argument again, the US constitution hasn't really helped ensure that any and all speech is protected - we've often seen content hosters pull down websites, most recently with DMCA notices in hand.
Now, this is the choice of the content hosters - they could have allowed the material to continue residing on their servers if they had a penchant for lawsuits. But it still shows that your constitution does not protect you when normal laws make you a criminal. If your normal laws can affect constitutional ones in such a way, then you are in the same seat as the UK - where the constitution-like effects are implemented as normal laws instead of special ones.
Also note that this Move to Ban Hate-Speech hasn't specified wether content blocking is to be done by hosters or ISPs, so it is a very preliminary suggestion rather than a law, at best. If they decide that ISPs should censor things, we're in a bad seat over here in the EU - but I don't see that happening yet.
Slashdot Mirror
This'll teach the dog not to get all up in my grill.
I think it's better that a media outlet openly gives away it's stance, rather than silently nudges each and every item in that direction. There is no denying that every media outlet is biased, since they are all run by people, so I think it is better that their direction is obvious rather than obscured.
What's the point of doing that when the article itself is a humongous ad?
(don't answer, I know)
NO!
You don't understand!! Argh, slashdot makes me so aggrivated. Don't you understand that you can't just dump stuff on the tubes? It's not like a truck, you know.
It would hardly have the same succeess as Firefox has seen. Firefox was vastly superior to the alternative, OOo is not.
More like highlight alternative routes to the customer so that they are brought to the corp's attention, you luddite fuck.
mod parent up for truth, also to bring more publicity to tv-links.co.uk
I mostly agree with you, but I hear the American busses are really shoddy. I'm from Sweden, me and my family all use public transportaition quite a bit. It's nice.
My older sister was in the US about 6 months ago, as she and her boyfriend were going to go on a Greyhound bus, it turned out to be so dirty, old, beaten and shoddy that they instead chose to rent a car. Note that they have no problem using public transportation here in Sweden, they don't own a car.
I don't know how, but if the US want to keep their quality of life as high as they have it, they'll also need to spend some serious money on public transportation.
When you're serving ads, I don't know if being well-known is a good thing.
Vote parent up, this is important info for anybody new to xkcd. Where are my mod points when I need them?
..1...0: password1234
I agree that their algos aren't perfect (unless you love Radiohead and other "indie" bands), but doing it Pandora-style is not scalable. Pandora have people labeling everything by hand. Need to change the labeling system? Add a lable? Have fun re-listening to everything.
Nice. Happy birthday to her from the internet.
Also USB is powered, so you should probably keep her away from them.
Moreover, can't we have both?
Dear proxy318, we would appreciate it if you stopped infringing on our intellectual properties.
It's so, so, sad when things.. slip.
Yours Truly,
The RIAA, representatives of The Baha Men
You are about to enjoy yourself.
Cancel / Allow
I'm going to bed.
Retro active law? Where the is your constitution now?(emphasis mine)
This is gut wrenching.
Hah, I was making a joke on the expense of the Slashdot demographic. I don't want kids for another ten years or so. We'll see.
Heh, well, you know where we are. (shit)
This method of collecting evidence assumes that the email addresses aren't collected using the same zombie computers that send the spam.
Two things can happen:
1) Spammers used their own computers, and (maybe) face the consequences - after this lawsuit the collecting is distributed onto zombies aswell. As long as there's a market, there'll be new people exploiting it.
or
2) The spammers didn't use their own computers to collect addresses, and will continue that way.
I thought it implied that "the europeans" had done something wrong, which I think is wrong for a number of reasons (there not being any union between europeans at that time, and many europeans getting constitutions along the way.)
The long argument after that has probably been useless to anybody but myself (as I'll explain soon,) and I apologize for it.
Ah, yes. I always find myself having to revise my world view again and again, as things I've previously taken for granted (eg UK constitution) turn out to be false. I appreciate the process, though.
Ah, no, I haven't heard of Jose Padilla - but even when assuming you hear of every action that is taken against somebody under the PATRIOT Act, you still won't hear anything from those who have been subjected to it's chilling effect. Those who have been frightened into not speaking because of bad prospects will hardly go public about it.
8 82723
Assuming that this is not a good enough argument that speech is not fully protected in the US, have a look at the more accurate parallels between this "Move" and the DMCA (censorship-wise) that I posted in this same thread, in reply to another poster: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=232255&cid=18
Also note that the FCC has a ban on "indecent" things in certain situations (on TV/radio.) Is this relevant? I say yes.
Ah, oops. My argument is still valid for most EU countries, though.
For the sake of staying on topic, I want to note that this Move to Ban Hate-Speech is likely to be rejected by some countries since it does go against their constitutions. I say some because others might not reject it. Sweden, for example, labels any (hate)speech that incites violence or threats as illegal.
Back to our argument again, the US constitution hasn't really helped ensure that any and all speech is protected - we've often seen content hosters pull down websites, most recently with DMCA notices in hand.
Now, this is the choice of the content hosters - they could have allowed the material to continue residing on their servers if they had a penchant for lawsuits. But it still shows that your constitution does not protect you when normal laws make you a criminal. If your normal laws can affect constitutional ones in such a way, then you are in the same seat as the UK - where the constitution-like effects are implemented as normal laws instead of special ones.
Also note that this Move to Ban Hate-Speech hasn't specified wether content blocking is to be done by hosters or ISPs, so it is a very preliminary suggestion rather than a law, at best. If they decide that ISPs should censor things, we're in a bad seat over here in the EU - but I don't see that happening yet.