Protecting the US economy does however imply not fucking over America's IT industry, which the inane data access laws are likely to do.
Australian companies are already losing business or migrating key operations to other countries because the Australian government enacted idiotic laws. Spanish media screamed when the government enacted the idiotic laws they asked for because they lost so much business.
Governments are struggling to understand that technology makes it easy to avoid damaging laws.
Azure, AWS, etc host a shitton of confidential information from some of the biggest companies in the world. You'd think with that kind of a target we'd be hearing daily about breaches. Instead we get an endless string of breaches from companies that have failed to secure their own servers, or attempted to roll their own cloud infrastructure.
There are weekly fucking stories about data on AWS being illicitly accessed. It's fucking commonplace.
The reason you don't hear about cloud services being hacked is because the responsibility and thus blame is always dropped on the end user organisation.
The cloud is not secure, quite apart from shitty us laws.
No, a fucking idiot wrote the summary. The department exists to enforce data protection laws irrespective of in which country a company breaching them is based.
The Chief Security Officer at the time of the breach was a music major, not the CTO.
Which is also incidentally entirely fucking irrelevant. E.g. Brian Honan has a Diploma in Industrial Relations, and good luck hiring someone more qualified than him.
In a constrained way that's actually necessary in order to provide the service.
E.g. if the sentence you quoted was directly followed by "to promote, attract and deliver the subscription service on behalf of the creator"
In that regard it's similar to Youtube requiring permission to host and share your videos. But this is Facebook so I'm less convinced that this isn't an IP grab in exactly the form you're fearing (and because it's on Facebook I'm not sullying my browser by going to find the T&Cs to check).
Network effects. But the correct answer is to use Facebook for the free attractors and link to the paywalled site that's under full control of the creator.
they portray themselves as someone who pays creators
Oh, that's dodgy as hell if it's true. Set up a patreon account, post some utter shite that's a by-product of your daily activities and then hit them with a minimum wage claim.
To be fair Patreon was doing superbly. 5% covered payment fees and paid for itself with network effects, and also by making it easy and possible for subscribers to easily share their funds across multiple creators.
Then they tried to fuck over the subscribers to make more profit, then they tried to fuck over the creators to make more profit and then they went all political and now they're in financial trouble.
Well, for a start they all sit in the same office.
I suspect they also get performance ratings based on whether their moderations get overturned, and that gives them tremendous incentive to avoid that happening.
I can easily believe that the meta-moderator is expected to provide a written reason for overruling, and you'd soon learn who writes in which styles.
No matter how many sockpuppet accounts they use to try to make themselves appear like the majority
Having read through so many comments in this discussion and seen so many ACs wrongly state
a lot of people who can't stand the idea of a female superhero have begun brigading the voting
I can only say that you've overloaded my irony meter.
You appear to have a very strange and worrying inability to gather, assess and understand information. The only people claiming that there's this large mass of people who can't stand the idea of a female superhero are the ones deriding that mythical group.
I still suspect much of the hate is from, as the OP said "a certain immature troll section of the internet" reacting to a female lead.
I've heard no hatred on that count. I did hear some mutterings about a white woman playing a black woman's role, and I've heard a fuck of a lot of bitching about the marketing and publicity for the film going on about 'men are hating this because misogyny'.
If the publicity had focussed on 'awesome story, great effects, stupendous acting and a really fun time' then people would be ticking the "I want to watch this" option on Rotten Tomatoes, irrespective of the female lead.
I mean, shit, Wonder Woman was well marketed, well received and thoroughly supported by the general public and the people into comic books. Female superheroes are popular, female leads in films are established and popular, this is all manufactured outrage to boost publicity and potentially deflect from a sub-par film.
Claiming the film was a triumph for diversity when most of the cast had the same skin colour was offensive. Claiming that Africa would all be like Wakanda if it wasn't for the evil colonialists was offensive. Claiming the film was 10/10 must see best film ever is still fucking offensive.
It was ok, a bit much CGI but it's a superhero movie and pretty generic in that regard so shrug.
Did people really think that? I thought it was a reasonably good film and although there was a clear use of skin colour within the story it didn't feel racist at all.
We're the guys who'll drop 200EUR on a pair indoors sports shoes and not even blink, because we know how much it sucks to get blisters because shoe doesn't fit quite right
I've never had a blister from playing indoor sports and I've never spent (even adjusted for inflation) 100EUR on sports shoes, let alone twice that.
But I'm from an older generation, that knows to buy shoes that fit right and that also knows that shoe fit is orthogonal with price.
As indeed you've found out, by spending less on a perfectly good shoe. Fucking amazing that.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
Don't be fucking silly.
Europe forces its laws on every company in the world
Ah, that old canard.
No, GDPR is not forced onto every company in the world.
Companies wanting to operate or provide services in the EU must comply with EU law. What the mothering fuck is wrong with that?
Protecting the US economy does however imply not fucking over America's IT industry, which the inane data access laws are likely to do.
Australian companies are already losing business or migrating key operations to other countries because the Australian government enacted idiotic laws. Spanish media screamed when the government enacted the idiotic laws they asked for because they lost so much business.
Governments are struggling to understand that technology makes it easy to avoid damaging laws.
Azure, AWS, etc host a shitton of confidential information from some of the biggest companies in the world. You'd think with that kind of a target we'd be hearing daily about breaches. Instead we get an endless string of breaches from companies that have failed to secure their own servers, or attempted to roll their own cloud infrastructure.
There are weekly fucking stories about data on AWS being illicitly accessed. It's fucking commonplace.
The reason you don't hear about cloud services being hacked is because the responsibility and thus blame is always dropped on the end user organisation.
The cloud is not secure, quite apart from shitty us laws.
No, a fucking idiot wrote the summary. The department exists to enforce data protection laws irrespective of in which country a company breaching them is based.
an adversary that seeks military conflict with the US
Does it fuck. Where's the slightest shred of evidence for that?
They don't shy away from risking military conflict with the US but refusing to be bullied isn't seeking conflict.
The CTO was a music major
The Chief Security Officer at the time of the breach was a music major, not the CTO.
Which is also incidentally entirely fucking irrelevant. E.g. Brian Honan has a Diploma in Industrial Relations, and good luck hiring someone more qualified than him.
Once the threat of jail time is held over any CxO position, good fucking luck filling it.
Multiple positions at Financial Services companies (e.g. banks) in the UK incur the threat of jail time, including CxO positions and less senior ones.
There's plenty of competition for those roles.
https://www.polygon.com/2017/1... - charging people 38c for a $1 contribution.
https://www.allsides.com/blog/...
Patreon have 2 million people giving money through the platform every month.
Facebook have nearer to none.
In a constrained way that's actually necessary in order to provide the service.
E.g. if the sentence you quoted was directly followed by "to promote, attract and deliver the subscription service on behalf of the creator"
In that regard it's similar to Youtube requiring permission to host and share your videos. But this is Facebook so I'm less convinced that this isn't an IP grab in exactly the form you're fearing (and because it's on Facebook I'm not sullying my browser by going to find the T&Cs to check).
Network effects. But the correct answer is to use Facebook for the free attractors and link to the paywalled site that's under full control of the creator.
they portray themselves as someone who pays creators
Oh, that's dodgy as hell if it's true. Set up a patreon account, post some utter shite that's a by-product of your daily activities and then hit them with a minimum wage claim.
To be fair Patreon was doing superbly. 5% covered payment fees and paid for itself with network effects, and also by making it easy and possible for subscribers to easily share their funds across multiple creators.
Then they tried to fuck over the subscribers to make more profit, then they tried to fuck over the creators to make more profit and then they went all political and now they're in financial trouble.
Idiots.
Well, for a start they all sit in the same office.
I suspect they also get performance ratings based on whether their moderations get overturned, and that gives them tremendous incentive to avoid that happening.
I can easily believe that the meta-moderator is expected to provide a written reason for overruling, and you'd soon learn who writes in which styles.
There are plenty of legitime uses for FB, e.g. organizing events.
"Why didn't you come to my party?"
"What party?"
Yeah, fuckwits thinking Facebook is the right place to organise shit and not tell anybody can go fuck themselves.
Indeed. Plus they have the chance to program into it the ability to identify weddings and put up big warnings telling idiots not to shoot.
No matter how many sockpuppet accounts they use to try to make themselves appear like the majority
Having read through so many comments in this discussion and seen so many ACs wrongly state
a lot of people who can't stand the idea of a female superhero have begun brigading the voting
I can only say that you've overloaded my irony meter.
You appear to have a very strange and worrying inability to gather, assess and understand information. The only people claiming that there's this large mass of people who can't stand the idea of a female superhero are the ones deriding that mythical group.
I still suspect much of the hate is from, as the OP said "a certain immature troll section of the internet" reacting to a female lead.
I've heard no hatred on that count. I did hear some mutterings about a white woman playing a black woman's role, and I've heard a fuck of a lot of bitching about the marketing and publicity for the film going on about 'men are hating this because misogyny'.
If the publicity had focussed on 'awesome story, great effects, stupendous acting and a really fun time' then people would be ticking the "I want to watch this" option on Rotten Tomatoes, irrespective of the female lead.
I mean, shit, Wonder Woman was well marketed, well received and thoroughly supported by the general public and the people into comic books. Female superheroes are popular, female leads in films are established and popular, this is all manufactured outrage to boost publicity and potentially deflect from a sub-par film.
Claiming the film was a triumph for diversity when most of the cast had the same skin colour was offensive.
Claiming that Africa would all be like Wakanda if it wasn't for the evil colonialists was offensive.
Claiming the film was 10/10 must see best film ever is still fucking offensive.
It was ok, a bit much CGI but it's a superhero movie and pretty generic in that regard so shrug.
because it was "racist against white people."
Did people really think that? I thought it was a reasonably good film and although there was a clear use of skin colour within the story it didn't feel racist at all.
We're the guys who'll drop 200EUR on a pair indoors sports shoes and not even blink, because we know how much it sucks to get blisters because shoe doesn't fit quite right
I've never had a blister from playing indoor sports and I've never spent (even adjusted for inflation) 100EUR on sports shoes, let alone twice that.
But I'm from an older generation, that knows to buy shoes that fit right and that also knows that shoe fit is orthogonal with price.
As indeed you've found out, by spending less on a perfectly good shoe. Fucking amazing that.
What "sort of people" do you mean?
I think it's very clear that he meant "people that buy Nike branded products".
Own your repugnant views.
What's repugnant about acknowledging that Nike products are bought by people that buy Nike products? You're confusing me.
can detect real world physical objects and allow you to seamlessly interact with them using hand and finger gestures
Well, yes. The Mk1 Eyeball supports that too. It's called "picking things up".
So every near-misses and door dents we'll have to pay over $2000
Worse than that. It'll turn near misses into hits.
That pedestrian timing crossing the street perfectly? Now on his arse and costing you money.
The cyclist coming down your near side when you're trying to turn? Yep, you're definitely getting her now.
That small child you successfully slammed on the brakes and avoided by mere mm? Now you get to punt it down the street.
I'll skip this one thanks.