It is about making all bits equal regardless of the source without any policy or practice being allowed that would allow that to be interfered with by anyone for any purpose.
In my opinion the worst of it comes from the main stream media.
I distinctly remember Obama using the main stream media to spread misinformation about what Snowden disclosed about his mass surveillance on the American people.
I postulate that Obama is priming people for the 2018 elections in hopes of stagnating the anti-Democrat outcry that will inevitably rear its head and spread via social media.
The mainstream media is liberal and social media can be anything. It is easier to control the message given by the mainstream media. That is what he's afraid of.
If you lie even unwittingly in your political ads you are using propaganda that is as bad as anything the Russians might have done. It is your absolute responsibility as the candidate to get it right without any extremism. If you don't correct it once you find out you are far more guilty than the Russians.
$100k in purchased ads where $67,000 of it was spent after the election, and where the other $43,000 of it was spent neither on positive nor negative ads about either candidate demonstrates the mainstream media's willingness to collude to allow the politicians to blatantly lie to the public.
Mainstream media didn't want. We the people on the other hand are far more difficult to assess. He's there obviously because the people wanted him. I'm sure promises of draining the swamp is a big factor.
But what the mainstream media wants is irrelevant.
The conspiracy has become accepted as fact. When I see this sort of thing I giggle some. The idea that we were affected and that we are worried about it enough to actually look up whether it affected us is so hilarious. That someone would or could think of making tool is sort of frightening and comedic at the same time.
You'd still have Pai and have the same situation even if Trump is gone. He'd do the same thing because the president doesn't have control over the FCC and Pai.
I'm not defending anything. I'm just pointing something out.
I think Pai is evil and he's been paid off. He's a puppet and nothing he can do will change that opinion.
The Judge in the Verizon case said they could do nothing unless the ISPs were classified under title ii. Wheeler's FCC reclassified them under title ii. Remove them from title ii and they can do nothing.
This new FCC guy is evil. He thinks he can propagandize his way out of the massive backlash.
120 million people said keep net neutrality. That represents the equivalent of every family in America.
The current chairman will remove them from title ii and put them under the FTC. The FTC says they have no power to enforce anything. Now the FCC says they will control the ISP's promises which itself is toothless because the ISPs will make no promises and since the FTC is the controlling agency yet toothless there's nothing but a con job going on here.
Hire more women will solve the problem? Really? You can hire more women all you want. If you want you should. If it is a legal obligation you should. However retention is about performance. You should not fear firing someone because of gender when the issue is about performance, but good luck with that.
A buddy of mine that worked construction was injured on the job and had to go on workman's compensation. He was paid by the state to take computer classes. He took some office administration classes (word processing & excel). I explained to him that with his background and mindset that he'd likely get in trouble with the ladies, that they'd rip him a new one, that even though he didn't intend to he'd be interpreted as a sexual harasser. Needless to say he stopped after finishing those classes and began taking engineering and CAD classes. He never got into the computer field but he did learn from me how to build a killer gaming rig.
Might it have been different if the women fought in the trenches next to men? That's a serious question. There is no measure that you can put in place that equals that experience on the whole. Survivors coming back knew that they'd left their jobs expecting to return to them if they survived and I'll bet that nearly all of the men collectively understood what they'd been through together in defeating the Japanese & Nazis. I think when women are forced into war as men were during WWII through the selective service and that they fight and die attitudes will change.
There's nothing like when a "generation removed" tries to teach a lesson to the people that lived it. It sends the wrong message to the generations that follow.
Most women thought, and openly expressed, openly mocked, computer use as being the domain of the nerd. As someone that actively encouraged women to become more involved I can say that the predominant attitude by them was that "computers are for nerds".
Men didn't make it too inviting, however that wasn't their responsibility. It wasn't their purview.
Granted men did create a highly competitive environment and this was filled with intimidation because the work was intimidating. It was. If someone wasn't able to embrace that they obviously wouldn't stick around, male or female. I'm sure the atmosphere created by this was intimidating to the point of being viewed as hostile by some. This intimidation didn't keep men from pursuing their goals.
I remember playing darts with a friend who was into computers. We were talking about Macintosh vs. DOS. I asked him how he got involved. He talked about his brother that worked for Industrial Light & Magic (ILM). He told me that he was writing drivers for some hardware component for the Macintosh. He told me his brother had taken some "obscure math" class in college and that ILM was looking for anyone that had that knowledge. This was when I lived in the heart of Silicon Valley so I had no reason to disbelieve his story.
Back in the early tech days competition was heavy and hard. People would enter and leave in droves. They'd enter because it was a new skills market and they'd leave as they failed to achieve or they burned out. I noted back then that so many left yet I stuck it out -- I didn't seem to burn out.
Learning technology is a very personal thing. I mean most of those that stayed with it were people that spent their nights and weekends learning everything they could. Their job didn't stop at the close of business. If you wanted to learn a new programming language -- the up and coming new one such as C or C++ or C# -- you traditionally built on your prior knowledge. It took months if not years to learn these languages adequately, and that didn't always happen by going back to school. In fact, I'd venture a say that it rarely happened that way. I can't say what occurred at the level of the executives, but I can say that it wasn't likely that anyone was going to achieve the level of executive unless they had an intense indepth of knowledge in the field.
If you weren't into software then you were into hardware and if you weren't into hardware or software you were into support. It took years to learn to design hardware, and that most often required a degree in electrical engineering and/or math. So, if you weren't going for a degree to develop computer hardware and you weren't developing software then you were supporting infrastructure and/or the users. That took a broad understanding of multiple areas. You needed to know how the hardware basically functioned and you needed to know how software was supposed to work more than you needed to know how a specific piece of software/program worked. For instance, you needed to know the idea behind word processing versus knowing a specific word processor. You needed to be able to look at a piece of software that you'd never seen before and know why it broke -- and you did know because you knew how software was supposed to work. None of these skills came over night. You needed to thoroughly indoctrinate yourself and you needed to be around others that didn't mislead you, around people that also knew their stuff, and if you couldn't put up with the competition you were shunned. If someone was able to deal with that then whether they were a man or a woman didn't matter.
I do remember many times where I heard a complaint that such and such wouldn't teach such and such a person. When asking about it I'd get a response that that person just didn't get it or took too much time away from what they were do
Untrue. The prior suits were over the sale of cheats, re: the blizzard lawsuits. Yes blizzard is right in saying it violates the anti circumvention part of the dmca. And blizzard could show harm in those cases. However, the kid is NOT guilty of secondary copyright infringement anymore so than if he were to write a letter about it or speak about it to others.
It is an abuse. The dmca is pretty specific. If epic doesn't own the video then they cannot use the dmca to issue a takedown. To say otherwise is to cheat. Epic will first need to prove they own the video. The court would also have to hear the case where epic would have to prove it is an actual cheat. It would further have to prove harm as in monetary loss.
They have a long road ahead. They can't just pick on some 14 year old kid by threatening his family's well being. Remember the kid didn't write the cheat software, he is just showing how it is used.
What Epic did is a misuse of the dmca, and the kid is right to fight it. Epic does not own the copyright to the video nor the cheat app. I dislike cheat apps immensely but I dislike more that Epic is itself cheating by abusing their position in misusing and abusing the dmca.
I had not visited breitbart.com before Trump's presidency. I had not watched Fox News for almost a decade. After hearing all this negativism about Trump, Bannon, Hannity, and others on these networks I decided to go and listen. Prior to that I read news articles and watched the actual videos on youtube.com. When someone, anyone, said that Trump said this or that I'd go get the full clip and watch. Most of the time it turned out to be false. It was someone making an interpretation (often extreme) and taking the comments out of context.
Trump didn't help, as the way he spoke was confusing, but if you were good enough you'd be able to work out what he was really trying to say. Knowing that the mass media was supporting Hillary I knew to take the news media to task, as we all should every day.
Getting back to breitbart.com and Fox News...well, about 2 months after Trump's win, with all the negative things being said and after hearing Trump supported both of those entities, I decided to go to those places to find out for myself. I read all those nasty things about them and I wanted to see if they were true.
I didn't find what I was hearing to be the case. These were not extremist sites. Fox News wasn't out making up news or offering up extreme interpretations and breitbart.com was nothing like I expected. It was pretty tame. I'd read comments and articles from various sources provided through reddit.com that were 100s of times worse than anything I saw on either Fox or breitbart.com.
I read all sorts of very negative comments by reddit members with a lot of those being hysterical and hostile, even to the point of calling for Trump and his son to be executed. You have to tell some of those people to take a break from all this. It was obviously getting to them.
Now, I don't visit either site often but when someone links to them I will go there and read the article. I try to read the comments. Sometimes they are quite extreme and other times they are well thought out, however I found breitbart.com is nothing like it is being described.
I read recently on breitbart.com that according to Alexa data breitbart.com has a higher traffic ranking (48th place) than the Washington Post (50th place).
If you haven't read the Washington Post, well some of that is outright batshit crazy and it is obvious that they are manipulating their readership. I read that Hannity has a larger audience than most of the competing news entities.
What Bezos said is that his Washington Post is basically acting as an echo chamber for his readers which are already predisposed to those kind of stories. My friends, that is no longer a news entity. If you haven't been paying attention to the headlines there you should be and if you do you'll note that almost every one of their articles is an opinion piece (opin-news). Frankly, I don't want to read opinion, I want to read just the news, however boring that may be.
I can't say that I have heard much propaganda on Fox. I don't watch a lot of it because I have other things to do. However, from what I have watched though it may be slanted toward Trump I think it is a necessary thing. It doesn't bother me as long as they are right or at least trying to be right.
What I find more onerous are shows on MSNBC and CNN. Those are some outright extremists and often tell blatant lies meant to damage Trump and his presidency. This is not in question.
We've seen analysis showing that 90+ % of news on stations like MSNBC and CNN and even WaPo are negative about Trump while there's nothing like that on Fox News.
I've tracked what has been going on ever since I watched CNN and others that were distorting Trump's commentary during the election run up. I watched pundits for those shows on those networks literally come on and say Trump is Hitler, that he's a Nazi, that he's a white supremacist, that he's going to blow the world up with nukes, that he's a fascist. I've even read supporters say that Trump and Trump Jr. should be executed. I've watched employees of ESPN say that Trump is a white supremacist and that employee essentially got a way with it.
What Fox has been calling for is an investigation into a person's criminal activities and the activities by people in association with her. I have no problem with this call to action and I can't even begin to say how wrong it is to say Fox is generating propaganda. We have congressmen and senators calling for investigations and a special council something they have been doing for long time now.
We have the likes of CNN and MSNBC and others outright making claims of Russian collusion even though there's been no evidence that there is collusion over an investigation that's been ongoing for more than 10 months. We have the democrats filing for articles of impeachment against Trump something that is unrealistic and intended to sway the voters in the 2018 mid term elections. By the way virtually every Republican president including Reagan have been either threatened with impeachment or had articles of impeachment filed against them by the democrats. Without telling you that tidbit you have the likes of MSNBC & CNN making a huge deal out of it.
Frankly, political views can and should be expressed by anyone, and read by anyone willing to listen.
There's no way Google can engineer propaganda out. Propaganda is a subjective term.
Literally this is the government trying to censor by proxy.
This is bad as Google is a defacto monopoly. If the government does this it would be a violation of the constitution, and to proxy it to a defacto monopoly, that's not covered by the constitution, it leaves American citizens without recourse.
I don't need Google to do this, I don't wish for anyone to tell me what I should or should not be reading. They are telling everyone that they are stupid and incapable of understanding the good and bad behind any given assertion.
He's saying that an aberration is just that. Gun deaths are caused by people using a tool and they are a statistical aberration when viewed against the whole. He's saying mass shootings aren't a common occurrence, unlike vehicle deaths or deaths by falling, etc.
Find the cause that motivates the mass shootings and correct that.
What about the 100,000+ lives saved because of the hundreds of millions of people that did adhere to the request to not text and drive? There will always be some that don't adhere. Most of us do because were aren't stupid, or if we are stupid we don't want to expose that.
Women are equal so giving them special status is no longer appropriate.
Apple neither possesses the phone nor is it the owner of the phone.
Everything that applied in the San Bernardino case still applies.
Apple typically always gives the icloud data without hesitation as it isn't the equivalent of breaking their own encryption.
The San Bernardino case was about forcing Apple to break their encryption technology and not about gaining access to the icloud data since they provided the data that was stored on their servers.
The San Bernardino case was about the encrypted data stored on the phone that had not been synced to the cloud. It was about the government forcing a 3rd party uninvolved in the crime to reverse engineer their technology.
As I'm sure all grocery chains do. You can look up on Google for Kroger lowering prices and see that what Jeff Bezos is doing is just typical for grocery chains making this a non-news story. It only gets the exposure it does because Bezos also owns The Washington Post and he gets free publicity.
Frankly I see it as manipulative when it is literally just how grocery stores do normal business.
The wording seems to grant them permission to ban anyone that supports what they deem bad. That is ripe for abuse. It gives them carte blanche to censor anyone. I'm sure they could do this already, but this codifies the alleged legitimacy of their acts of censorship.
There are a lot people that made claims where those people were considered trolls. Those people were shutdown and smeared by the accused and this was successful because the accused were more powerful and successful. They were made out to be something they were not. For example, the claims of President Clinton's accusers that were once reviled by the media and smeared by Hillary that are now getting some justice. How do you deal with effectively silencing them and the effect of your actions in doing so years later, like Bill Clinton's accusers? Don't be fooled because we are not just talking about white supremacists. As despicable as white supremacists are they are being targeted like we make Russia the target of every negative political claim.
I believe slashdot uses that to embed ads so they can't be blocked. If you view page source on the main slashdot page you'll see what I mean. Of course I could be misunderstanding what Mozilla is saying and/or what slashdot is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
It is about making all bits equal regardless of the source without any policy or practice being allowed that would allow that to be interfered with by anyone for any purpose.
Windows 10 is not better than Linux.
Slashdot is social media.
In my opinion the worst of it comes from the main stream media.
I distinctly remember Obama using the main stream media to spread misinformation about what Snowden disclosed about his mass surveillance on the American people.
I postulate that Obama is priming people for the 2018 elections in hopes of stagnating the anti-Democrat outcry that will inevitably rear its head and spread via social media.
The mainstream media is liberal and social media can be anything. It is easier to control the message given by the mainstream media. That is what he's afraid of.
If you lie even unwittingly in your political ads you are using propaganda that is as bad as anything the Russians might have done. It is your absolute responsibility as the candidate to get it right without any extremism. If you don't correct it once you find out you are far more guilty than the Russians.
$100k in purchased ads where $67,000 of it was spent after the election, and where the other $43,000 of it was spent neither on positive nor negative ads about either candidate demonstrates the mainstream media's willingness to collude to allow the politicians to blatantly lie to the public.
Mainstream media didn't want. We the people on the other hand are far more difficult to assess. He's there obviously because the people wanted him. I'm sure promises of draining the swamp is a big factor.
But what the mainstream media wants is irrelevant.
The conspiracy has become accepted as fact. When I see this sort of thing I giggle some. The idea that we were affected and that we are worried about it enough to actually look up whether it affected us is so hilarious. That someone would or could think of making tool is sort of frightening and comedic at the same time.
You'd still have Pai and have the same situation even if Trump is gone. He'd do the same thing because the president doesn't have control over the FCC and Pai.
I'm not defending anything. I'm just pointing something out.
I think Pai is evil and he's been paid off. He's a puppet and nothing he can do will change that opinion.
The Judge in the Verizon case said they could do nothing unless the ISPs were classified under title ii. Wheeler's FCC reclassified them under title ii. Remove them from title ii and they can do nothing.
This new FCC guy is evil. He thinks he can propagandize his way out of the massive backlash.
120 million people said keep net neutrality. That represents the equivalent of every family in America.
The current chairman will remove them from title ii and put them under the FTC. The FTC says they have no power to enforce anything. Now the FCC says they will control the ISP's promises which itself is toothless because the ISPs will make no promises and since the FTC is the controlling agency yet toothless there's nothing but a con job going on here.
Hire more women will solve the problem? Really? You can hire more women all you want. If you want you should. If it is a legal obligation you should. However retention is about performance. You should not fear firing someone because of gender when the issue is about performance, but good luck with that.
A buddy of mine that worked construction was injured on the job and had to go on workman's compensation. He was paid by the state to take computer classes. He took some office administration classes (word processing & excel). I explained to him that with his background and mindset that he'd likely get in trouble with the ladies, that they'd rip him a new one, that even though he didn't intend to he'd be interpreted as a sexual harasser. Needless to say he stopped after finishing those classes and began taking engineering and CAD classes. He never got into the computer field but he did learn from me how to build a killer gaming rig.
Might it have been different if the women fought in the trenches next to men? That's a serious question. There is no measure that you can put in place that equals that experience on the whole. Survivors coming back knew that they'd left their jobs expecting to return to them if they survived and I'll bet that nearly all of the men collectively understood what they'd been through together in defeating the Japanese & Nazis. I think when women are forced into war as men were during WWII through the selective service and that they fight and die attitudes will change.
There's nothing like when a "generation removed" tries to teach a lesson to the people that lived it. It sends the wrong message to the generations that follow.
Most women thought, and openly expressed, openly mocked, computer use as being the domain of the nerd. As someone that actively encouraged women to become more involved I can say that the predominant attitude by them was that "computers are for nerds".
Men didn't make it too inviting, however that wasn't their responsibility. It wasn't their purview.
Granted men did create a highly competitive environment and this was filled with intimidation because the work was intimidating. It was. If someone wasn't able to embrace that they obviously wouldn't stick around, male or female. I'm sure the atmosphere created by this was intimidating to the point of being viewed as hostile by some. This intimidation didn't keep men from pursuing their goals.
I remember playing darts with a friend who was into computers. We were talking about Macintosh vs. DOS. I asked him how he got involved. He talked about his brother that worked for Industrial Light & Magic (ILM). He told me that he was writing drivers for some hardware component for the Macintosh. He told me his brother had taken some "obscure math" class in college and that ILM was looking for anyone that had that knowledge. This was when I lived in the heart of Silicon Valley so I had no reason to disbelieve his story.
Back in the early tech days competition was heavy and hard. People would enter and leave in droves. They'd enter because it was a new skills market and they'd leave as they failed to achieve or they burned out. I noted back then that so many left yet I stuck it out -- I didn't seem to burn out.
Learning technology is a very personal thing. I mean most of those that stayed with it were people that spent their nights and weekends learning everything they could. Their job didn't stop at the close of business. If you wanted to learn a new programming language -- the up and coming new one such as C or C++ or C# -- you traditionally built on your prior knowledge. It took months if not years to learn these languages adequately, and that didn't always happen by going back to school. In fact, I'd venture a say that it rarely happened that way. I can't say what occurred at the level of the executives, but I can say that it wasn't likely that anyone was going to achieve the level of executive unless they had an intense indepth of knowledge in the field.
If you weren't into software then you were into hardware and if you weren't into hardware or software you were into support. It took years to learn to design hardware, and that most often required a degree in electrical engineering and/or math. So, if you weren't going for a degree to develop computer hardware and you weren't developing software then you were supporting infrastructure and/or the users. That took a broad understanding of multiple areas. You needed to know how the hardware basically functioned and you needed to know how software was supposed to work more than you needed to know how a specific piece of software/program worked. For instance, you needed to know the idea behind word processing versus knowing a specific word processor. You needed to be able to look at a piece of software that you'd never seen before and know why it broke -- and you did know because you knew how software was supposed to work. None of these skills came over night. You needed to thoroughly indoctrinate yourself and you needed to be around others that didn't mislead you, around people that also knew their stuff, and if you couldn't put up with the competition you were shunned. If someone was able to deal with that then whether they were a man or a woman didn't matter.
I do remember many times where I heard a complaint that such and such wouldn't teach such and such a person. When asking about it I'd get a response that that person just didn't get it or took too much time away from what they were do
Untrue. The prior suits were over the sale of cheats, re: the blizzard lawsuits. Yes blizzard is right in saying it violates the anti circumvention part of the dmca. And blizzard could show harm in those cases. However, the kid is NOT guilty of secondary copyright infringement anymore so than if he were to write a letter about it or speak about it to others.
It is an abuse. The dmca is pretty specific. If epic doesn't own the video then they cannot use the dmca to issue a takedown. To say otherwise is to cheat. Epic will first need to prove they own the video. The court would also have to hear the case where epic would have to prove it is an actual cheat. It would further have to prove harm as in monetary loss.
They have a long road ahead. They can't just pick on some 14 year old kid by threatening his family's well being. Remember the kid didn't write the cheat software, he is just showing how it is used.
What Epic did is a misuse of the dmca, and the kid is right to fight it. Epic does not own the copyright to the video nor the cheat app. I dislike cheat apps immensely but I dislike more that Epic is itself cheating by abusing their position in misusing and abusing the dmca.
I don't believe him even for a minute, but I understand what and why he's saying it.
I had not visited breitbart.com before Trump's presidency. I had not watched Fox News for almost a decade. After hearing all this negativism about Trump, Bannon, Hannity, and others on these networks I decided to go and listen. Prior to that I read news articles and watched the actual videos on youtube.com. When someone, anyone, said that Trump said this or that I'd go get the full clip and watch. Most of the time it turned out to be false. It was someone making an interpretation (often extreme) and taking the comments out of context.
Trump didn't help, as the way he spoke was confusing, but if you were good enough you'd be able to work out what he was really trying to say. Knowing that the mass media was supporting Hillary I knew to take the news media to task, as we all should every day.
Getting back to breitbart.com and Fox News...well, about 2 months after Trump's win, with all the negative things being said and after hearing Trump supported both of those entities, I decided to go to those places to find out for myself. I read all those nasty things about them and I wanted to see if they were true.
I didn't find what I was hearing to be the case. These were not extremist sites. Fox News wasn't out making up news or offering up extreme interpretations and breitbart.com was nothing like I expected. It was pretty tame. I'd read comments and articles from various sources provided through reddit.com that were 100s of times worse than anything I saw on either Fox or breitbart.com.
I read all sorts of very negative comments by reddit members with a lot of those being hysterical and hostile, even to the point of calling for Trump and his son to be executed. You have to tell some of those people to take a break from all this. It was obviously getting to them.
Now, I don't visit either site often but when someone links to them I will go there and read the article. I try to read the comments. Sometimes they are quite extreme and other times they are well thought out, however I found breitbart.com is nothing like it is being described.
I read recently on breitbart.com that according to Alexa data breitbart.com has a higher traffic ranking (48th place) than the Washington Post (50th place).
If you haven't read the Washington Post, well some of that is outright batshit crazy and it is obvious that they are manipulating their readership. I read that Hannity has a larger audience than most of the competing news entities.
What Bezos said is that his Washington Post is basically acting as an echo chamber for his readers which are already predisposed to those kind of stories. My friends, that is no longer a news entity. If you haven't been paying attention to the headlines there you should be and if you do you'll note that almost every one of their articles is an opinion piece (opin-news). Frankly, I don't want to read opinion, I want to read just the news, however boring that may be.
I can't say that I have heard much propaganda on Fox. I don't watch a lot of it because I have other things to do. However, from what I have watched though it may be slanted toward Trump I think it is a necessary thing. It doesn't bother me as long as they are right or at least trying to be right.
What I find more onerous are shows on MSNBC and CNN. Those are some outright extremists and often tell blatant lies meant to damage Trump and his presidency. This is not in question.
We've seen analysis showing that 90+ % of news on stations like MSNBC and CNN and even WaPo are negative about Trump while there's nothing like that on Fox News.
I've tracked what has been going on ever since I watched CNN and others that were distorting Trump's commentary during the election run up. I watched pundits for those shows on those networks literally come on and say Trump is Hitler, that he's a Nazi, that he's a white supremacist, that he's going to blow the world up with nukes, that he's a fascist. I've even read supporters say that Trump and Trump Jr. should be executed. I've watched employees of ESPN say that Trump is a white supremacist and that employee essentially got a way with it.
What Fox has been calling for is an investigation into a person's criminal activities and the activities by people in association with her. I have no problem with this call to action and I can't even begin to say how wrong it is to say Fox is generating propaganda. We have congressmen and senators calling for investigations and a special council something they have been doing for long time now.
We have the likes of CNN and MSNBC and others outright making claims of Russian collusion even though there's been no evidence that there is collusion over an investigation that's been ongoing for more than 10 months. We have the democrats filing for articles of impeachment against Trump something that is unrealistic and intended to sway the voters in the 2018 mid term elections. By the way virtually every Republican president including Reagan have been either threatened with impeachment or had articles of impeachment filed against them by the democrats. Without telling you that tidbit you have the likes of MSNBC & CNN making a huge deal out of it.
Frankly, political views can and should be expressed by anyone, and read by anyone willing to listen.
There's no way Google can engineer propaganda out. Propaganda is a subjective term.
Literally this is the government trying to censor by proxy.
This is bad as Google is a defacto monopoly. If the government does this it would be a violation of the constitution, and to proxy it to a defacto monopoly, that's not covered by the constitution, it leaves American citizens without recourse.
I don't need Google to do this, I don't wish for anyone to tell me what I should or should not be reading. They are telling everyone that they are stupid and incapable of understanding the good and bad behind any given assertion.
He's saying that an aberration is just that. Gun deaths are caused by people using a tool and they are a statistical aberration when viewed against the whole. He's saying mass shootings aren't a common occurrence, unlike vehicle deaths or deaths by falling, etc.
Find the cause that motivates the mass shootings and correct that.
It is not the tool. It is the person.
What about the 100,000+ lives saved because of the hundreds of millions of people that did adhere to the request to not text and drive? There will always be some that don't adhere. Most of us do because were aren't stupid, or if we are stupid we don't want to expose that.
Women are equal so giving them special status is no longer appropriate.
Apple neither possesses the phone nor is it the owner of the phone.
Everything that applied in the San Bernardino case still applies.
Apple typically always gives the icloud data without hesitation as it isn't the equivalent of breaking their own encryption.
The San Bernardino case was about forcing Apple to break their encryption technology and not about gaining access to the icloud data since they provided the data that was stored on their servers.
The San Bernardino case was about the encrypted data stored on the phone that had not been synced to the cloud. It was about the government forcing a 3rd party uninvolved in the crime to reverse engineer their technology.
As I'm sure all grocery chains do. You can look up on Google for Kroger lowering prices and see that what Jeff Bezos is doing is just typical for grocery chains making this a non-news story. It only gets the exposure it does because Bezos also owns The Washington Post and he gets free publicity.
Frankly I see it as manipulative when it is literally just how grocery stores do normal business.
The wording seems to grant them permission to ban anyone that supports what they deem bad. That is ripe for abuse. It gives them carte blanche to censor anyone. I'm sure they could do this already, but this codifies the alleged legitimacy of their acts of censorship.
There are a lot people that made claims where those people were considered trolls. Those people were shutdown and smeared by the accused and this was successful because the accused were more powerful and successful. They were made out to be something they were not. For example, the claims of President Clinton's accusers that were once reviled by the media and smeared by Hillary that are now getting some justice. How do you deal with effectively silencing them and the effect of your actions in doing so years later, like Bill Clinton's accusers? Don't be fooled because we are not just talking about white supremacists. As despicable as white supremacists are they are being targeted like we make Russia the target of every negative political claim.
I believe slashdot uses that to embed ads so they can't be blocked. If you view page source on the main slashdot page you'll see what I mean. Of course I could be misunderstanding what Mozilla is saying and/or what slashdot is doing.