Re:Logins disabled? Can't export followed projects
on
Freecode Freezeup
·
· Score: 1
Come on, this is dice! You're just hosed. You can always email their support, I'm sure they can send you some marketing-speak like they did to me, promising they really care about us while still maintaining the policy of hosing us.
What, you were personally invested in your personal preferences and histories and usage data?! Dice thought you were creating that data just to make them money. They have no moral or ethical concept to indicate that you would actually own the data you created.
Actually, if you put standard ads in it, then it should only cost $20/m for a small VPS if you have no traffic, and it would make a small amount of money at moderate traffic. You can just hand that over to the volunteer maintainers. Even a site like freshmeat with a high percent of ad-blockers should serve enough ads to pay for traffic.
There is none, they all got bought up and then killed off.
Probably somebody warned them before they bought it that it wouldn't make them money, but they decided to buy it anyways thinking it had other value. Well, it did. But it turns out they didn't share those values.
Google also has video search as part of the "google" service, that includes videos from numerous other (competing) video services. So yeah. If you don't think things mean what they literally say, and are just happy assuming they mean (whatever), then fine. But if you actually comprehend the literal statements made, and the statement made would be evil, but the truth turns out to be not evil at all, but a neutral business decision that they're free to make, then how can you even make use of language? Anything could just mean something else, if you're ready to assume it means something different than what is said.
How does YouTube go about determining whether a particular Partner video that happens to include music is a "music video"?
The way this works in any sort of service is, if you're not sure, then the restrictions apply. The only way you can't tell is if it at least partially a music video, but you don't want it to be.
Same as anything, straddle the lines, follow the rules on both sides. Easy to do, or easy to fail at and whine about.
I don't like their policy change, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if your main consideration is just to get the best press, you're going to have to spend money, comply with various policies from various companies, and probably even hire people that specialize in knowing how to work the different policies and options at a bunch of different companies.
If your main concern is money and getting attention, it seems like you're not really the right group of people to be complaining about this sort of policy change. It seems actually the people who would complain are bands that don't want to maximize their profits and exposure, but want to post videos online based on some sort of moral or ethical stance towards sharing information. For those groups, they shouldn't then also whine that the money-focused groups are bigger. Which is it they prioritize, money, or other things? They should figure it out, host their videos on the one that is closest to their goals, and quit whining that they didn't choose the other way, or that they "can't have it all at the same time."
They should just do like you say, put it on their own site, and either pay to generate traffic, or worry less about getting more traffic. If people don't care about their site... that says it all right there.
uhhhhh.... it isn't new. Or new-ish. Or close to new. Or even some niche site that nobody uses. It is a popular site with a lot of traffic. If you don't know about it, it means you don't know much about what video sites there are. That's fine. But it is like not knowing about a band that has had a bunch of top 40 hits for 10 years, but no top 10. People who listen to new music would all know about such a band. People who listen to old music, maybe not. And yet, it would be a popular band.
MS got in trouble for using their monopoly on operating systems to manipulate other companies into keeping competitors out of the market.
In this case, google (youtube) is NOT accused of anything of the sort. Nor has google been accused of any behavior in that category in any of their services, anywhere in the world.
Google is setting requirements directly with the companies that use their service. They are NOT using their service to leverage behavior by their partners towards other parties. Notice the complete difference?
You obviously don't even know what MS did wrong, how do you even know it was wrong? Because somebody told you on the internet?!?! lololololol
I hate to break it to you, but people who can tell the difference between youtube and google number more than zero.
You actually are claiming that if they removed search results from other video services that that would be the indistinguishable from removing a video from the video service they own? Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on the internet?
These arguments are so stupid, and made by the people ready to kill me in traffic because they think their slit-second decisions are going to be better than those of traffic engineers.
You NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER are supposed to swerve. You're supposed to keep enough distance in front of you that you can stop safely, and if there is a problem or accident, maintain your lane while stopping!
There is NEVER a situation in traffic where you choose between different people's lives. Figure out which lane you're in, maintain your lane, follow the traffic rules. That is what you're supposed to do already now! That is exactly what a self-driving car will do a much better job than you at.
Not only do people come up with absurd answers to this supposed moral dillema, they fail to see that simply presenting it as a choice is already proving failure to understand the moral issues. Endangering people's lives by violating accepted rules isn't just an ethical failing, it is morally clear; evil.
At which point, great, you will only be able to travel to those places which your betters determine that it will be good for you to travel (primarily so that you do not pollute the places they want to be by your presence).
What a load of crap. They could decide where you can and can't go right now, that has absolutely nothing at all to do with which technology is steering the car. Get off the lawn, your stupid is killing the grass.
No, actually, a typical press release is understood to be a marketing document, part of a PR program, and is really not in the same category. You seem to think nobody knows about BS press releases, and that corporate governance can't distinguish statements intended to inform relevant parties about corporate policy from PR.
The key thing you miss is where is the duress coming from? In extortion, the person extorting the money is, or is believed to be, in control of the duress. "This is a dangerous neighborhood, you don't want bad things to happen, you should buy protection from us." In this example, it is understood that the person extorting the money is implicitly in control of who the "bad things" happen to.
You just list cases where it is morally repugnant to overcharge. But extortion isn't the only type of immorality related to business.
Price gouging without a monopoly is going to lose fast due to competition. It doesn't have to be illegal.
Probably why it is legal! Also, probably why we have monopoly restrictions. We wouldn't need them if we followed everybody around and made sure they play nice. But we don't.
No, that isn't extortion at all. Extortion would be if the gas station owner comes over and tells you that you have to buy $10/g gas or he'll call his cousin the tow truck driver to have you towed and impounded if you try to wait for AAA.
Just raising the price is exploitative opportunism, but not extortion. And lacking a monopoly, generally legal in the US.
In China I think it is punishable by the death penalty.
Official corporate blogs might have a much more formal role than you realize. This isn't just a "press release," it is an official company communication to the public, that uses a bunch of legal phrases.
It isn't that GPL isn't "worth" fighting, it is that you can't fight it, you can't challenge it.
You can't sue to harm yourself, you have to sue to get something. You also can't sue unless you're involved or harmed by something. So in the case of copyright, you have to either be a copyright holder or a user of a copyrighted work in order to even have a chance at standing.
In the case of the GPL, if you dislike the terms, what can you ask for? You can't ask for new terms, courts don't write contracts. If you had paid money, or traded goods or services, for access to a work then you might indeed sue to get your money back. But GPL is free. The only terms are restrictions that are symmetrical to the rights granted. If you had paid something and then found the terms to be misleading or unfair, you might sue to have them declared unenforceable. But when something is free, it becomes very hard to claim you're harmed by accepting it; especially when it is electronic information! It is not like it can fall over on you and cause an injury, or something like that. And the requirement to share your own code can't be challenged as unfair, because the penalty is only the loss of the license; since there is no financial penalty, even if you accidentally based your proprietary product on a GPL product, you can just rewrite the parts the you weren't allowed to use. You're not forced by your mistake to ever release any source code if you don't want to. So even the "penalty" for violating the license terms is neutral, and so not really challenge-able.
So all you could ask for would be to have your right to use the work removed by canceling your contract. But that would harm you, it wouldn't gain you anything, so you can't sue for that. And indeed, you can unilaterally just stop using it without the court's permission.
Verbal means made of words. Perhaps you meant "oral contract." If you don't know if it exists, you certainly don't know what it says, so it can't be verbal.
The reason a "verbal contract" would suck is because most people who write a contract on a napkin, write an awful contract that doesn't clearly spell out the terms, or doesn't have legal terms. So it is made of words, it is "verbal," but it still isn't clear.
In this case, the blog post is a very good verbal contract, because it is clearly written and uses phrases like, "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology."
For sure. The news is actually just they added recurring payments.
I tend towards using "epay USA" for my clients because they're the only one that offers the complete package; card present, card not present, mail order, recurring, etc.
Since there is only one API so far that supports everything, it is common to have to spend a bunch of money switching payment providers, just to add features to a product, or worse, some of my point-of-sale customers have to have different payment processors for online and in-person sales.
So I agree the feature is an important addition. But not important to most people, and not a new "service."
Lots of people with ICE cars talk about where to buy gas, and which place is least out of the way, and which place is close to somewhere good for lunch.
At conventions probably a lot of people are expensing their gas though, so they wouldn't talk about it even if they normally do, because they'd just stop at the place that is convenient to the freeway and 50 cents higher.
If you look at a map of charging stations, cities that have both charging stations and are big enough to have a convention center usually have numerous charging stations. Even small-town Oregon has lots of charging stations, and most of them are near lunch spots. And since charging is free that switches the main topic from the price/convenience tradeoff, over to who is next to the best lunch spot.
The idea is to open it up to engineers at other companies, not to have people who can't read the manual trying to build public charging stations out of lego.
Totally agree, it is not about "freedom of speech" it is about various minority political parties taking a "time out" because of grenade attacks and other absurdities. Everybody knows "freedom of speech" will resume after the "time out."
There is a whole lot you're wrong about there. The FBI is only independent recently, and not entirely. Made so to reduce abuse from being used politically. The CIA is not independent at all. The NSA is independent but has no law enforcement or governing structures or rights; all they can do is collect information and give it to other parts of the government, and they're substantially restricted in what they can share.
Your claim that the CIA "has been implicated in the killing of a presidential candidate" is indeed tinfoil. "Implicated" in no fact at all, "implicated" in baseless accusations by people who claim broader conspiracy, but offer no evidence of such.
The claim that the "The NSA is operating outside of the constitution, plain and simple," is only plain or simple to the same extent that it is tinfoil. It is popular to recite such a claim inside of an anti-establishment echo chamber, but that is not the same as actually being able to point to a part of the Constitution that it is somehow "outside" of. According to the Courts it is not so, and who else but the Courts makes that determination? Our Constitution is not so clearly worded. You may find if you get into the details that there is nothing simple or clear about the issues at all, but that instead that they are fuzzy and disputed, but that most people live in an echo chamber where only one view or the other is socially acceptable even to admit exists! Just admitting it is disputed what it means will tend to get you shouted down by many faux-populists.
The military OTOH is almost entirely independent other than at the very top being controlled by the President. The Secretary of Defense, for example, can't order them around; their Joint Chiefs of Staff, made up of the heads of the different branches of the military, directly control the military, and most of the President's (Commander in Chief) power is exercised by giving directives to the Joint Chiefs. So there is nobody other than the President that ties the military to the rest of government.
Note that regarding the FBI, for example you reference to Hoover, that was when the FBI was _less_ independent, and that is _why_ they are more independent; before the politicians had more power over them, now the lawyers have that power, and the politicians only get to pick the top lawyers. The CIA is also mostly banned from operating inside the USA, and the FBI is tasked with investigating the CIA on a continual basis with regards to their US activities. That was set up after the Vietnam War-era abuses by the CIA.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, this is dice! You're just hosed. You can always email their support, I'm sure they can send you some marketing-speak like they did to me, promising they really care about us while still maintaining the policy of hosing us.
What, you were personally invested in your personal preferences and histories and usage data?! Dice thought you were creating that data just to make them money. They have no moral or ethical concept to indicate that you would actually own the data you created.
Yep, parking for abandoned projects, in case in 10 years somebody wants to fork it.
Takes money to pay the bills
Actually, if you put standard ads in it, then it should only cost $20/m for a small VPS if you have no traffic, and it would make a small amount of money at moderate traffic. You can just hand that over to the volunteer maintainers. Even a site like freshmeat with a high percent of ad-blockers should serve enough ads to pay for traffic.
There is none, they all got bought up and then killed off.
Probably somebody warned them before they bought it that it wouldn't make them money, but they decided to buy it anyways thinking it had other value. Well, it did. But it turns out they didn't share those values.
They kill us because they hate us.
They only invested in our community's sites to kill them and undermine us.
Google also has video search as part of the "google" service, that includes videos from numerous other (competing) video services. So yeah. If you don't think things mean what they literally say, and are just happy assuming they mean (whatever), then fine. But if you actually comprehend the literal statements made, and the statement made would be evil, but the truth turns out to be not evil at all, but a neutral business decision that they're free to make, then how can you even make use of language? Anything could just mean something else, if you're ready to assume it means something different than what is said.
How does YouTube go about determining whether a particular Partner video that happens to include music is a "music video"?
The way this works in any sort of service is, if you're not sure, then the restrictions apply. The only way you can't tell is if it at least partially a music video, but you don't want it to be.
Same as anything, straddle the lines, follow the rules on both sides. Easy to do, or easy to fail at and whine about.
I don't like their policy change, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if your main consideration is just to get the best press, you're going to have to spend money, comply with various policies from various companies, and probably even hire people that specialize in knowing how to work the different policies and options at a bunch of different companies.
If your main concern is money and getting attention, it seems like you're not really the right group of people to be complaining about this sort of policy change. It seems actually the people who would complain are bands that don't want to maximize their profits and exposure, but want to post videos online based on some sort of moral or ethical stance towards sharing information. For those groups, they shouldn't then also whine that the money-focused groups are bigger. Which is it they prioritize, money, or other things? They should figure it out, host their videos on the one that is closest to their goals, and quit whining that they didn't choose the other way, or that they "can't have it all at the same time."
They should just do like you say, put it on their own site, and either pay to generate traffic, or worry less about getting more traffic. If people don't care about their site... that says it all right there.
uhhhhh.... it isn't new. Or new-ish. Or close to new. Or even some niche site that nobody uses. It is a popular site with a lot of traffic. If you don't know about it, it means you don't know much about what video sites there are. That's fine. But it is like not knowing about a band that has had a bunch of top 40 hits for 10 years, but no top 10. People who listen to new music would all know about such a band. People who listen to old music, maybe not. And yet, it would be a popular band.
MS got in trouble for using their monopoly on operating systems to manipulate other companies into keeping competitors out of the market.
In this case, google (youtube) is NOT accused of anything of the sort. Nor has google been accused of any behavior in that category in any of their services, anywhere in the world.
Google is setting requirements directly with the companies that use their service. They are NOT using their service to leverage behavior by their partners towards other parties. Notice the complete difference?
You obviously don't even know what MS did wrong, how do you even know it was wrong? Because somebody told you on the internet?!?! lololololol
I hate to break it to you, but people who can tell the difference between youtube and google number more than zero.
You actually are claiming that if they removed search results from other video services that that would be the indistinguishable from removing a video from the video service they own? Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on the internet?
These arguments are so stupid, and made by the people ready to kill me in traffic because they think their slit-second decisions are going to be better than those of traffic engineers.
You NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER are supposed to swerve. You're supposed to keep enough distance in front of you that you can stop safely, and if there is a problem or accident, maintain your lane while stopping!
There is NEVER a situation in traffic where you choose between different people's lives. Figure out which lane you're in, maintain your lane, follow the traffic rules. That is what you're supposed to do already now! That is exactly what a self-driving car will do a much better job than you at.
Not only do people come up with absurd answers to this supposed moral dillema, they fail to see that simply presenting it as a choice is already proving failure to understand the moral issues. Endangering people's lives by violating accepted rules isn't just an ethical failing, it is morally clear; evil.
At which point, great, you will only be able to travel to those places which your betters determine that it will be good for you to travel (primarily so that you do not pollute the places they want to be by your presence).
What a load of crap. They could decide where you can and can't go right now, that has absolutely nothing at all to do with which technology is steering the car. Get off the lawn, your stupid is killing the grass.
No, actually, a typical press release is understood to be a marketing document, part of a PR program, and is really not in the same category. You seem to think nobody knows about BS press releases, and that corporate governance can't distinguish statements intended to inform relevant parties about corporate policy from PR.
"What a maroon."
The key thing you miss is where is the duress coming from? In extortion, the person extorting the money is, or is believed to be, in control of the duress. "This is a dangerous neighborhood, you don't want bad things to happen, you should buy protection from us." In this example, it is understood that the person extorting the money is implicitly in control of who the "bad things" happen to.
You just list cases where it is morally repugnant to overcharge. But extortion isn't the only type of immorality related to business.
Price gouging without a monopoly is going to lose fast due to competition. It doesn't have to be illegal.
Probably why it is legal! Also, probably why we have monopoly restrictions. We wouldn't need them if we followed everybody around and made sure they play nice. But we don't.
No, that isn't extortion at all. Extortion would be if the gas station owner comes over and tells you that you have to buy $10/g gas or he'll call his cousin the tow truck driver to have you towed and impounded if you try to wait for AAA.
Just raising the price is exploitative opportunism, but not extortion. And lacking a monopoly, generally legal in the US.
In China I think it is punishable by the death penalty.
Official corporate blogs might have a much more formal role than you realize. This isn't just a "press release," it is an official company communication to the public, that uses a bunch of legal phrases.
It isn't that GPL isn't "worth" fighting, it is that you can't fight it, you can't challenge it.
You can't sue to harm yourself, you have to sue to get something. You also can't sue unless you're involved or harmed by something. So in the case of copyright, you have to either be a copyright holder or a user of a copyrighted work in order to even have a chance at standing.
In the case of the GPL, if you dislike the terms, what can you ask for? You can't ask for new terms, courts don't write contracts. If you had paid money, or traded goods or services, for access to a work then you might indeed sue to get your money back. But GPL is free. The only terms are restrictions that are symmetrical to the rights granted. If you had paid something and then found the terms to be misleading or unfair, you might sue to have them declared unenforceable. But when something is free, it becomes very hard to claim you're harmed by accepting it; especially when it is electronic information! It is not like it can fall over on you and cause an injury, or something like that. And the requirement to share your own code can't be challenged as unfair, because the penalty is only the loss of the license; since there is no financial penalty, even if you accidentally based your proprietary product on a GPL product, you can just rewrite the parts the you weren't allowed to use. You're not forced by your mistake to ever release any source code if you don't want to. So even the "penalty" for violating the license terms is neutral, and so not really challenge-able.
So all you could ask for would be to have your right to use the work removed by canceling your contract. But that would harm you, it wouldn't gain you anything, so you can't sue for that. And indeed, you can unilaterally just stop using it without the court's permission.
Verbal means made of words. Perhaps you meant "oral contract." If you don't know if it exists, you certainly don't know what it says, so it can't be verbal.
The reason a "verbal contract" would suck is because most people who write a contract on a napkin, write an awful contract that doesn't clearly spell out the terms, or doesn't have legal terms. So it is made of words, it is "verbal," but it still isn't clear.
In this case, the blog post is a very good verbal contract, because it is clearly written and uses phrases like, "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology."
For sure. The news is actually just they added recurring payments.
I tend towards using "epay USA" for my clients because they're the only one that offers the complete package; card present, card not present, mail order, recurring, etc.
Since there is only one API so far that supports everything, it is common to have to spend a bunch of money switching payment providers, just to add features to a product, or worse, some of my point-of-sale customers have to have different payment processors for online and in-person sales.
So I agree the feature is an important addition. But not important to most people, and not a new "service."
Lots of people with ICE cars talk about where to buy gas, and which place is least out of the way, and which place is close to somewhere good for lunch.
At conventions probably a lot of people are expensing their gas though, so they wouldn't talk about it even if they normally do, because they'd just stop at the place that is convenient to the freeway and 50 cents higher.
If you look at a map of charging stations, cities that have both charging stations and are big enough to have a convention center usually have numerous charging stations. Even small-town Oregon has lots of charging stations, and most of them are near lunch spots. And since charging is free that switches the main topic from the price/convenience tradeoff, over to who is next to the best lunch spot.
The idea is to open it up to engineers at other companies, not to have people who can't read the manual trying to build public charging stations out of lego.
Totally agree, it is not about "freedom of speech" it is about various minority political parties taking a "time out" because of grenade attacks and other absurdities. Everybody knows "freedom of speech" will resume after the "time out."
There is a whole lot you're wrong about there. The FBI is only independent recently, and not entirely. Made so to reduce abuse from being used politically. The CIA is not independent at all. The NSA is independent but has no law enforcement or governing structures or rights; all they can do is collect information and give it to other parts of the government, and they're substantially restricted in what they can share.
Your claim that the CIA "has been implicated in the killing of a presidential candidate" is indeed tinfoil. "Implicated" in no fact at all, "implicated" in baseless accusations by people who claim broader conspiracy, but offer no evidence of such.
The claim that the "The NSA is operating outside of the constitution, plain and simple," is only plain or simple to the same extent that it is tinfoil. It is popular to recite such a claim inside of an anti-establishment echo chamber, but that is not the same as actually being able to point to a part of the Constitution that it is somehow "outside" of. According to the Courts it is not so, and who else but the Courts makes that determination? Our Constitution is not so clearly worded. You may find if you get into the details that there is nothing simple or clear about the issues at all, but that instead that they are fuzzy and disputed, but that most people live in an echo chamber where only one view or the other is socially acceptable even to admit exists! Just admitting it is disputed what it means will tend to get you shouted down by many faux-populists.
The military OTOH is almost entirely independent other than at the very top being controlled by the President. The Secretary of Defense, for example, can't order them around; their Joint Chiefs of Staff, made up of the heads of the different branches of the military, directly control the military, and most of the President's (Commander in Chief) power is exercised by giving directives to the Joint Chiefs. So there is nobody other than the President that ties the military to the rest of government.
Note that regarding the FBI, for example you reference to Hoover, that was when the FBI was _less_ independent, and that is _why_ they are more independent; before the politicians had more power over them, now the lawyers have that power, and the politicians only get to pick the top lawyers. The CIA is also mostly banned from operating inside the USA, and the FBI is tasked with investigating the CIA on a continual basis with regards to their US activities. That was set up after the Vietnam War-era abuses by the CIA.