Wouldn't it be more responsible for Google to recognize the poor quality of the site and either delist it or punish it?
Since when is a web search engine responsible for sanitizing the web? You might offer to send them some money to build such a thing for you, but I suspect it'll cost a lot. It's not their usual job. It sounds silly to me, but some people might want that. I prefer to make decisions for myself based on my own research.
Google's being responsible by giving them all the rope they want, the better to hang themselves with.
I'm going to fall back on a truism of mine: "Lots of things can be computerized or automated, but lots of things just shouldn't be, for many various reasons." This sounds too much like the latter to me. This is not a trivial problem, and verifying you've produced a robust solution is far more complex than they think it is.
Yes, perhaps it *can* be done both safely and effectively eventually, but I very much doubt that those doing it today are going to get it right any time soon, I very much doubt they've sufficiently analysed the problem(s), and too many victims are going to be buried before they either get it right or abandon the idea.
This "tech" (and I use that term loosely) is nowhere near ready for prime time, and it's way too overloaded with corporate BS priorities (simpler and easier updates, customer to corporate communication facilitation, infotainment, ...). I do not believe those practicing software or hardware design and implementation have learned sufficiently the lessons the Therac 25 episode offered us (in fact, I doubt they've ever even heard of it).
I'm surprised they managed to get the corporate go-ahead, and even more surprised it made it past the regulators. This just stinks of, "It compiles! Ship it!!!"
This sounds like a litigation bonanza in the making. I'll pass, thanks very much.
... those other religions don't breed psychotic fanatics.
Oh, yes they do, or they have in other times. The Zionists in early Israel were thought fairly poorly of by the British occupiers. Shinto is Animist, ordinarily a pretty peaceful religion, until Japan felt backed into a corner. Christians have been doing horrible things everywhere it went for the past two millenia. Atheists (Mao Tse Tung, Joe Stalin, Hitler) are right up there with them (assuming, as many Xtians do, that Atheism is just another religion). Buddists - Samurai. The Inca, Mayans, and Aztecs invented the same thing independently with no help from us.
We can't blame all of our messes on religion, but it's always been pretty high up in the list of bad actors. Haters gotta hate, and often religion is just a handy excuse. Islamic extremism is just the current example of a very old phenomenon. They didn't invent Jihad. That's just the Muslim word for it.
I guess I missed that it was sarcasm. No offense intended. I often take things way more seriously than I really ought to. Watching the NYT (!!!) spout propaganda and pathetically shallow and easily disproved lies is pretty depressing.
Re: DMCA takedowns are turning, culturally, into a universal data-suppression tool.
Yes, and wouldn't this be an excellent case to apply sanctions against false DMCA takedowns? They're abusing the law because it's easy and there's no penalty for doing so.
I don't understand why he wasn't more selective in his leaks if he was just trying to promote privacy/security and not, you know, working for the Russians or something.
You do remember he was marooned in a Russian airport for some time after the US revoked his passport, yes? If he was working for the Russians, why wouldn't they have feted him with a parade and medals for his services to mother Russia against the main adversary (USA)?
Which leaks are those that Snowden should have been more selective about?
Re: So we live in bizarro world where people know what methods "ISIS" uses, but not the extent of NSA / Google spying?
Um, except for the part about the CIA (and Israelis and Saudis) arming the Syrian rebels in attempting to destabilize the Assad regime and piss off the Iranians. I guess the CIA just forgot to tell the administration what they'd been up to. Yeah, that's it.
i) the Soviets had actual nukes ii) the plans for which were stolen and smuggled to them by Soviet sympathizers (Rosenbergs) iii) which was a lie because there were Soviet sympathizers in the Manhattan Project. They didn't need the Rosenbergs' crappy drawings.
However, tell a lie often enough and many people will start to believe it's true. The best part for them is old people who know better die, and young gullible and ignorant kids replace them constantly, so they can use this ruse over and over again, ad infinitum.
It's been two years and no one can point to a single life lost ...
Isn't it odd that the NY Times readership can be so easily, and repeatedly, lied to yet they still get away with it?
On another note, Saxby Chambliss?!? Can you imagine growing up with a name like that? I can well imagine the school bullies reaction hearing that name for the first time. I expect he's still having nightmares about what they put him through. What were his parents thinking? Were they hoping he'd grow up to be a sociopathic liar? Isn't that child abuse?
Why? Because they're lazy minded, ignorant, gullible, and stupid. Gov'ts learned this truth ages ago. It's how they keep the MafiAA on the hook.
A few years ago, my gov't forgot this truth and jacked up the ("sin tax") price on tobacco. There was an immediate explosion of tobacco smugglers. The gov't couldn't back it out fast enough. It cost them the moon for enforcement attempting to stop them.
Shhh, don't tell the MafiAA. It would seriously screw up a few politicians' campaign budgets.
... and are now actively patting the backs of the very terrorists who would murder masses of others because of their words.
Worse than that. They're apologizing for having offended the terrorists' tender egos. How dare anyone question their right to remain blissfully ignorant?!? Bastards!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Resorting to threats and/or violence = Admission that your position can't be defended with words
You claim to be a member of an Age of Enlightenment, and yet in the same breath spend your time insulting and throwing derision at those you disagree with.
You defend a system that preys on the poor and ignorant, selling them fairy tales of pie in the sky everlasting life, based on adherence to that system's self-definition of morality and ethics, and for what? For their cash to enrich the system's temples and soothsayers. I despise predators like that. My fellows deserve much better than to be robbed by their ignorant adherence to that system's fatuous lies.
I am so tired of hearing garbage like this, from shallow as a pane of glass thinkers like you, from "both sides of the aisle."
I'm Canadian. Do you know what "We, the people" sounds like to me? It's socialist. It's defending the little people; the individual rights of the man on the street as defined in the Constitution from both thieves *and* government overreach, as opposed to princes and kings and statist power empire builders like the British establishment as embodied in their House of Lords (their version of the Senate appointed by the royalty for life); perfidious Albion.
Granted, now the Neocons are in charge and Obama (as are the GOP, and Clinton, and Bush) appears to be wholly on board with their agenda, these ideas are getting horribly muddled. Now, neither the Democrats nor Republicans can claim to be defenders of "We the people", yet you can still spit on those who claim to defend "We, the people" (Democrats), and you actively support reactionary, military industrial complex big government, big military, tough on crime, conservative, bible thumping pseudo patriots (Republicans), including southern crackers who defend (still!) the confederacy.
I don't get it. What's wrong with all of you that you can't see this bizarre dichotomy? Your "progressive left" is every bit as meaningless as their "reactionary right", yet you keep on playing that silly "pick a side, and fight" pointless game.
This's why the world laughs at your country these days, when they're not spitting on you.
... you might just skip the hassle and expense of buying a CD and ripping it and just download the songs from somewhere ...
That's one option. Another (mine) is to finally recognize that what they're producing isn't worth even that much trouble and effort. Go find something else to do instead.
Clever strategy for getting people not to buy CDs anymore.
Clever strategy to finally rid us all of these noisy, arrogant, self-entitled, litigious buggy whip mfgrs. who distrust and despise their actual remaining paying customers.
On the post: Canadian Court Says Google Isn't A 'Publisher,' Not Responsible For Defamatory Content Returned In Search Results
Re: Re: Re:
Since when is a web search engine responsible for sanitizing the web? You might offer to send them some money to build such a thing for you, but I suspect it'll cost a lot. It's not their usual job. It sounds silly to me, but some people might want that. I prefer to make decisions for myself based on my own research.
Google's being responsible by giving them all the rope they want, the better to hang themselves with.
On the post: Newsflash: Car Network Security Is Still A Horrible, Very Dangerous Joke
"Old fogey" ahead ...
Yes, perhaps it *can* be done both safely and effectively eventually, but I very much doubt that those doing it today are going to get it right any time soon, I very much doubt they've sufficiently analysed the problem(s), and too many victims are going to be buried before they either get it right or abandon the idea.
This "tech" (and I use that term loosely) is nowhere near ready for prime time, and it's way too overloaded with corporate BS priorities (simpler and easier updates, customer to corporate communication facilitation, infotainment, ...). I do not believe those practicing software or hardware design and implementation have learned sufficiently the lessons the Therac 25 episode offered us (in fact, I doubt they've ever even heard of it).
I'm surprised they managed to get the corporate go-ahead, and even more surprised it made it past the regulators. This just stinks of, "It compiles! Ship it!!!"
This sounds like a litigation bonanza in the making. I'll pass, thanks very much.
On the post: Charlie Hebdo Bows To Assassins' Veto, Hecklers' Veto; Will No Longer Mock Mohammed
Re: Re:
Oh, yes they do, or they have in other times. The Zionists in early Israel were thought fairly poorly of by the British occupiers. Shinto is Animist, ordinarily a pretty peaceful religion, until Japan felt backed into a corner. Christians have been doing horrible things everywhere it went for the past two millenia. Atheists (Mao Tse Tung, Joe Stalin, Hitler) are right up there with them (assuming, as many Xtians do, that Atheism is just another religion). Buddists - Samurai. The Inca, Mayans, and Aztecs invented the same thing independently with no help from us.
We can't blame all of our messes on religion, but it's always been pretty high up in the list of bad actors. Haters gotta hate, and often religion is just a handy excuse. Islamic extremism is just the current example of a very old phenomenon. They didn't invent Jihad. That's just the Muslim word for it.
On the post: If The UK Wants People To 'Respect' Copyright, Outlawing Ripping CDs Is Probably Not Helping
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus, they're very handy to have in such cases like former speaker Dennis K.
"Statute of limitations, sorry."
"No prob. We'll just entrap him with lying to a federal officer instead."
On the post: NY Times Falsely Claims ISIS Is Using Encryption & Couriers Because Snowden
Re: Re: La la la la ...
Carry on. Have fun!
On the post: Marital Infidelity Site AshleyMadison Hacked, But Claims No One Should Worry Since It DMCA'd All Leaked Copies
Re: DMCA takedowns are turning, culturally, into a universal data-suppression tool.
On the post: German Film Distributor Issues Takedown Request Falsely Targeting IMDb, Reddit And Techdirt
Re: >>> In all fairness there should be either:
No, they're infringing copyright. As for "value", that's questionable.
By attacking innocent third parties? How's that going to help copyright holders?
You should probably try to perfect your game a bit more. I doubt your paymasters are going to pony up for this level of incompetence much longer.
BTW, I recommend boycotting your employer's garbage, for this and a host of other terrific reasons.
On the post: NY Times Falsely Claims ISIS Is Using Encryption & Couriers Because Snowden
Re: Yeah, but....
You do remember he was marooned in a Russian airport for some time after the US revoked his passport, yes? If he was working for the Russians, why wouldn't they have feted him with a parade and medals for his services to mother Russia against the main adversary (USA)?
Which leaks are those that Snowden should have been more selective about?
On the post: NY Times Falsely Claims ISIS Is Using Encryption & Couriers Because Snowden
Re: So we live in bizarro world where people know what methods "ISIS" uses, but not the extent of NSA / Google spying?
On the post: NY Times Falsely Claims ISIS Is Using Encryption & Couriers Because Snowden
Re: NY Times
Pretty much, though to be fair:
i) the Soviets had actual nukes
ii) the plans for which were stolen and smuggled to them by Soviet sympathizers (Rosenbergs)
iii) which was a lie because there were Soviet sympathizers in the Manhattan Project. They didn't need the Rosenbergs' crappy drawings.
However, tell a lie often enough and many people will start to believe it's true. The best part for them is old people who know better die, and young gullible and ignorant kids replace them constantly, so they can use this ruse over and over again, ad infinitum.
On the post: NY Times Falsely Claims ISIS Is Using Encryption & Couriers Because Snowden
La la la la ...
Is this a lament that you can no longer blame IS' use of encryption on Snowden, or what exactly?!?
Yes, please do that. Thank you for your diligent efforts in pursuit of the truth.
On the post: NY Times Falsely Claims ISIS Is Using Encryption & Couriers Because Snowden
How time flies when you're having fun.
Isn't it odd that the NY Times readership can be so easily, and repeatedly, lied to yet they still get away with it?
On another note, Saxby Chambliss?!? Can you imagine growing up with a name like that? I can well imagine the school bullies reaction hearing that name for the first time. I expect he's still having nightmares about what they put him through. What were his parents thinking? Were they hoping he'd grow up to be a sociopathic liar? Isn't that child abuse?
On the post: If The UK Wants People To 'Respect' Copyright, Outlawing Ripping CDs Is Probably Not Helping
Re:
A few years ago, my gov't forgot this truth and jacked up the ("sin tax") price on tobacco. There was an immediate explosion of tobacco smugglers. The gov't couldn't back it out fast enough. It cost them the moon for enforcement attempting to stop them.
Shhh, don't tell the MafiAA. It would seriously screw up a few politicians' campaign budgets.
On the post: Charlie Hebdo Bows To Assassins' Veto, Hecklers' Veto; Will No Longer Mock Mohammed
Re:
Worse than that. They're apologizing for having offended the terrorists' tender egos. How dare anyone question their right to remain blissfully ignorant?!? Bastards!
On the post: Charlie Hebdo Bows To Assassins' Veto, Hecklers' Veto; Will No Longer Mock Mohammed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Resorting to threats and/or violence = Admission that your position can't be defended with words
You defend a system that preys on the poor and ignorant, selling them fairy tales of pie in the sky everlasting life, based on adherence to that system's self-definition of morality and ethics, and for what? For their cash to enrich the system's temples and soothsayers. I despise predators like that. My fellows deserve much better than to be robbed by their ignorant adherence to that system's fatuous lies.
On the post: Washington Post Observes Encryption War 2.0 For Several Months, Learns Absolutely Nothing
Re: Re: I want an Oompa Loompa NOW Daddy!
I am so tired of hearing garbage like this, from shallow as a pane of glass thinkers like you, from "both sides of the aisle."
I'm Canadian. Do you know what "We, the people" sounds like to me? It's socialist. It's defending the little people; the individual rights of the man on the street as defined in the Constitution from both thieves *and* government overreach, as opposed to princes and kings and statist power empire builders like the British establishment as embodied in their House of Lords (their version of the Senate appointed by the royalty for life); perfidious Albion.
Granted, now the Neocons are in charge and Obama (as are the GOP, and Clinton, and Bush) appears to be wholly on board with their agenda, these ideas are getting horribly muddled. Now, neither the Democrats nor Republicans can claim to be defenders of "We the people", yet you can still spit on those who claim to defend "We, the people" (Democrats), and you actively support reactionary, military industrial complex big government, big military, tough on crime, conservative, bible thumping pseudo patriots (Republicans), including southern crackers who defend (still!) the confederacy.
I don't get it. What's wrong with all of you that you can't see this bizarre dichotomy? Your "progressive left" is every bit as meaningless as their "reactionary right", yet you keep on playing that silly "pick a side, and fight" pointless game.
This's why the world laughs at your country these days, when they're not spitting on you.
On the post: Verizon Support Wants You To Know That Twitter Is A Perfectly Secure Way To Send Them Your Social Security Number
Re:
Would you care to explain how, or was this a joke that I'm not getting?
On the post: If The UK Wants People To 'Respect' Copyright, Outlawing Ripping CDs Is Probably Not Helping
Re:
That's one option. Another (mine) is to finally recognize that what they're producing isn't worth even that much trouble and effort. Go find something else to do instead.
Clever strategy to finally rid us all of these noisy, arrogant, self-entitled, litigious buggy whip mfgrs. who distrust and despise their actual remaining paying customers.
On the post: Charlie Hebdo Bows To Assassins' Veto, Hecklers' Veto; Will No Longer Mock Mohammed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Resorting to threats and/or violence = Admission that your position can't be defended with words
On the post: Canadian Court Says Google Isn't A 'Publisher,' Not Responsible For Defamatory Content Returned In Search Results
Re:
Next >>