A sane sensible man would understand that if someone buys a hammer and they use it to break someone else's windows, the responsibility lies with the person and not the company that made the hammer.
tp, not being sane or sensible, would demand that the hammer's manufacturers not only be held liable but that they must design a hammer that can't be used to break windows, and that the hammer losing all meaningful use for any other activity in the meantime is a small price to pay.
You have to love it. Faced with the reality that people are mostly in support of vaccines overall and that the evidence of history of vaccinations won't allow most people to object to their use to battle an ongoing global pandemic, especially since it's effectiveness is already proven? Simply rewrite reality to pretend that the current ones don't count as vaccines for some reason.
Although, you've accidentally stumbled across a fact here:
"It is not a vaccine"
Yes, it's not A vaccine. There are currently somewhere in the region of 30 different vaccines available globally with different levels of authorisation and studied effectiveness. Even among the 4 major vaccines approved for use in North America and Europe, they are completely different types of vaccine with different methods of application and content. So, any specific objection to one of those vaccines cannot apply to the others (for example - you've been fed pseudoscientific nonsense about how mRNA vaccines work and are scared of them as a result? Those objections don't apply to the non-mRNA vaccines).
If you're rambling on about a single vaccine, you're completely wrong even if what you've been told to think about one of the vaccines is somehow true (and it's really not).
Re: Re: Re: Re: An advantage of "analog" books over "digital" e-
"All I said was that the idea of a book cover has been replaced with the so-called social media premise of sparking conversation?"
Yes, which is a fantastic move in the eyes of many people. If you don't agree with people who prefer it, that's really none of your business.
"Wtf that has to do with talking “… about things that you don't want them to talk about” is far beyond any rational comprehension."
Your complaint was about people posting on social media about what they're reading. That would usually imply that you don't like seeing people do that, in which case the correct course of action is for you to mute those messages, not for others to conform to your idea of what they should be doing.
If that wasn't your complaint, then what was it? If you don't use social media in the first place, then why would you care - and why would anyone else care about your opinion about it?
"Well the blind girl had a phone and Karen knew she looked at at...cause screen readers and adaptive tech for the disabled only exists on Star Trek"
Even if she was reading it - being legally blind to a degree needed to require a guide dog does not mean that you literally can't see anything. It just means they've suffered enough vision loss in a way that requires help getting around.
"VHS died because of the digital push first to VCD, mostly in Asia, then DVD"
Yes, inferior formats do tend to die out when superior tech is available.
"But the push to DRM capable digital"
You say that as if DRM wasn't also on VHS tapes (remember Macrovision?)
"SVHS and then VHD-HR both were drastic steps up from the base format"
They were then killed by the high prices of the format and a general lack of interest in adopting the format among consumers. Even the collectors market was moving away from costly laserdiscs to cheaper formats that enabled greater quality. Whatever the intentions were on the part of distributors, it was the market that drove adoption of cheap, relatively robust DVDs that enabled all sorts of functionality that was simply impossible with VHS (such as switching between different languages and other audio tracks, picture formats and subtitling options)
Re: Re: An advantage of "analog" books over "digital" e-books:
Or, how about you mind your own business and control your own social media feeds if you find that people are daring to talk about things that you don't want them to talk about?
Oh, come on! The vast variety of Twitter insults from the Scots against him when he erroneously claimed that they were somehow in favour of Brexit, and that's the one you go for?
You're not even going to go with "Cheeto-faced, ferret wearing shitgibbon" or "mangled apricot hellbeast"?
"In this instance it was never about "conservative values", it contained 8 "cuss-words" and one graphic depiction which was what some parents and school-board members objected to."
So, one wonders why it was acceptable before that meeting. Do they not vet the content of their library and curriculum beforehand?
"One motivation for banning the book was based on the premise that we need to protect the children at all costs"
Which is always a bad premise. You can't shield kids forever, and you certainly can't discuss something like the Holocaust without exposing them to some bad things.
"In the end, it was just easier for them to ban the book than deal with irate parents"
"Ban" is not the most accurate word. However, action was taken to make the work less available to readers who were previously exposed to it and its themes. Which does happen under other circumstances but seems very problematic today given the themes discussed in the book and the political climate of some discussion.
The question really is - why was the book acceptable before and not now? Were librarians and parents just accepting of the book despite its content or not aware of it? Or, has something changed among those groups that made the content suddenly unacceptable?
"Web3" is a silly concept anyway, especially since it's only named as such because there was a push toward "Web 2.0" in the past (which only really referred to introducing more UGC as a result of greater ubiquity and bandwidth availability). There's little here in my opinion other than a way to try a move branding away from people trying to push ETH and other blockchain concepts away from using terms that have already been shown to be problematic.
I could be shown to be wrong, but so far it just seems to be another buzzword that's being leapt on by people who don't yet know of a practical usage for the things they want to be an early adopter (and thus profitable investor) of using.
But, for what it's worth, I was also sceptical of "Web 2.0". The term itself never really meant anything concrete but some of the companies that embraced it did do things to advance what we do today, for better or worse. I just don't believe that "blockchain everything" offers a tangible benefit, especially if the sole aim it to try and route around currently perceived restrictions that might be based in things more fundamental than whether a specific government or platform wants to play nice with you. There's certainly uses for blockchain and other tech this is meant to embrace. But, the things that actually defined the future of the web from "Web 2.0" were often not the things I heard being pushed at the time, and I suspect the same will be true here when the dust settles.
Do you want the examples of how facial recognition gets things wrong, especially when dealing with darker skin? Or the examples where people get arrested yet the only charge that's eventually filed is "resisting arrest"?
"For example, the word "innocent" appears in the title of this article. Why?"
Unless I'm mistaken, the US still has the concept of "innocent before proven guilty". It's debatable whether that's true in practice, but before they've been found guilty of something, let alone charged or arrested, the word should still apply.
Unless other evidence comes out, the victim was not charged, arrested or convicted and had no chance to access due process before he was shot. Therefore, innocent.
"Do you think that people who view this as a "bad shoot" would change their mind and think it was a "good shoot" if the victim had possessed the gun illegally?"
No, I think that the people who defend this sort of action would immediately jump on the fact that the weapon wasn't legal as justification, and the fact that it was legal removes one of the immediate defences that people in favour of this sort of thing typically resort to.
"cutting the water supply of someone who is merely suspected of a cringe might violate due process"
Compared to breaking down their door in the middle of the night with guns blazing if someone so much as looks like they might try to defend themselves before they can establish who they are?
"I'm unsure why anyone would defend Facebook which has been proven to be bad for children and society in general"
While FB is a long way from being the good guy in most situations, a large proportion of its users don't get involved in this type of content at all, and it shouldn't be used by children. There's virtually no law that can be written to attack them that doesn't also attack acceptable speech, so people need to be careful what they support lest they suffer unintended consequences.
"Woe unto those who call dark light and evil good"
Yeah, which is the point of trying to stop people spreading lies about the pandemic in the first place. You just won't get far running blindly down the road labelled "good intentions" if you mislabel the problem.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re:
"This practice of overblocking will avoid the 1-1 matching against all works on the planet"
Hopefully if your insanity ever comes to pass, your work will be the sole false positives.
"it also avoids all copyright infringement from mp4 area"
Cool, so pirates just get the heads up to use a different format? They'll thank you for making their lives easier.
"there are situations like the hollywood movies which force such actions"
The completely ineffective actions that have never reduced piracy as much as simply allowing easy access to content has done?
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A sane sensible man would understand that if someone buys a hammer and they use it to break someone else's windows, the responsibility lies with the person and not the company that made the hammer.
tp, not being sane or sensible, would demand that the hammer's manufacturers not only be held liable but that they must design a hammer that can't be used to break windows, and that the hammer losing all meaningful use for any other activity in the meantime is a small price to pay.
On the post: Investigation: Minneapolis Cops Responded To George Floyd's Murder By Refusing To Do Their Jobs While Still Collecting Their Paychecks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't think anything's being gained by responding to a 4 month old comment whose only message is "I'm a moron".
On the post: Anti-Vaxxers Countermeasures Show Why It's Not So Simple To Just 'Delete' Anti-Vax Misinfo On Social Media
Re:
You have to love it. Faced with the reality that people are mostly in support of vaccines overall and that the evidence of history of vaccinations won't allow most people to object to their use to battle an ongoing global pandemic, especially since it's effectiveness is already proven? Simply rewrite reality to pretend that the current ones don't count as vaccines for some reason.
Although, you've accidentally stumbled across a fact here:
Yes, it's not A vaccine. There are currently somewhere in the region of 30 different vaccines available globally with different levels of authorisation and studied effectiveness. Even among the 4 major vaccines approved for use in North America and Europe, they are completely different types of vaccine with different methods of application and content. So, any specific objection to one of those vaccines cannot apply to the others (for example - you've been fed pseudoscientific nonsense about how mRNA vaccines work and are scared of them as a result? Those objections don't apply to the non-mRNA vaccines).
If you're rambling on about a single vaccine, you're completely wrong even if what you've been told to think about one of the vaccines is somehow true (and it's really not).
On the post: Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World
Re: Re: Re: Re: An advantage of "analog" books over "digital" e-
"All I said was that the idea of a book cover has been replaced with the so-called social media premise of sparking conversation?"
Yes, which is a fantastic move in the eyes of many people. If you don't agree with people who prefer it, that's really none of your business.
"Wtf that has to do with talking “… about things that you don't want them to talk about” is far beyond any rational comprehension."
Your complaint was about people posting on social media about what they're reading. That would usually imply that you don't like seeing people do that, in which case the correct course of action is for you to mute those messages, not for others to conform to your idea of what they should be doing.
If that wasn't your complaint, then what was it? If you don't use social media in the first place, then why would you care - and why would anyone else care about your opinion about it?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Nothing unbelievable at all there...
"Well the blind girl had a phone and Karen knew she looked at at...cause screen readers and adaptive tech for the disabled only exists on Star Trek"
Even if she was reading it - being legally blind to a degree needed to require a guide dog does not mean that you literally can't see anything. It just means they've suffered enough vision loss in a way that requires help getting around.
On the post: Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World
Re: Re: Re: Don’t know?
"VHS died because of the digital push first to VCD, mostly in Asia, then DVD"
Yes, inferior formats do tend to die out when superior tech is available.
"But the push to DRM capable digital"
You say that as if DRM wasn't also on VHS tapes (remember Macrovision?)
"SVHS and then VHD-HR both were drastic steps up from the base format"
They were then killed by the high prices of the format and a general lack of interest in adopting the format among consumers. Even the collectors market was moving away from costly laserdiscs to cheaper formats that enabled greater quality. Whatever the intentions were on the part of distributors, it was the market that drove adoption of cheap, relatively robust DVDs that enabled all sorts of functionality that was simply impossible with VHS (such as switching between different languages and other audio tracks, picture formats and subtitling options)
On the post: Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World
Re: Re: An advantage of "analog" books over "digital" e-books:
Or, how about you mind your own business and control your own social media feeds if you find that people are daring to talk about things that you don't want them to talk about?
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you citing interpretation of US law in a story about a Danish copyright ruling?
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Oh, come on! The vast variety of Twitter insults from the Scots against him when he erroneously claimed that they were somehow in favour of Brexit, and that's the one you go for?
You're not even going to go with "Cheeto-faced, ferret wearing shitgibbon" or "mangled apricot hellbeast"?
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
Re: From the linked ZDNet article:
"It turns out you can burn a digital book."
Did people forget Amazon deleting books from Kindles so quickly? They've been careful not to do it recently, but it has certainly happened before.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
Re:
That's the sad truth. Today, the very thing that led generations to buy books in the first place would be blocked from existing.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
Re: Re:
"In this instance it was never about "conservative values", it contained 8 "cuss-words" and one graphic depiction which was what some parents and school-board members objected to."
So, one wonders why it was acceptable before that meeting. Do they not vet the content of their library and curriculum beforehand?
"One motivation for banning the book was based on the premise that we need to protect the children at all costs"
Which is always a bad premise. You can't shield kids forever, and you certainly can't discuss something like the Holocaust without exposing them to some bad things.
"In the end, it was just easier for them to ban the book than deal with irate parents"
So, they got an irate nation instead. Good job?
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maus
"The latter was removed because it led to bullying of black students*, ie racism"
I'm trying to work out how Mockingbird led to less tolerance of black people. That seems strange.
"Context matters which that article totally ignores, and it is easy to see why in the opening paragraph - they blame the "left" for all the ills."
Oh.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
Re: Maus
"Ban" is not the most accurate word. However, action was taken to make the work less available to readers who were previously exposed to it and its themes. Which does happen under other circumstances but seems very problematic today given the themes discussed in the book and the political climate of some discussion.
The question really is - why was the book acceptable before and not now? Were librarians and parents just accepting of the book despite its content or not aware of it? Or, has something changed among those groups that made the content suddenly unacceptable?
On the post: Can We Compare Dot-Com Bubble To Today's Web3/Blockchain Craze?
"Web3" is a silly concept anyway, especially since it's only named as such because there was a push toward "Web 2.0" in the past (which only really referred to introducing more UGC as a result of greater ubiquity and bandwidth availability). There's little here in my opinion other than a way to try a move branding away from people trying to push ETH and other blockchain concepts away from using terms that have already been shown to be problematic.
I could be shown to be wrong, but so far it just seems to be another buzzword that's being leapt on by people who don't yet know of a practical usage for the things they want to be an early adopter (and thus profitable investor) of using.
But, for what it's worth, I was also sceptical of "Web 2.0". The term itself never really meant anything concrete but some of the companies that embraced it did do things to advance what we do today, for better or worse. I just don't believe that "blockchain everything" offers a tangible benefit, especially if the sole aim it to try and route around currently perceived restrictions that might be based in things more fundamental than whether a specific government or platform wants to play nice with you. There's certainly uses for blockchain and other tech this is meant to embrace. But, the things that actually defined the future of the web from "Web 2.0" were often not the things I heard being pushed at the time, and I suspect the same will be true here when the dust settles.
On the post: Cop Trainer Encouraging Cops To Run Facial Recognition Searches On People During Traffic Stops
Re: Re:
Do you want the examples of how facial recognition gets things wrong, especially when dealing with darker skin? Or the examples where people get arrested yet the only charge that's eventually filed is "resisting arrest"?
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
"For example, the word "innocent" appears in the title of this article. Why?"
Unless I'm mistaken, the US still has the concept of "innocent before proven guilty". It's debatable whether that's true in practice, but before they've been found guilty of something, let alone charged or arrested, the word should still apply.
Unless other evidence comes out, the victim was not charged, arrested or convicted and had no chance to access due process before he was shot. Therefore, innocent.
"Do you think that people who view this as a "bad shoot" would change their mind and think it was a "good shoot" if the victim had possessed the gun illegally?"
No, I think that the people who defend this sort of action would immediately jump on the fact that the weapon wasn't legal as justification, and the fact that it was legal removes one of the immediate defences that people in favour of this sort of thing typically resort to.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Re: Re:
"cutting the water supply of someone who is merely suspected of a cringe might violate due process"
Compared to breaking down their door in the middle of the night with guns blazing if someone so much as looks like they might try to defend themselves before they can establish who they are?
On the post: A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation'
Re: BMJ
"I'm unsure why anyone would defend Facebook which has been proven to be bad for children and society in general"
While FB is a long way from being the good guy in most situations, a large proportion of its users don't get involved in this type of content at all, and it shouldn't be used by children. There's virtually no law that can be written to attack them that doesn't also attack acceptable speech, so people need to be careful what they support lest they suffer unintended consequences.
"Woe unto those who call dark light and evil good"
Yeah, which is the point of trying to stop people spreading lies about the pandemic in the first place. You just won't get far running blindly down the road labelled "good intentions" if you mislabel the problem.
Next >>