Regarding the outlawing in Scotland of "sexually suggestive conversation" without consent...
I'm sure it was the few seriously degenerate men (and the two women) who throw trash around all the time that brought this law about. But, what the fuck?
Is this some new form of population control? If we brought this bullshit to the U.S. it would immediately become a cash-farm for lawyers doing "civil follow-up" to specious criminal charges, and the chilling effect would immediately extend to everyone's pants
Don't take this too harshly, but there really were a lot of sentences in your article written as unequivocal fact, such as your opening paragraph, but are a little far reaching to be applying to a new phenomenon. I've been called out on this very thing several times in this forum.
Honestly the way the article reads reminds me of those old Gap commercials, "Everybody wear ..(X)", also not unlike calling a square-dance. "Moving" to apps is a fresh experiment, and honestly if it leads to a more closed environment I do not see it going far, much less going far from "free" and succeeding.
Also why do so many journalists write about libertarianism as if it were a new phenomenon? Is not American history or world history or ancient Greek history required study for these degrees?
What the "big guys" do and say, and what the media writes has never really equated to popular reality. This long known fact has only become apparent to the media players and the big guys since they saw people running away in droves to more open, varied and objective writing (and opinion in the case of many popular sites).
More troubling, however, is the part of the court's order declaring that safe harbor applies even if the party seeking safe harbor would otherwise be deemed a contributory infringer.
Sorry I'm not seeing where this ruling would prevent suing someone who knowingly helped distribute specific copyrighted works. What I read is a reaffirmation of the safe harbor principle that a provider of a legal service (such as a paper company or a social web site) cannot be held liable for the autonomous actions of their users/customers.
Could you share the specific text you are concerned about?
We've seen a series of similar claims from companies related to the entirely bogus concept of "search neutrality," which seems to suggest that search engines have some sort of moral requirement to include links or ads from certain companies even if the search engines don't believe those links or ads add any value to its users.
Once again I have to express my frustration that the definition of the ideal of "search neutrality" is being twisted to frame what is in essence power moves in the paid search (AdWords for Google) market.
The very concept of search neutrality is about content inclusiveness without heuristic or environmentally controlled biasing towards favored or partnered sources. This does not imply that every site should be listed for every search, just that search relevance should apply linguistic relevance without favoritism to "friendly" sites that do not really match the linguistic search. Also the concept of search-neutrality is about the hope that censorship does not take hold through broad (multilateral) algorithmic biasing.
That being said, there is no search-neutrality in the paid search market. The very concept of paid search is to present (hopefully relevant) advertisers' content in a visible way when people use a search engine. This is a good thing for commerce, but it is not compatible with the definition of search-neutrality.
Paid search is not "bad". Google is not evil for being in the paid search market. I'm just really disappointed that players in a very non-neutral market are trying to use the concept to gain leverage in a market.
Applying the concept of "search neutrality" to any of the mechanism of paid search is much like calling the current U.S. world economic system a "free market". It does not compute.
The key part of the complaint appears to be that Google's algorithm and policies are not publicly available, but again it's not clear why it needs to be. I actually do agree that Google's policies probably should be a lot more open and transparent, but that doesn't mean the government should force them to be. Instead, if anything, this actually seems like a potential opening for a competitor to come in and hit Google. I've always felt that certain aspects of Google's closed nature are an achilles heel for the company that no one has yet exploited.
Just because Google made a business decision to keep that information closed, and one company relied too much on Google for its business model, doesn't mean that a government should step in and force Google to change how it does business.
I agree with pretty much all of that, and I appreciate the candor. Good commerce should not be hindered by governments. Their very involvement these days implies that market forces are trying to use the government to gain an advantage over competitors.
Google is a big juicy target, and it is sickening to watch governments fall over themselves to "get a piece".
If I ran a business, I would certainly want to be able to directly shape the terms (and termination) of my contracts.
Going to agree with Loki here. In my experience, military basic training effectively creates self-awareness by breaking down calcified self-interest and self-absorption in a regimented, 24 hours a day "in with the company" environment. It is a brutal but effective process that some people (myself included) are poorly prepared for.
It is not pretty, it is not fun. It can truly and sadly damage some people. But this is the venue of the military and the process has been effective.
The American military in particular demands considerable mental prowess from its enlisted ranks. They want sailors, soldiers and marines coordinating and adapting on the spot to the demands of the moment, but not out of self-interest.
And, yes U.S. Marine Corps DI's are still the role model for basic military instructors world-wide.
Which is one of the reasons that more and more companies are going to an MSP style contracted support. The idea is having a team at your disposal as opposed to a person or two.
This is often a sound plan for many small to mid-sized corporations with (relatively) simple systems environments.
For businesses that rely heavily on complex system environments to conduct day to day business, and especially larger businesses susceptible to large scale contract abuse, I think it is a better value to develop internal technology staff as a core discipline of the company.
Just kidding, PaulIT, I really do not want DRM or anything that might prevent us from archiving the best of us all. (Or prevent me from watching my licensed copy of IT Crowd years into the future... see I don't hate *all cheese.)
Windows cleans up as well, with nearly $5.4 billion in revenue for the quarter, compared to a little over $1.9 billion in revenue for Linux.
Considering the OS can be had for free, aren't these people alarmed that the licensed version of Linux is generating revenue in excess of 35 percent of what MS is pulling down for its once-ubiquitous license-only OS?
TAM??? Can't be. This one seems to be against people telling them what they can and cannot have, and using the government as the instrument to achieve just that.
Everyone will want to share the 'Twilight' experience with their grandchildren. And don't forget Real Housewives of (X), Christina Aguilera, Jersey Shore, Gallagher, Two and a Half Men, 90210, Richard Simmons, Bryan Adams, The Hills.....
Just so we are on the same page: By "greater good" you are referring to greater profits for less effort, applicable only to those who presently make a great deal of money, yes?
Or were you talking about the general "goodness" of suspending the right to due process and curtailing freedom of speech?
The question of intent goes to whether Google "intentionally intercepted" the traffic.
I fail to see how the wiretap act could ever be applied to data which was broadcast in the clear over a radio frequency.
Radio waves are indiscriminate. Should I be arrested for tuning in to NPR during my morning commute? Well, yes, actually but that's another story.
Users of wireless networks are broadcasting their data over radio, encrypted or not. Unencrypted network data is no different that unencrypted analog radio... anyone with an antenna and tuner in range has every right observe what waves they are being bombarded with.
Of course if Google picked up and stored the session data of someone downloading copyright infringing material.. well then they're fucked.
On the post: French Politicians Backing Away From Three Strikes As They Realize They Need To Get Re-elected At Some Point
Re: Happy Bastille Day!
Muchas Gracias. Maintenant, en Francais - "Vivre la France!"
On the post: Don't Be A Jerk To A Minor In Louisiana Or Say Anything Sexually Suggestive In Scotland
Thank You, Pedantic Fucking Parents
Regarding the outlawing in Scotland of "sexually suggestive conversation" without consent...
I'm sure it was the few seriously degenerate men (and the two women) who throw trash around all the time that brought this law about. But, what the fuck?
Is this some new form of population control? If we brought this bullshit to the U.S. it would immediately become a cash-farm for lawyers doing "civil follow-up" to specious criminal charges, and the chilling effect would immediately extend to everyone's pants
On the post: Another Journalist Seduced By App Madness Predicts The End Of The Web
Re:
Honestly the way the article reads reminds me of those old Gap commercials, "Everybody wear ..(X)", also not unlike calling a square-dance. "Moving" to apps is a fresh experiment, and honestly if it leads to a more closed environment I do not see it going far, much less going far from "free" and succeeding.
Also why do so many journalists write about libertarianism as if it were a new phenomenon? Is not American history or world history or ancient Greek history required study for these degrees?
What the "big guys" do and say, and what the media writes has never really equated to popular reality. This long known fact has only become apparent to the media players and the big guys since they saw people running away in droves to more open, varied and objective writing (and opinion in the case of many popular sites).
On the post: Newspaper Publishes Totally Made Up List Of 'Disorders' Associated With Text Messaging
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are real
OMG Yes. That could be really bad. My friends think I'm a textochondriac, but I think they're out to get me.
On the post: Newspaper Publishes Totally Made Up List Of 'Disorders' Associated With Text Messaging
Re: Re: They are real
On the post: Would You Believe The RIAA Doesn't Agree With The Judge In The Viacom/YouTube Ruling?
Re:
Sorry I'm not seeing where this ruling would prevent suing someone who knowingly helped distribute specific copyrighted works. What I read is a reaffirmation of the safe harbor principle that a provider of a legal service (such as a paper company or a social web site) cannot be held liable for the autonomous actions of their users/customers.
Could you share the specific text you are concerned about?
On the post: Is Google Required To Carry Anyone's Advertising? French Regulators Seem To Think So
Mutated Fish
Once again I have to express my frustration that the definition of the ideal of "search neutrality" is being twisted to frame what is in essence power moves in the paid search (AdWords for Google) market.
The very concept of search neutrality is about content inclusiveness without heuristic or environmentally controlled biasing towards favored or partnered sources. This does not imply that every site should be listed for every search, just that search relevance should apply linguistic relevance without favoritism to "friendly" sites that do not really match the linguistic search. Also the concept of search-neutrality is about the hope that censorship does not take hold through broad (multilateral) algorithmic biasing.
That being said, there is no search-neutrality in the paid search market. The very concept of paid search is to present (hopefully relevant) advertisers' content in a visible way when people use a search engine. This is a good thing for commerce, but it is not compatible with the definition of search-neutrality.
Paid search is not "bad". Google is not evil for being in the paid search market. I'm just really disappointed that players in a very non-neutral market are trying to use the concept to gain leverage in a market.
Applying the concept of "search neutrality" to any of the mechanism of paid search is much like calling the current U.S. world economic system a "free market". It does not compute.
I agree with pretty much all of that, and I appreciate the candor. Good commerce should not be hindered by governments. Their very involvement these days implies that market forces are trying to use the government to gain an advantage over competitors.
Google is a big juicy target, and it is sickening to watch governments fall over themselves to "get a piece".
If I ran a business, I would certainly want to be able to directly shape the terms (and termination) of my contracts.
On the post: Supposed 'Grass Roots' Site Pushing For Canadian DMCA Admits That It's Funded By The Recording Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: freedom fighter
It is not pretty, it is not fun. It can truly and sadly damage some people. But this is the venue of the military and the process has been effective.
The American military in particular demands considerable mental prowess from its enlisted ranks. They want sailors, soldiers and marines coordinating and adapting on the spot to the demands of the moment, but not out of self-interest.
And, yes U.S. Marine Corps DI's are still the role model for basic military instructors world-wide.
On the post: Music Publishers Keep Lashing Out At Consumer Groups; Those Who Respect Individuals' Rights
Re: Re:
The pornography discussion is in the other thread.
On the post: Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free
Re: Re: Re:
This is often a sound plan for many small to mid-sized corporations with (relatively) simple systems environments.
For businesses that rely heavily on complex system environments to conduct day to day business, and especially larger businesses susceptible to large scale contract abuse, I think it is a better value to develop internal technology staff as a core discipline of the company.
On the post: How Copyright Is Denying Us Our Own History
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just kidding, PaulIT, I really do not want DRM or anything that might prevent us from archiving the best of us all. (Or prevent me from watching my licensed copy of IT Crowd years into the future... see I don't hate *all cheese.)
On the post: Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free
Re:
ABEND: Divide by zero error.
Full stop.
Reboot.
I haven't laughed that hard all day. Thank you TAM.
On the post: Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free
Re: Misleading Revenue Figures?
Considering the OS can be had for free, aren't these people alarmed that the licensed version of Linux is generating revenue in excess of 35 percent of what MS is pulling down for its once-ubiquitous license-only OS?
On the post: How Copyright Is Denying Us Our Own History
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nausea aside, I do agree with you. Nothing should be censored or forced into oblivion by stupidity or any other force.
On the post: Parents Television Council Demands Details Of Comcast's Porn Revenue
Re:
On the post: How Copyright Is Denying Us Our Own History
Re: Re:
On the post: ACTA Negotiators Respond To Questions About ACTA; More Of The Same
Re:
Cause that would be stupid.
On the post: Questions For ACTA Negotiators
Re:
Just so we are on the same page: By "greater good" you are referring to greater profits for less effort, applicable only to those who presently make a great deal of money, yes?
Or were you talking about the general "goodness" of suspending the right to due process and curtailing freedom of speech?
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: As long as we're talking conspiracy theories...
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Intent of what exactly?
I fail to see how the wiretap act could ever be applied to data which was broadcast in the clear over a radio frequency.
Radio waves are indiscriminate. Should I be arrested for tuning in to NPR during my morning commute? Well, yes, actually but that's another story.
Users of wireless networks are broadcasting their data over radio, encrypted or not. Unencrypted network data is no different that unencrypted analog radio... anyone with an antenna and tuner in range has every right observe what waves they are being bombarded with.
Of course if Google picked up and stored the session data of someone downloading copyright infringing material.. well then they're fucked.
Next >>