If he somehow manages to undo Nixon's mistake of legitimizing China and allowing them to rise into a global superpower without first taking the time to mature into a responsible society, that will absolutely be a great win for pretty much the entire world.
(Whether or not that actually happens is another matter entirely, but a guy can dream, can't he?)
True enough, but the thing that it's a symptom of--the flat-out horrific views that the Saudi regime has on women's rights and human rights in general--is beyond Google's or Apple's power to fix. This is not.
The phrase "just treating a symptom" has some validity to it, but not always. For example, there are a number of diseases that used to be thought of as an automatic death sentence because the symptoms included lethal levels of dysentery, until someone noticed that the reason the dysentery killed you was from dehydration. Turns out that if you drink lots of water and keep your basic nutrition up, so that your body doesn't waste away, it will buy you the time your immune system needs to kill off the disease, and you end up recovering.
(Not sure how well that notion translates to the problem of the Saudi regime, but it's worth keeping in mind...)
Yeah, this is basically to be expected in an illegitimate society founded on barbarism and brutality.
Look up who Saud was, and the things he did during his horrific conquest of a land that used to simply be called "Arabia" before he literally renamed it after himself, and it puts a lot of what's happened ever since into perspective.
That's still completely backwards. The standard of in dubio pro reo (aka the presumption of innocence) has been around since Aristotle. If someone wants something taken down, they need to prove that it shouldn't be up before it gets taken down; putting the burden on the contributor to prove that it actually is valid after it's been taken down is a legal absurdity that we need to do away with, not reinforce!
I might agree with your attitude that this really isn't such a big deal, except that in the gaming industry, it kind of is. A year later, demand will have dropped off a cliff.
Just out of curiosity, how exactly would they go about doing that? As far as I'm aware, there's no tool I could use to reliably restrict my own phone from accessing pornography, let alone one in the physical possession of somebody else!
That doesn't change anything really. Now that you've got free hosting for your video... instead of having to pay for advertising to show your video to people, you have to pay for advertising to make people aware that you have a free video worth watching. The fundamental question of how you get the message out (ie. bring it to the attention of a large percentage of the electorate) changes very little with the existence of YouTube. It still takes a lot of resources for someone who doesn't already have an audience to gather an audience, no matter how good their message.
The I-N (Is Not) naming gag was already getting old back in the 90s. Although I suppose we should expect nothing better from a community that's spent the last 35 years in full-on kicking-and-screaming resistance against any and every attempt to drag them out of the 1970s!
Try googling Three Felonies a Day. While the book uses that number as hyperbole, the general idea that there are so many laws on the books that we unintentionally commit felonies is very much the case.
As I already pointed out, the book is a bunch of nonsense filled with "examples" that are not things ordinary people actually do.
And, while Valve didn't specifically ask Steam users to do this, it knew what would happen when it decried Deep Silver's business decision as "unfair to Steam customers."
...
Valve knows this, but it decided to coyly unleash the trolls instead.
So what you're saying (or at least heavily implying) is that when a big, powerful organization puts out some communication to a large audience, which they know full well will cause some number among that audience to try and go out and harm somebody, that they should be held responsible for it?
Copyright isn't "legacy," but rather ownership of one's creative works
Please go and grind a few levels in reading comprehension. In the phrase "legacy copyright industries," the adjective "legacy" is not modifying the word "copyright", but rather the word "industries", which is also the target of the word "copyright". Legacy copyright industries are industries dependent on an outdated business model, which abuse copyright to stave off competition so they don't have to put forth the time, effort and money required to adapt.
This site sure posts a lot of articles in favor of doing nothing to stop piracy.
This site posts a lot of articles in favor of doing nothing to increase collateral damage in the name of stopping piracy. Which is a good thing, since the amount of collateral damage we're already seeing is far too high.
Every single adult in America is guilty of multiple felonies.
No, they're not. This ridiculous notion comes from a ridiculous book (which I believe was called "Three Felonies A Day" or something similar) purporting to explain how all sorts of common, everyday activities have been interpreted in one context or another as felonies, and therefore the average American adult commits three every day.
But if you actually look at the book and its contents, the "common, everyday activities" are anything but; the examples the author gives are things that ordinary people don't actually do, and certainly not on a daily basis! The whole thing is just a bunch of trolling that, unfortunately, a lot of people fell for.
On the post: As Trump Prepares Ban On Huawei, Few Notice The Major Holes In The Underlying Logic
Re: Expected Response
If he somehow manages to undo Nixon's mistake of legitimizing China and allowing them to rise into a global superpower without first taking the time to mature into a responsible society, that will absolutely be a great win for pretty much the entire world.
(Whether or not that actually happens is another matter entirely, but a guy can dream, can't he?)
On the post: Google, Apple Called Out For Hosting Saudi Government App That Allows Men To Track Their Spouses' Movements
Re: Re: Re:
True enough, but the thing that it's a symptom of--the flat-out horrific views that the Saudi regime has on women's rights and human rights in general--is beyond Google's or Apple's power to fix. This is not.
The phrase "just treating a symptom" has some validity to it, but not always. For example, there are a number of diseases that used to be thought of as an automatic death sentence because the symptoms included lethal levels of dysentery, until someone noticed that the reason the dysentery killed you was from dehydration. Turns out that if you drink lots of water and keep your basic nutrition up, so that your body doesn't waste away, it will buy you the time your immune system needs to kill off the disease, and you end up recovering.
(Not sure how well that notion translates to the problem of the Saudi regime, but it's worth keeping in mind...)
On the post: Google, Apple Called Out For Hosting Saudi Government App That Allows Men To Track Their Spouses' Movements
Re: Time for another rule of thumb
Yeah, this is basically to be expected in an illegitimate society founded on barbarism and brutality.
Look up who Saud was, and the things he did during his horrific conquest of a land that used to simply be called "Arabia" before he literally renamed it after himself, and it puts a lot of what's happened ever since into perspective.
On the post: Article 13 Was Purposefully Designed To Be Awful For The Internet; EU Moves Forward With It Anyway
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering the broken mess that the DMCA and ContentID have given us, this is hardly helping your case!
On the post: Article 13 Was Purposefully Designed To Be Awful For The Internet; EU Moves Forward With It Anyway
Re: Re:
That's still completely backwards. The standard of in dubio pro reo (aka the presumption of innocence) has been around since Aristotle. If someone wants something taken down, they need to prove that it shouldn't be up before it gets taken down; putting the burden on the contributor to prove that it actually is valid after it's been taken down is a legal absurdity that we need to do away with, not reinforce!
On the post: Steam Responds To Epic's Competition By Weaponizing The Steam Community
Re: Re: Re:
I might agree with your attitude that this really isn't such a big deal, except that in the gaming industry, it kind of is. A year later, demand will have dropped off a cliff.
On the post: Hawaii The Latest To Push Bullshit Porn Filter Law Pushed By Sketchy Backers
Re:
Just out of curiosity, how exactly would they go about doing that? As far as I'm aware, there's no tool I could use to reliably restrict my own phone from accessing pornography, let alone one in the physical possession of somebody else!
On the post: Copyright Holders Still Don't Support EU's Already Awful Upload Filter Proposal; Demand It Be Made Worse
Re: Re: Re:
It's not difficult if you look at the context. Context is everything!
On the post: Steam Responds To Epic's Competition By Weaponizing The Steam Community
Re:
I believe they received it on Steam, exactly as they had ordered; it's just that no one else going forward will be able to buy it on Steam.
On the post: Daily Deal: Heimdal Thor Foresight Home PC Malware Protection
Wow, this again?
Does it come with Idris Elba and Chris Hemsworth personally defending my computer yet?
On the post: Lack Of Internet Access Threatens 2020 Census Success And The Future Latino Voting Power
Re: Re: Foreigner with raised eyebrow here
That doesn't change anything really. Now that you've got free hosting for your video... instead of having to pay for advertising to show your video to people, you have to pay for advertising to make people aware that you have a free video worth watching. The fundamental question of how you get the message out (ie. bring it to the attention of a large percentage of the electorate) changes very little with the existence of YouTube. It still takes a lot of resources for someone who doesn't already have an audience to gather an audience, no matter how good their message.
On the post: Sheriffs' Union Boss Says Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job If They Can't Score Forfeiture Cash On The Side
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it really is! :)
On the post: Steam Responds To Epic's Competition By Weaponizing The Steam Community
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Quality
The I-N (Is Not) naming gag was already getting old back in the 90s. Although I suppose we should expect nothing better from a community that's spent the last 35 years in full-on kicking-and-screaming resistance against any and every attempt to drag them out of the 1970s!
On the post: Sheriffs' Union Boss Says Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job If They Can't Score Forfeiture Cash On The Side
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I already pointed out, the book is a bunch of nonsense filled with "examples" that are not things ordinary people actually do.
On the post: Steam Responds To Epic's Competition By Weaponizing The Steam Community
So what you're saying (or at least heavily implying) is that when a big, powerful organization puts out some communication to a large audience, which they know full well will cause some number among that audience to try and go out and harm somebody, that they should be held responsible for it?
Interesting...
On the post: Copyright Holders Still Don't Support EU's Already Awful Upload Filter Proposal; Demand It Be Made Worse
Re:
Please go and grind a few levels in reading comprehension. In the phrase "legacy copyright industries," the adjective "legacy" is not modifying the word "copyright", but rather the word "industries", which is also the target of the word "copyright". Legacy copyright industries are industries dependent on an outdated business model, which abuse copyright to stave off competition so they don't have to put forth the time, effort and money required to adapt.
This site posts a lot of articles in favor of doing nothing to increase collateral damage in the name of stopping piracy. Which is a good thing, since the amount of collateral damage we're already seeing is far too high.
On the post: Sheriffs' Union Boss Says Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job If They Can't Score Forfeiture Cash On The Side
Re: Re: Re:
No, they're not. This ridiculous notion comes from a ridiculous book (which I believe was called "Three Felonies A Day" or something similar) purporting to explain how all sorts of common, everyday activities have been interpreted in one context or another as felonies, and therefore the average American adult commits three every day.
But if you actually look at the book and its contents, the "common, everyday activities" are anything but; the examples the author gives are things that ordinary people don't actually do, and certainly not on a daily basis! The whole thing is just a bunch of trolling that, unfortunately, a lot of people fell for.
On the post: Copyright Holders Still Don't Support EU's Already Awful Upload Filter Proposal; Demand It Be Made Worse
Re: Re: Re:
I take it you've never played Disgaea? (It makes sense in context, once you understand where the name comes from.)
On the post: Copyright Holders Still Don't Support EU's Already Awful Upload Filter Proposal; Demand It Be Made Worse
Re:
Seriously? That got flagged?
On the post: Ex-NSA Personnel Spied On Americans And Journalists For The United Arab Emirates
Re: Re:
Not sure how you got that out of that comment; it's too incoherent to extract any meaning at all from! :P
Next >>