Not sure what this comment even means? If you're suggesting that this article takes a position, uh, duh? Anyone who thinks that journalism is "neutral" is lying. We say what we believe and stand behind it. Have done so for nearly two decades.
Because to claim otherwise means there's a terrifying consequence: The NSA can read encrypted traffic.
This is not true. You are confusing encryption in transport with encryption of the data itself. The data is encrypted in transit, which protects it from snooping on the fly. But at rest on servers, companies like Facebook have access to it (for everything except Whatsapp, which has real end-to-end encryption).
Ah, but we do have an open ebook platform. It's called Epub, and while the open concept worked at first, eventually things went awry. The latest version of Epub, Epub3, has so many innovative features suggested by so many contributors that it is effectively nonfunctional.
I don't think the point is that open automatically wins. It clearly does not. But in the long term, an open platform is more likely to lead to greater innovations.
Often, in fact, I think a closed platform leads to the initial breakthrough -- Kindle, iPhone. But in the longer run, the more open solution allows for much more innovation on top of that initial breakthrough (e.g., Android).
Unfriending was one incident that was used as an example, among several (18, apparently), and in context it wasn't even "she unfriended me so she's bullying me". It's "she verbally abused me at the work place and cut her out of outside communication as well".
All of this is noted in the post, including the direct quote from the ruling. Not sure what you're accusing us of, but did you read Tim's full article?
Which is bullying, under the right circumstances. Not liking you is not bullying, but proactively excluding someone can be if the circumstances are hostile. And apparently the commission felt that it was.
And that's the point that Tim is contesting. The idea that unfriending someone could be hostile just seems wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: watched the GOP debates for once
I've studied it pretty extensively, actually, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything. What is the important "first thing" that I'm missing?
The "American" identity you think exists does not. American culture is a mix of cultures, bringing in all sorts of things from other places where people came. The idea that people came to America and gave up their previous identity is laughable and ignorant.
...right up until they don't, and then it isn't.
See this is why people claim you're a bigot. That's the kind of ignorant, fact-free statement that suggests someone who just doesn't like someone who is different. Yes, people are still integrating and at the same rates as in the past. Go back 130 years and people made similar claims about Irish immigrants and then Italian and Jewish immigrants. Insisting that they were clustering and not integrating. And then they did.
Same is happening today. And you're reacting just like the racists and bigots from a century ago who freak out because some people are acting "different."
You end up with ghettoized communities and all of the social problems that that brings with it, which we are actually seeing today.
No more than a century ago. Or 50 years ago. In fact arguably significantly *less* than in the past. Most of my family came here between 1890 and 1910 and moved into a "ghetto" of people from the old country, and kept their language and customs. And then the integrated a bit. And then their children integrated more. And then their children integrated even more and now there's my generation. And we still keep some customs, but are fully American. This is the way America has always worked.
American national identity was created in the first place: because we had some very smart people who had studied history and government pretty extensively, who knew about these sorts of problems and tried to head them off.
That's a myth. A myth pushed by racists.
What I think is ridiculous is for someone who has already chosen to "give up their identity," as you put it--or at the very least, to perform major surgery on it--to then be dishonest about it and pretend that they didn't.
Moving to a new country is not giving up your identity.
Moving to another country is not a simple task that one undertakes lightly; you've got to have a really good reason to not want to stay where you are.
Yes, but none of that means denying who you or your culture is.
So if you wanted to leave your past behind that badly, isn't it a little bit ridiculous to then cling to it?
No. Not at all. Moving to a country for new opportunities or to experience new things or to get away from persecution is one thing. Pretending that you don't keep your *culture* and *customs* or even *language* is another thing entirely.
Again, please check your assumptions here because they match up identically to standard racist and bigoted thinking and you appear to be pushing the myths of such people.
If you wish to be taken seriously, I would suggest learning a bit more about the reality of American culture and its history, because the version you seem to have gleaned is not an accurate portrayal of either historical or modern America.
But there does not appear to be any filter out there for spam comments
There are tons of spam filters. Akismet is the most popular, but there are many more. We actually use a combination of a few and run the comments through a string of them. We get somewhere between 500 and 1000 spam comments caught each day and just a small percentage of false positives (and an even smaller number of spam comments getting through). The idea that spam overwhelms sites with comments isn't true. The filters are pretty good.
There is yet another reason to remove comments. This reason is the totally idiotic legal responsibility of site owners for on-site comments content.
In the US there is no such legal responsibility. Site operators are fully protected under Section 230 of the CDA.
As a result, site owners either have to pay full-time moderators, or face lawsuits due to "illegal" comments not removed "in time."
This is simply not true. We don't have full time moderators (or, really, any moderators). And while we occasionally receive threats, pointing them to Section 230 and telling them to buzz off has always worked to date.
I know where my ancestors came from, before they showed up here. They were from all over the place, a little bit here, a little bit there, but I don't identify with any of those nationalities or cultures. I'm American, and that's all. That's good enough for me, and if it's not good enough for someone else, then why are they coming to live here in the first place?
If you have to ask that question, you don't know the first thing about American history.
Holding onto pieces of your past culture are quite typical. Each successive generation tends to integrate more and that's fine. People like you overreacting and claiming people are somehow less willing to integrate today are living a myth of history. First generation immigrants always hang onto some of what made them them. And that's perfectly reasonable. Setting up artificial standards of what is truly American is silly and ignorant of American history.
There's nothing bigoted about that. There's nothing degrading to point out that when you freely choose to live in Rome, you're expected to do as the Romans do, except perhaps insofar as it highlights how dumb someone is for having to be told something so obvious in the first place.
Telling people to give up their identities just because *you* think it's appropriate is fairly ridiculous, don't you think?
Reading previous posts on this selfie debate by Masnick, as well as other news outlets, none say that the cameras were left on the ground. Masnick has made this fact up. In fact many quote the camera on a tripod or a log, as does David Slater's own website. This totally changes what Masnick is claiming. Slater is the author quite clearly and has the copyright.
In the original story about this, Slater clearly said the monkeys KNOCKED THE CAMERA and then played with it. In other words it wasn't his composition in any way. If he's changing his story later, then he lied up front.
He always does that. It makes him come across as a conceited little prick.
Interesting. I will admit that I sometimes can get snarky, but looking at my original comment and my reply I don't actually see any snarky lines. The original I closed with "It would appear you are confused." That's just a statement of my opinion. It neither is, nor was meant to be, snarky.