looks like one of those CW showsIt wasn't until Jude Law popped up that I realized this was for a movie, not some show like Supergirl.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Flee
« on: Today at 03:57:39 AM »
I'll get back to you all but wanted to share this first. It's an award-winning paper that analyzed the relationship between Wikipedia and platforms that aggregate its content by sharing links with extensive snippets of text. The paper found that while Wiki adds a lot of value to the other sites, this relationship is unidirectional as few readers follow through to Wiki and give it traffic or revenue. Wikipedia is exempt from the Directive of course, but it stands to reason this holds true for many newspapers, authors and content creaties too. I'm not convinced they chose the right way to go about this but there's definitely evidence that it's a real issue they're trying to address.
I, personally, just don't see having to pay a fee for hyperlinking to be a good thing in any shape or form. The concept seems absolutely ridiculous. Hyperlinking is one of the most basic features of the internet and is essential for the sharing of information.Recital 33: " This protection (being that of publishers and authors' content) does not extend to acts of hyperlinking".
Recital 38: "...the responsibility of online content sharing providers pursuant to Article 13 does not extend to acts of
Article 11 paragraph 2a: "The rights referred to in paragraph 1 (which is the rights holder being able to claim compensation for use) shall not extend to mere hyperlinks which are accompanied by individual words" (meaning that hyperlinks are exempt from tax, fee, licensing or any claims of renumeration).
And I don't think it's a good idea to make platforms liable for their users having posted copyrighted material. My concern is that sites will create vast overreaching AI driven filters to remove or block copyrighted material that will not be able to distinguish between content that has been transformed through fair-use, all just to avoid getting fined.The Directive makes no mention of any fines. There is no European or national authority that will look for copyrighted material being posted and then fine the platform it's on. The Directive calls for licensing agreements to be concluded between the platforms and the rights holder which will settle the details of any liability issues that might arise. It also instates thorough redress mechanisms in the event that material was unduly removed, states that automatic blocking of content shouldn't happen and requires non-infringing material (such as fair use material) to remain freely available.
Article 13.2a: "...shall not lead to preventing the availability of non-infringing works or other protected subject matter, including those covered by an exception or limitation to copyright."
Article 13.2b: "Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review."
Article 13.": "Special account shall be taken of fundamental rights, the use of exceptions and limitations as well as
ensuring that the burden on SMEs remains appropriate and that automated blocking of content is avoided."
I agree that there are genuine concerns but much of this is exaggerated and few who raise your arguments have taken the time to actually read the law or understand what's actually in it. Hopefully this helps you understand it better.
you did thisMy institution is on a list of prominent signatories and experts that opposed the proposal. I did my best.
The term "link tax" is pretty misleading as it's not a government or authority that will tax the use of segments of press publications. It's about large platforms such as Google News aggregating sections of news articles without compensating the publishers / authors. The "link tax" is a legal ground for those rights holders to request licenses or receive fair compensation otherwise from the likes of Google News. Also, individuals will remain free to do so just the same, non-commercial use is exempt and hyperlinks are perfectly fine.Those who chose to implement Link Taxes and upload filters.How will they tax links or filter uploads?Who are you referring to with "they"?
The requirement of including upload filters no longer exists in the final version of the text. A system like Youtube's Content ID could be used but the law does not mandate specific filtering or anything of the kind. This would be up to the countries to further look at and finally the platforms themselves to decide.
The new regulations seem pretty awful for fair-use content creation and the sharing of information, regardless of how you want to spin it.I don't particularly support the Directive myself but be aware that there's two sides to this story. You're concerned with content creation, which is a legitimate concern, but you should realize that plenty of organizations representing artists, authors, musicians, photographers, videographers and so on have voiced their support for the Directive, arguing it will help content creators receive more and fairer renumeration and address people misusing and plagiarizing their work. I know several small time visual artists who are quite happy with the outcome for just that reason.
We'll have to wait and see what the outcome will be but I don't see it being anywhere near as bad as some would have you believe. The latest version of the law has been thoroughly amended and contains additional safeguards for individual users / SME's as well as serious redress mechanisms, requirements to respect copyright exceptions like fair use and requests not to blanket block or ban content.
This is the END of the INTERNET as we know it.One look at our meme thread and man, am I happy the EU has finally banned those things.
How will they tax links or filter uploads?Who are you referring to with "they"?
« on: September 14, 2018, 05:24:51 AM »
On paper, what does Nazism stand for? National socialism. Sovereignty for the country. Equal rights for its people. All positions of public office must be held by citizens, not corrupt elites. Accessible and freely available healthcare, job protection, social services, higher education. Those are some of the fundamental tenets of national socialism, a term which sounds neutral and perfectly acceptable at first glance. It's a strong social policy that cares for and supports all its citizens ("socialism"), and protects the integrity and sovereignty of the country ("national"). You'd be crazy not to support that, right? It's only when you look a little further and gaze past what's just in the name that the other stuff comes out. With Nazism, the other stuff was still pretty much out in the open. With modern populism and nationalism? Less so, but it's still very much there.
A simplified name given to an ideology or movement on paper rarely tells the full story. The notions of populism and nationalism are still debated and there's no unanimously accepted definition for either. But saying that it's just about caring for the ordinary people simply isn't correct. That's such a broad generalization that just any political group that doesn’t just care about the 1% should be labeled populist. From my experience, populism is guilty without fail of the things I mentioned to the point that I think they're inherent to the ideology and movement. Populism is a crooked package deal. It is inherently negative. It's always about anti-intellectualism and capitalizing on the fears and misgivings of the uninformed to rile them up with misinformation against easy scapegoats. I'm all ears if you have evidence to the contrary, but I have never seen anything to support populism isn't what I'm saying it is.
If being proud of your heritage is what you're talking about, then patriotism is a more appropriate term. It's difficult to define nationalism but excessive polarization between the national identity and everything else is a key part of it. "An extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries", suggests Google's definition. "Exalting one nation above all others", is one of the meanings Webster suggests. The ideology that "the individual's loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests", according to Britannica. "Excessive or undiscriminating devotion, to the interests or culture of a particular nation-state", per dictionary.com. There's "weaker" definitions of it too, but claiming that it's just about being proud of your country and ignoring all the other connotations is just wrong to do. Nationalism is at its core about devoting yourself to the national identity of your people to the point that it overrides the interests of individuals and groups, and that it rejects multi-culturalism, globalism and supranational initiatives because it considers them as threats to the superior own identity and heritage.
Perhaps you’re not being disingenuous, but then I think you might just not be aware of the full extent of what we're talking about. Populism simply isn't just about "representing the ordinary citizens", and neither is nationalism limited to "being proud of your country". Both concepts go far beyond that and are tied to longstanding associations, methods and characteristics that you simply cannot ignore. Even if you argue that they aren't inherent to it in the sense that you could theoretically have "pure" populism that doesn't have the same flaws, the fact that this just doesn't (and simply can’t) happen in reality cannot be ignored.
From what I remember, you're not too big on SJW and PC stuff. What's social justice? The concept of "fair and just relations between the individual and society", as defined by Wiki. "A state of egalitarianism", per Webster. "All individuals and groups entitled to fair and impartial treatment", per LegalDictionary. It's a term that's been used for decades (even Churchill advocated for it). Political correctness? Avoiding behavior, language or practices that can be offensive, exclusionary or discriminatory to certain groups. It’s treating the people you interact with respect and mindfulness of how your choice of words or actions can negatively affect them. Two very straightforward and simple concepts that I think sound pretty good on paper, yet I imagine you're not quick to identify as a social justice activist or PC supporter, right? Point is that even if populism was ever good/neutral, the meaning of these terms does change over time - as it well should. And populism, as the movement and ideology has been in recent and modern history, is in my opinion a cancer that inherently contains all of the issues I described. If you care about truth, facts and reasonable policy, I strongly believe that you owe it to yourself to oppose populism for what it is.
« on: September 12, 2018, 05:17:51 PM »
I think it's very disingenuous to pretend that's what populism and nationalism are actually about. Populism is as much about caring about the ordinary citizen as soviet communism was about true equality and abolishment of social classes while those in power were just "more equal" than others and lived in wealth and decadence. On paper and oversimplified it sounds wonderful. Hell yeah, the normal, fair and honest citizens take on the sick and corrupt elite. Who could possibly be opposed to that? But in reality, it's a lot different. And I'll quote something I said in some other thread.-Being populist and nationalist.What exactly is so terrible about representing ordinary citizens? Or being proud of your country/nationality?
The problem lies more with the tactics being used that are almost inherent to populism. Deliberately targeting the uneducated with waves of propaganda. Riling up latent feelings of discomfort and fear to focus on a convenient and simple scapegoat. Manipulating the complaints of the disenfranchised to serve particular interests. Relying primarily on misinformation and misleading claims to gain support. Oversimplifying complex and multifaceted issues into biased and one-sided snippets of inadequate information. Waging a figurative war on all those who disagree by painting them as elitist bureaucrats looking to keep the pure people down. Deliberately ignoring evidence to the contrary and making bold claims and problems on things known to be nearly impossible. Supporting what at first sight appears to be true according to the gut feeling of the least qualified to judge an issue while dismissing the well researched and substantiated findings of highly qualified experts with years of experience. It's emotion over reason and logic.
Additionally, it is typically opposed to institutions of power, checks and balances, human and civil rights and so forth. Way too often, it is a movement aimed at using misleading claims and misinformation to convince the gullible and uneducated that their complaints will disappear if only the distant and unreachable elite keeping the common man down is taken care off and both expertise and knowledge make way for the impressions of poorly qualified men, only to then replace them with equally distant and elitist leaders of their own that will continue to manipulate them for their own gain and escalate the war on "the other".
I've thought this for years and have only grown more convinced over the years. Populism is one of the, if not the single greatest, threat(s) to western democracy and its core values. It's what brought us Trump and Brexit and hundreds of other smaller pains. This is a perfect example. Anti-vaxx crowds have been gaining popularity in Italy. This has led to thousands of infected children with preventable diseases and several fatalities. A law was proposed to stop this and require more common vaccinations before allowing children to enroll in public schools. Everything looked set until the populist party gained more power in the recent elections. As always, it's anti-science. Anti-intellectualism. Anti-experts. Who cares about facts and actual medicine? Thousands of uninformed people are susceptible to anti-vaxx BS, so why not run with it? Paint the "medical elite" as the bad guys, attack people who get their children vaccinated, describe vaccine policies as "useless and sometimes dangerous", give a platform to anti-vaxx personalities, fan the flames by campaigning against the corrupt elite coaxing you into injecting your children and distributing blatant BS information linking it to autism, depression, cancer... They painted something as commonsense as a vaccine policy for public schools as corrupt elitists trying to line their own pockets and keep the common man down by exposing the children to illness and interfering with the lives of ordinary people. And they succeeded. No extensive vaccine policy anymore. It's a u-turn on vaccine requirements and the first step down a path that medical organizations in Italy fear will lead to the complete removal of a vaccination policy. The country accounts for only around 10% of the EU population yet has almost 30% of its measles infections in the past few years - a number that's been on the rise. That's real populism for you. "Representing the ordinary citizens" my ass. It's a kick in the teeth for anyone who values truth, reason and sensible policy. And the most ironic part is that it happens on the backs of those who ultimately pay the greatest price.
And nationalism is more straightforward. It's got nothing to do with being proud of who you are or where you're from. It's a pretty extreme ideology that generally revolves around the idea that your people are inherently better than the rest and that your national identity should be protected at the cost of others. It goes far beyond reasonable restrictions on immigration and cultural protections and casually flirts with racism and xenophobia every step of the way.
I didn't mean to imply that you were one of them. Just baffled by the people who make a fuss about this. I've put a few hours into the beta so far and haven't once stopped to notice or think about whether someone's character was a woman or black. There's historically inaccurate stuff happening every minute. I don't agree with how Dice responded but many of the responses are beyond petty.Nah, I'm just not buying any new EA games (unless its cheap like Titanfall 2 [Still wish Respawn was under Bethesda])Not educated enough to play the beta.>there's actually people not playing the game because there's female and black soldiers in it
>haha soyboy SJW snowflakes can't deal with anything and get triggered over memes
>wtf soldier is girl? #BOYCOTTEA #NOTMYBATTLEFIELD fucking feminazi agenda ruining everything
Not educated enough to play the beta.>there's actually people not playing the game because there's female and black soldiers in it
« on: September 10, 2018, 02:00:50 PM »
-Being populist and nationalist.How about:Glad to see SD didn't gain as much as some of the polls suggested.What's wrong with SD?
-Having its roots and foundations in genuine neo-nazi and fascist groups.
-Long history of anti-gay, anti-semitic, xenophobic and racist incidents
« on: September 10, 2018, 01:31:36 PM »
Why not ask your sister?Glad to see SD didn't gain as much as some of the polls suggested.What's wrong with SD?
« on: September 10, 2018, 01:19:11 PM »
Glad to see SD didn't gain as much as some of the polls suggested.
Same with words like "lag" and other random stuff. Dice has already said there's errors in the chat filter and that it'll be fixed for the launch game.
so why didn't they call it Battlefield 2It already exists. The first Battlefield from 2002 was never called Battlefield 1, it was just Battlefield 1942. For example, they could name the next SF title "Street Fighter I" to signal a throwback or reboot because the original game was just "Street Fighter", but they couldn't name the one after that Street Fighter II since a game by that that exact name already exists. It makes more sense with BF1 one though since it went back to the earliest time period covered by the series and the name is a reference to WW1. All other games in the series were set in WW2, Vietnam, modern day, and near / far future.
« on: September 08, 2018, 11:11:30 AM »
Looks like it's overSo we're a few weeks later now and not only has no company reversed its decision, but now Twitter has also banned him permanently and Apple removed his app from the Apple Store.
On a related note, Nike's stock drop was in line with those of other sneakers and is almost back up to where it was before, it sales boomed a massive 31% since it started supporting Kaepernick, and the ad campaign made them $165 million of media exposure in just two days. Despite Trump's unfounded and stupid claims that this is "killing Nike", the company is already reaping enormous benefits from the move. So far it seems like they made a great business call.
That's too bad. I was hoping to hear a solid counter-point or opinion.I got my opinions in my head but I can't make a sound counter argumentA: Let me get back to about this.Sure thing.
A: Let me get back to about this.Sure thing.
Does it really bother you that companies get political or is it just that you dislike whatever it is their political stance is? I've seen a lot of people say this and it seems they all just disagreed with the political POV rather than the mere fact of the company having political opinions. You mention you'll instead take your business to Adidas instead. Are you aware that Adidas has already gone political on numerous occasions? In 2015, the company launched a fund to help high schools make their sports teams more politically correct. The next year, its CEO spoke out against Brexit. In 2017, it aired a commercial to get football teams to change "offensive" names like The Indians to something more appropriate, as well as launch an ad in support of multiculturalism. Its daughter company Reebok has been even more politically active and has (among many other things) directly mocked Trump and supported Democrat senators. Are you going to go down the list of sneaker / sports attire companies and look for the few that have never gotten tied up in politics (good luck with that) or are you perhaps just not admitting that you're a bit peeved about Nike's particular stance here?
As for my opinion, good on Nike. The move has already been tremendously succesful for marketing. Kaepernick protests a worthy cause and does so in a way that is non-violent, doesn't harm or negatively affect anyone, and doesn't (or didn't) stop him from doing his job. The extreme American patriotism is pretty bewildering to begin with, and anyone who gets flustered by football man not standing for a song/flag should reconsider their priorities. Peaceful protest is an important part of freedom of speech, which is exactly what all the supposedly offended soldiers fight / fought to protect.
Relevant. EU going strong once again.
It's a double edged sword. Gun culture is, to me, bewildering and has a fair bit of negative consequences but it's pretty important to a lot of Americans. The concern with having restrictions for people suffering from mental illness is that they will deter people from seeking help. A veteran / law enforcement officer with PTSD, someone with a bad childhood trauma, people suffering from depression / bipolar... If you'd start restricting these people's gun ownership or put them on a list that might be used for that purpose later, there would thousands and thousands of people with issues who would just not seek help out of fear of losing their guns. Imo it's baffling that people are so deep into their gun culture that they'd chose firearm over mental health, but it's a real sentiment. You'd end up with some of the most troubled people clinging to their firearms and not seeking help for their mental issues.Idk about retarded but at least don't sell guns to ppl who are going from one therapist to another for several years to deal with their psyche issues.Remember how a theory test and a driving test + mandatory car insurance and road tax took away your cars?I mean it probably would if they made it even slightly harder than getting a driver’s license. The majority of gun owners are severely retarded.
I still support stricter rules on that but the gun culture and misplaced obsession with firearms will undermine the effectiveness.
I knew that they 're often willing to email free copies but I didn't know that journals take 100% of the cakeMan, I sometimes check my papers' stats and feel the pain seeing how I get exactly $0 for hundreds of downloads and reads of my research. Feels bad man.
To be clear, this is almost entirely for open access journals though. I've never heard of a pay wall one charging that much.I knew that they 're often willing to email free copies but I didn't know that journals take 100% of the cakeIt's also a huge cost in some cases to even get your research published. Some publishers in the states charge upward of $3,000 to do so. It's a real shitshow since it's the only real way to put your work out legitimately.