You're posting links to videos (without including any description of what's in the video) in the comments to a child porn story???
As has been pointed out above, if one of them happens to be kiddie porn, everyone who clicks on it suddenly become a sex offender (at least in the US) through no fault of their own. Maybe that was your point, i don't know.
The Peace Prize is hit or miss. I just about gave up on it after they blew one on the worthless UN, but then they sucked me back in a little by giving it to Muhammad Yunus, someone who's actually praiseworthy. (Unlike Barack Obama, who's launched more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined, although I realize that even among the committee that made the decision it was a controversial decision.)
Those were Cruise Missiles for Peace. So that's completely different. It's like that old saying goes, "you got to spend money to make money". In this case you've got to kill people to save people.
Hulu could stand to learn from this. In general their ads are just what they are, but they always have that "Is this ad relevant to you?" thing up in the corner. There's some ads that I dislike, so much, I actually take the effort to click no on. Surprisingly I then continue to see those ads over and over again. This generally just annoys me to the point where I would never, ever, purchase whatever product that is, or from whatever company is advertising.
Ironically the advertisers could get a much bigger bank for their buck by not wasting money showing a particular ad to people who have already said that the ad doesn't interest them.
They probably can't stop showing them because they don't want to pay licensing fees to whoever owns the patent for "method to stop showing ads that are irrelevant to the consumer".
most honest or most brave/stupid/outspoken?
You can be honest without painting a target on yourself and your family.
...especially if they solve them in less time than the duration of the audio. (Only half kidding: They solved millions of eight second long captchas in a second and a half each and Recaptcha didn't even blink.)
or maybe it did blink and that's what tipped off Google to change the system?
That's a pretty weak defense against a claim of cruelty. A human analogue: Suppose you need a bunch of healthy teeth for an experiment. Find a child and yank out a few teeth - they'll grow new ones eventually. Shoot them up full of Novocaine first and they won't even feel it. I assume no one thinks that's acceptable?
If you're ok with the process because it's only a cockroach, just admit that. Don't try to use some false justification to convince yourself that you were humane about cutting it's leg off.
Website owners can sign up on the IDL website to add a bit of code to their sites (or receive code by email at the time of a campaign) that can be triggered in the case of a crisis like SOPA. This would add an "activist call-to-action" to all participating sites - such as a banner asking users to sign petitions, or in extreme cases blackout the site, as proved effective in the SOPA/PIPA protest of January 2012.
Are they nuts? I don't want any outside site having control over my clients' sites. If they are hacked this would give the hackers a quick way to affect any site that signs up with them. Well intentioned (I hope), but count me out.
I think the summary is wrong about how the system is supposed to work. From the actual IDF site: "First, sign up. If you have a website, we'll send you sample alert code to get working in advance. The next time there's an emergency, we'll tell you and send new code. Then it's your decision to pull the trigger."
Sounds like they give you a sample code in advance so you can make it fit with your site, then if something comes up, they send you a version specific to whatever the issue is. If you don't think it's important, you can just ignore it. If you do want to include a message, you can pop it on your site. And it shouldn't screw anything up because you've previously tested/customized the code for your site. That's slightly (completely?) different than the summary which implies they give you code allowing them to automatically add alerts to your site whenever they want.
I'm still not convinced it's worthwhile, but it's not the "no way in hell I'm doing that" method that the summary describes
I am not willing to pay for news. I am also not willing to look at or click on advertising to subsidize the news. I am theoretically willing to pay for long-form journalism, although in practice I don't. I use Readability to share articles with friends. I would never subscribed to a newspaper. I am educated (multiple university degrees; one in science, one in humanities, one in social science) and politically engaged.
I know I'm the face of the problem, and I don't care.
That's an easy position to take and it's one that's probably held by many people. But it's not the ideological stand some like to make it out to be. It's just a reaction to the current reality. At the moment you can opt for a free alternative to the news you're not willing to pay for. So your lack of willingness to pay doesn't have much negative impact on you. If those free alternatives end up being scaled back significantly to the point where they don't meet your needs, then your decision over whether to pay for news would mean something different. Until that happens (if it ever does), your first line might be more correctly written as "I am not willing to pay for news since I can easily access news for free elsewhere.". That is not the same thing.
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah
