Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:but I'll defend to the death your right to say (Score 1) 285

by jratcliffe (#49119857) Attached to: Google Knocks Explicit Adult Content On Blogger From Public View

Uh, maybe PRIVATE schools can have content-based speech restrictions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

So can public schools. Not politically content-based (i.e. can't allow people to wear "Republicans Suck" t-shirts while prohibiting "Democrats Suck" t-shirts), but public schools can certainly place greater restrictions on speech than would be allowed for the public at large. The federal government can't ban Playboy, but a public school can certainly prohibit students from bringing it to class.

Comment: Re:Google and censorship... (Score 5, Informative) 285

by jratcliffe (#49119253) Attached to: Google Knocks Explicit Adult Content On Blogger From Public View

Google's usual spin to try to sound equitable and egalitarian. They're anything but. Remember the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Remember when Google took payments from BP to redirect search queries to results that pointed to pro BP (PR agency) websites and religated real journalism and articles about public concern to the back pages of search results that rarely, if ever get seen? Isn't that efectively censorship that's against the public interest?

You mean when BP bought ads on Google based on Deepwater Horizon-related search terms? The same ads that anybody could have purchased, and that were clearly marked as ads? Nobody was being "redirected," unless you think that the law firms that buy ads on "mesothelioma" looking for clients for asbestos lawsuits are somehow "redirecting" searchers from the mesothelioma web page?

Comment: Re:Copyright issue? (Score 1) 285

by jratcliffe (#49119219) Attached to: Google Knocks Explicit Adult Content On Blogger From Public View

If you say "we're doing it because of copyright," then you get everyone saying "hey, my material doesn't violate copyright," and Google's in a place it DEFINITELY doesn't want to be, which is proactively checking content for violations.

Agreed on the linens thing - I like Starwood's approach on that - if you don't want your room made up, they give you a discount or some extra points.

Comment: Copyright issue? (Score 5, Interesting) 285

by jratcliffe (#49118999) Attached to: Google Knocks Explicit Adult Content On Blogger From Public View

I wonder if this isn't motivated at least in substantial part by copyright concerns. A huge portion of adult content posted is in violation of copyright, and if Google was seeing that they were getting DMCA notices for adult content on Blogger at rates that far exceed the overall average, and the cost/effort of responding to those notices was outstripping the ad revenue from the adult blogs, then maybe they just decided it's not worth it.

Purely speculation on my part, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Comment: Re:Oh darn... (Score 2) 211

by jratcliffe (#49096827) Attached to: 800,000 Using HealthCare.gov Were Sent Incorrect Tax Data

I'm aware of the one Gruber comment. Counterbalancing that is the weight of comments by all the key drafters and authors that this is not what they intended. It's poorly written, no doubt, but it's an incredible stretch to argue that the authors and backers of the law clearly intended to hide away a time bomb within it. Absent clear evidence that they did, the IRS's interpretation of the law looks entirely reasonable and in line with Congressional intent.

Comment: Re:Oh darn... (Score 2) 211

by jratcliffe (#49096533) Attached to: 800,000 Using HealthCare.gov Were Sent Incorrect Tax Data

"The executive branch needs to learn they implement the law congress passes not the one they wish congress passes"

Except they ARE implementing the law congress passed. Nobody without a prior axe to grind, looking at the law as written, in the context of how and when it was passed, could reach the conclusion that the passage was designed to do what the plaintiffs claim it was. In cases of ambiguity in a specific phrase, the courts are obliged to look at the legislation as a whole and at the context in which it was passed in order to resolve the ambiguity.

Comment: Re:The big picture (Score 2) 211

by jratcliffe (#49096501) Attached to: 800,000 Using HealthCare.gov Were Sent Incorrect Tax Data

Since these insurance companies wouldn't insure millions of people at a reasonable price until the government forced the issue

Also, the government introduced the insurance mandate, thereby sharply reducing the adverse selection problem associated with the individual insurance market.

If they can make penicillin out of moldy bread, they can sure make something out of you. -- Muhammad Ali

Working...