Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:ICANN sell to the highest bidder (Score 1) 56

by ultranova (#47952745) Attached to: Amazon Purchases<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.buy TLD For $4.6 Million

TLDs have certain requirements associated with them, unless Amazon magically also has some super special secret deal that Google hasn't told the world about after losing ... then Amazon won't be able to monopolize or otherwise use the TLD to an unfair advantage.

And yet that's exactly what Amazon will do. Even if they run their registry business as a separate department, the conflict of interests is always there. It's exactly like an ISP who also provides content has an incentive to make connections to Netflix suck.

Perhaps it would be best to simply forbid companies from expanding to arbitrary new segments?

Comment: Re:The US already had this power for a long time (Score 1) 216

by rtb61 (#47952075) Attached to: Putin To Discuss Plans For Disconnecting Russia From the Internet

So this planning by Russia is a logical move. How to selectively cut off foreign regional areas from local national internet, whilst maintaining local national internet and select international connections. This is something that every country capable of doing so should do so. The internet is an essential part of modern communications infrastructure and method should be established to ensure the local national infrastructure continues to operate regardless of government or corporate machinations in foreign countries. Same with network security functions, there should be a clear distinction in managing security operations between local national operations and foreign operations and inherently foreign operations can never be trusted as proven of course by the US government and the NSA.

Management of essential national infrastructure should always be by a locally elected government and not left to foreign powers whether they be government or even worse corporate. This is just all part of the internet becoming 'essential' infrastructure and not being left to psychopathic corporate interests or foreign manipulations, quite simply all a part of ensuring local national net neutrality.

Comment: Re:Then it happens less in science than in general (Score 1) 388

by HiThere (#47951133) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

IIUC, this is not a survey of the *level* of sexual assault, but of the rate. And if the sample questions quoted above are typical, then I'm surprised that it isn't higher.

OTOH, the questions that were listed above (in the discussion about poorly worded questions) don't distinguish between a bit of uncomfortable humor and forcible rape. One presumes that actual criminal activity is rare, but this isn't evidence of that.

That said, in groups that are predominantly male and relatively isolated from external contact, one might expect that undesireably agressive sexual behavior would be relatively common. The real question to me is how moderate is the degree of undesireably agressive sexual behavior. (The rate would be interested *IF* coupled with the degree.)

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 0) 388

by i kan reed (#47949565) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

I've never accused anyone of being a misogynists for disagreeing with me, and since you've clearly gone over my posts recently, I can tell you have no evidence of it.

You're strawmanning again.

And I don't give a fuck if you think I'm being "morally superior" to people whose behaviors are outright reprehensible. Take you self-righteousness about self-righteousness and shove it up your ass, you hypocritical douchebag.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 388

by i kan reed (#47949421) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

"Horrible shit" being denialism over the level of sexual assault in the scientific field, and implicitly by suggesting that this completely spurious dismissal is somehow not completely fucking insane by the nature of your argument.

Now you can argue your statements are somehow completely divorced from the discussion's context. You can do that till the cow comes home and I won't be able to prove it, but I don't think you've remotely earned that level of good faith.

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 3, Interesting) 288

by i kan reed (#47949231) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

Netflix plays what their subscribers want to see

Then why do they have so many reality TV shows? Ugh.

No, but really, the set of inputs to what Netflix has is quite complicated. They love things with cheap per showing licenses, like off-the-air TV shows, unpopular movies, documentaries where the producers are more interested in pushing a message than making a profit, and a smattering of more popular "draw" shows/movies to bring in the popular audience.

And then there's the loss-leader shows trying to get people to start watching the series as it comes out, either on pay services or with commercials.

And then there's the various "taste profiles" of the people who are netflix subscribers, and what's both cheap and good within that frame.

There's some pitiable accountants in the company who's responsible for balancing all those factors, while making a profit.

Reducing all that to "giving the people what they want" is a little unpragmatic.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score -1) 388

by i kan reed (#47949077) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

The fuck is wrong with you? People are allowed to have stupid opinions. That's not the same as allowing sexual assault, in any way shape or form.

Are you brain dead? There has to be a little life in your mind that sees actual harm as separate and distinct from dumb opinions. Right?

People thinking stupid things is not "an issue". Holy christ are you dense as fuck.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 0) 388

by i kan reed (#47948639) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

You're right; feminists don't in general, push for only that, because legalistic bias isn't the only kind that's harming people. You can see object evidence of how systemic bias hurts women Or objective evidence that certain kinds of cultural media measurably cause those biases. Standing against that, in spite of having nothing to do with the law, is morally justified, and even necessary.

But I'm sure you meant that what they we want is some kinda imagined matriarchy, where special rights are reserved for one half the population. Which is dumb. And while people with all sorts of self-labels say all sorts of dumb things, it is not a suggestion made by anywhere near a large percentage of feminists.

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 5, Informative) 288

by i kan reed (#47948537) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

To clarify, in this case they claim that netflix doesn't do enough to encourage the production and consumption of Canadian entertainment, a requirement they place on other distributors.

So they're, in theory, doing exactly what you say, just in less harsh terms. They want to ensure the continued interest of Canadian producers, and not American.

And they're using arbitrary leverage like demanding subscriber lists to push netflix to obey. It's not neat or nice. But they're kinda being upfront that it's just leverage not genuine interest in the records.

One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that they never have to stop and answer the phone.

Working...