Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 389

by Obfuscant (#47951885) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

I made i clear that I was expressing my opinion, not telling you what to do.

Telling me your opinion of what I should have done is still telling me what I should have done, because you telling me what I should have done is only ever going to be your opinion.

Does that mean you think I shouldn't express my opinion,

Nowhere did I say you didn't have the right to express your opinion. I was simply pointing out the irony of you telling me me what I should have said in the same article where you admit that telling other people what they should or should not do or say is beyond your control.

Comment: Re:ICANN sell to the highest bidder (Score 1) 59

by Obfuscant (#47951869) Attached to: Amazon Purchases<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.buy TLD For $4.6 Million

You're completely missing the point. Why should ICANN get to have a free money machine, and what do they intend to spend it on?

Maybe that's why I said the following in what you replied to?

The only issue would be where the money goes, not that Amazon got a TLD of its own. Who makes a profit from ICANN domain sales?

The issue seemed to be that Amazon was getting a TLD and ending competition and nobody else had any chance anymore. That's what the people I replied to complained about. Not the "free money machine".

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 1) 288

by mark-t (#47951541) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

Did I ever once suggest that I would Liberal? The conservatives might tend to be the lesser evil of the two, but we have more than two parties.

I vote with the party that most closely aligns to my own views... that doesn't necessarily mean I'll vote for the winning party (I can't remember the last election where I voted for the winning party actually), but I know in the end that it's the most I can do to give my own personal values a voice in Parliament, and an alternative view for them to consider when enough people in my voting district vote the same.

Comment: Re:ICANN sell to the highest bidder (Score 1) 59

by Obfuscant (#47951165) Attached to: Amazon Purchases<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.buy TLD For $4.6 Million

Really? You don't think selling out an entire TLD is a little wonky?

No, I don't. It's not like there is only one and Amazon got it. There are a large number already and more will be created in the future.

but isn't this a little odd when ICANN could just create any number of bullshit TLD's and auction them off for huge profits to companies while everyone else has no chance?

So what if you can't get a domain in the .buy TLD? Big deal. The only issue would be where the money goes, not that Amazon got a TLD of its own. Who makes a profit from ICANN domain sales?

If you can't see that, then I worry about you.

Yeah, if I'm not all doom and gloom about one TLD, that didn't exist yesterday so already had no registrations, not allowing you to register a name tomorrow, it must be my problem and not one of chicken little's.

What is your problem? You couldn't have a domain name under .buy yesterday, you won't be able to get one tomorrow. What's the big difference? What's changed?

Comment: Consider... (Score 1) 1

by mark-t (#47950849) Attached to: Free will persists (even if your brain made you do it)

It is certainly true that to the best of our sensibilities, we seem to have something like a free will. We can, for example, take any kind of data that we are exposed to in the present, and make what we believe to be free willed decision. I can concede that this appearance might very well be just an illusion, but if it were ever the case that we could somehow become aware that we were not making a free willed decision, then that illusion would disappear as well. Simply providing data to a person and allowing them to independently make what they think is a free-willed decision is not something that would dissolve such an illusion. Further, if free will does not really exist, then it should be possible to contrive a hypothetical situation where all of the decisions that someone will make can be anticipated before they occur.

If, however, it were ever allegedly possible to predict with perfect certainty what answer a person would give to a specific question, but the person had already decided to say that their answer would be the opposite of whatever their alleged predicted answer would be, then the prediction will always be wrong, so no mechanism for prediction such a decision exist, showing in turn that free will exists. If, however, they were not capable of deciding to do that, then they would not have any illusion of free will either. The illusion persists, however, so free will must also exist.

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 1) 288

by c (#47950815) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

Personally, I like the idea of that. It encourages and funds a lot of Canadian artists that might otherwise get swamped out of the market by monied American interests.

Personally, I would much, much, much rather the CRTC enforce rules for true network neutrality for Canadian internet users and find some other way to promote Canadian content.

Or, more accurately, for someone else to force the CRTC to go that way, because there's pretty much zero probability that they'll do it without coercion.

Comment: Re:ICANN sell to the highest bidder (Score 1) 59

by Obfuscant (#47950699) Attached to: Amazon Purchases<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.buy TLD For $4.6 Million

Now that Amazon has won, the competition is over, and the global Internet community can go broadly fuck themselves.

Yeah, because it isn't like anyone can go get a domain name in some other TLD and still have a viable and active web presence or anything. It's over. The Internet belongs to Jeff Bezos. Film at 11.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 389

by Obfuscant (#47950301) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

I would say that it might have been more productive to more fully quote me:

Just as you admit that controlling what other people do or think is seldom within one's ability, so is telling other people what points they should be making and how broadly they ought to discuss things.

My point is, and remains, that the concept of "actually fixing the problems of discrimination, abuse and violence" (the part I quoted) requires telling other people how to think and behave. It also requires a correct definition of "discrimination, abuse and violence", and one worker telling a blond joke within earshot of a woman just doesn't reach that level. Sending 50 people to a class to learn how not to "discriminate, abuse or be violent" when they aren't doing that to start with is still a waste of everyone's time. Sending them to a class to learn how not to violate some law that has ridiculous definitions of "discrimination, abuse and violence" is only slightly less a waste of time.

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 1) 288

by Obfuscant (#47950187) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

This is the key question, because unless Canaduh expects it's Netflix using citizens to pay a tax on each video they watch, it's really NONE of their business...

There are a large number of people in the US who care very much if the companies they deal with have corporate offices in the US so they will be paying US business taxes on money they make by selling things in the US. Burger King has a lot of people angry because it bought Tim Horton's and it was claimed that they were moving their corporate HQ to Canada to avoid US taxes. Several other companies are doing the same thing, and our President has said he's going to stop this if the congress doesn't.

So, perhaps, the Canadian government has a vested interest in knowing how may of Netflix' customers are in Canada so they know if Netflix is paying the right amount of Canadian taxes on the money they make from Canadian services?

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 2) 288

by Obfuscant (#47950075) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

Netflix is in the business of promoting what's good (and their own stuff...).

Netflix neither knows nor cares what is good or bad, they're in the business of selling people what people will pay to see.

If you want Canadians to consume canadian made stuff then just keep on making good stuff.

Those laws were created a long time ago when Canada was pushing back against the USification of broadcast television content. It has nothing to do with trying to force Canadians to consume Canadian made stuff.

I, for one, am glad those laws exist, because it promoted the creation of shows like SCTV (not the SCTV New York dreck) and "You Can't Do That On Television". Gosh I miss Moose. And even Barth.

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 4, Informative) 288

by mark-t (#47949771) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

Is Canada still taxing blank media

Youu mean the blank media levy? Yes.

Which is particularly ironic now that Bill C-11 passed in 2011 (despite otherwise unanimous objection to it by all other parties, the Conservative government, controlling slightly more than 50% of the seats in the House of Commons, was able to finally push it through, which they had been trying to do repeatedly since 2006, and were only able to do so once they had a majority government), and which happens to make it illegal to bypass or break any kind of technological protection measures on copyrighted works, even for personal use, and considering the increased reliance of such measures in an only ever-increasingly digital era, this bill makes the levy on blank media, which was supposed to exist to subsidize for private copying only by the way (not piracy, as some people believe), an extra expense that Canadians are paying for and practically don't even have the right to legally enjoy (although the government has said they will not enforce the bill in matters for strictly private use, it would still apparently be technically illegal).

Did I mention that I really hate the Canadian Conservative government? I sure as hell didn't vote for them.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 389

by Obfuscant (#47948757) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

In my experience, reasonable, decent people all agree that harassment and violence are inappropriate. The horrible things a small minority of people do should be roundly criticized and much more aggressively prosecuted.

Of course. This is obvious. Horrible things are bad. The problem comes in defining what is horrible.

If you think what someone is doing is horrible but they don't, then saying "you love doing horrible things" is a lie. They don't love doing horrible things and they aren't doing anything horrible -- in their definition of horrible. It is a complete waste of time to argue on that level. If the first statement out of your mouth when trying to get someone to change their behavior is obviously (to them) a lie, they have no reason to listen to anything else you say.

So, in this context, the question that includes "comments about physical beauty" and even "cognitive gender differences" in the category "sexual assault or harassment", and then reports that 71% of women report being sexually assaulted or harassed, is a dishonest question. I.e., a lie. Some percentage of those answering the question yes will have experienced the horrible and terrifying situation of a coworker telling them they're nicely dressed or wearing pretty earrings. Or they may have seen a copy of the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" on someone's desk. Or, if a man, they'll have looked inside any copy of Elle or Vogue or Cosmo.

It's a waste of energy that could be used in actually fixing the problems of discrimination, abuse and violence.

As one gets older, or if one obtains the help of any 12 step program, you learn that you have very little control over what other people do or think. Most of the efforts to fix these problems are a waste of energy. Sending 50 people to a workplace sexual harassment prevention seminar for the day will waste the time of all fifty people. It accomplishes two things: it satisfies legal requirements for such "training" to have been given, and it provides a better basis for firing someone who is actually causing a problem. Of course it doesn't look so good if the actual problem is counseled privately the first time and then fired the second, so 49 people have to be told not to do "horrible things" in the workplace when they are already not doing horrible things. But that seminar didn't fix anything.

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

Working...