The purpose of a school banning them is so that the agency isn't the body held responsible for its contents, "teaching it" and other liability-type concerns. Banning them doesn't make them deemed unreadable elsewhere than the institution or even off-limits for students to read independently, nor that the institution "doesn't want you to read them."

It seems more logical to propose that the universe maybe revolves in some way, like any planet or galaxy (or every other conceivable object within it), and simply has a light side and a dark side that faces away from the metaphorical light source, and that our side is currently on the daytime side, perhaps even locked to the light side like our moon always faces us so that we only see one side unless we find ways to explore the other side of it.

I think the solution should boil down more specifically to being able to claim official distribution status, and let the market hash it out; similar to instagram or twitter, a publisher could be given a check-mark equivalent as being the official distributor of something, and cultivating a social component of getting content from official sources only, plus offering a discount or some other incentive for reporting unofficial distributors. There will always be pirates, and the pirated version for free was never a sale you lost to begin with because you're not offering it for free.

It needs to stop being pushed as theft. It's theft, only in the sense of seeing a car you like, taking a picture of it, and then turning a knob so that another separate car appears from thin air out of the camera which you can then drive away. The owner of the car you saw has lost zero cars; but has only lost a completely imaginary market value, which is something the owner of the original car HAS NO CONTROL OVER to begin with.

The quickest solution to that would just be to change the social media's policy to restrict access to minors, once they reach 1m users.

The captions are not "inserting" anything "into" videos owned by kids. The captions system is an overlay, on top of the video, that generates captions automatically based on what it hears -- it isn't put "into" the video; it's just on top of it in a z-axis sense. The original video file is unaffected, and can be disabled, and isn't even on the kids section of Youtube. It happens across all videos of any demographic, and not just on YouTube; it happens on Twitch also, and conceivably anywhere auto-generated captions occur.

The most mysterious part of this is the /. blurb that says "a thousand times fewer stars." As in, a thousandth of the stars?

The only reason the topic is even an issue is clickbait-type thinking which overdramatizes neutral subjects to skew it negative, and comes from the same kind of thinking that "violent video games inspire violence." Someone already wanted to do a thing, so they used Facebook to do it. If I wanted to beat someone with a spatula, the spatula company isn't at fault if I find their spatula is ideal for beating, and the company isn't responsible to do more to prevent beatings with spatulas. The people who desire to spread misinformation or profit from misinformation, will use whatever is at their disposal, and the inability for lawmakers or advocates to identify a specific person to blame for its spread will instead also use whatever is at their disposal. The use of Facebook as objects to fulfill both of those missing blanks, is the same crime.

Anything that is leaked or hacked is automatically false by default, because it was obtained or revealed based on dishonesty in acquiring it, therefore making the leaker as a provider of information dishonest, and therefore could also just as well be forged/faked. This is why evidence obtained in court is inadmissible, even if it proves a defendant guilty, because it was obtained illegally to begin with and destroys the honesty of the witness/evidence.

I think all assertions of being "anti-competitive" should be applicable strictly to marketplaces which are inherently neutral, like one where a given vendor does not own the venue itself. If there is a flea market that allows other people to be vendors nearby, it isn't anti-competitive to have the biggest booth with the flashiest signs, because they're not trying to compete; they literally own the venue already and it's theirs to do with however. Anyone throwing out assertions of anti-competitive needs themselves to be thrown out, for offering ridicule to having better placement of product of the person who literally owns and created the pedestal to put it on.

I always manually purposefully open whichever browser I want to use, not rely on a default situation to begin with..

There has been a free program called Classic Shell that I've ever used since around Windows ME that allows you to mimic any of the Start Menus of previous 95+ Windows versions.. I've been using it ever since I had to upgrade from Windows 98, to emulate the functionality of Windows 98's Start menu.

Just think of how LIFE DESTROYING an error of this nature would be. Just the WORD getting out that so-and-so person was being investigated, even if completely innocent -- newspapers publish records of who is investigated and why; court dockets are public and the person will forever be known as the one who was tried in court over such-and-such crime, regardless if they were found innocent, and the social impact alone would require the person to incessantly defend their innocents for the REST of their life because of complete rumor about it, if some vigilante didn't end their life early.

If you give a lot of money to homeless people, are you therefore pro-homelessness?

I assume the next logical step will be for Todd Howard to develop a way to run Skyrim on it.

Is Slashdot or moderators owned by the NYT, or get kickbacks? There seems to be a higher than normal number of paywalled posts to specifically them lately.