Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | wwhitman's comments login

CIRCLEJERK IS ACTION

-----


Huh, I thought that word auto-killed comments. I am so sick of seeing it.

-----


but... but...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6029098

-----


Ha! Touché.

-----


Wikileaks is using him as a meat puppet and now he is totally fucked, whatever shred of credibility he had is lost by praising Russia for their dedication to human rights. I suppose you can defend their record but you will be fighting uphill.

-----


What if they had vague powerpoint slides?

-----


Don't hold your american flag security blanket so tight, you're going to strangle it.

-----


Shortlist? That would be a very, very long list. So long in fact as to be totally useless. There is a cure for Internet paranoia. Fresh air and sunshine.

-----


Shortlist? Used as a metric between deciding whether your get you next job, your affordable insurance policy.... long lists are easy to store and use with prejudice.

I'm thankful that fresh air and sunshine is a viable pursuit for my weekend sojourn. Not so much for urban poor.

-----


Which country would that be?

-----


Switzerland.

-----


considering how they rolled over with the banking issue I would not trust my data there anymore than some place else. What is to stop them from doing the same with any data should the US come knocking? Even your President seems to believe criminal investigation of Snowden may be warranted.

Now if your government finally does take a stand on the banking issue and tells US authorities to take a hike I would be more inclined to have similar faith in your nation as you do.

-----


One advantage of Switzerland is that the people have a much stronger voice in telling their politicians to do exactly that (and in some cases, voting on the issues themselves).

-----


Is it inconceivable that crime is lower due to more police on the streets and more criminals in jail?

-----


I think that's true, but I also think it's true that it would be possible for police forces to demobilize a bit, instead of continuing their ramp-up. It's like invading Iraq. The police went in and broke the criminal gangs and organized crime. What's needed now is nation building, so to speak. The crime that's left is leaderless gangs of youths shooting each other up in turf wars, and SWAT teams aren't the answer to that.

-----


Excellent point about nation building...

Too bad we're doing that nation building away from home.

-----


Yes, because the same trend extends to places without massively expanded militarized police and ridiculous incarceration rates.

-----


How long until you don't get proper search results unless you log in to Google+.

-----


That's already the case. My personalised search results pages are often way better than the generic ones. I added the Hacker News circle and a lot of you link a lot of very interesting and valuable articles.

-----


Do G+ circles really influence search? If so, that's super annoying, because then I have to be careful what G+ circles I join. Personalized search is already annoying enough.

-----


You don't 'join' circles. You put people /in/ circles.

They influence search by increasing the relevance of links by people sharing them or +1ing them. You can just turn them off on the results page it seems but I have found it very beneficial.

Why is it already annoying? The only reasons I've heard have been hypothetical.

-----


Sorry, I didn't see your comment earlier.

Putting people 'in' and joining is functionally the same, that's what I meant.

The reason it annoys me is that I usually want my searches to be objective and global, not influenced by my preferences. I suppose a solution might be if their UI showed the influence clearly.

-----


Should have figured that was the case, but even not logged in Google's search results are so much better that they have a practical, if not legal, monopoly on search. Trying to have any privacy these days is like trying to stop the tide with a sand castle.

-----


Transcribing audio does not transfer ownership. People get amazingly confused about copyright. You can argue that all info wants to be free, which is very bad for privacy, but you cannot argue if you transcribe Star Wars now you own the dialogue.

-----


Sure but then Netflix and Universal stealing translated subtitles from these "pirates" and including it on their commercial content is also piracy.

Thing is though, as a civil claim, the monetary incentive is clear on the movie companies side but not the "pirates". I suppose with all things being equal, in the spirit of fair play, we can expect to see headlines stating these people have been awarded a massive sum of money in the future right?

People get confused about copyright because it is confusing. It isn't what it was when it was created and your interpretation of copyright makes no allowance for fair use, and as far as I am aware those precedents set in the 80s still stand to this day. So until they don't, you're only half right.

-----


>Sure but then Netflix and Universal stealing translated subtitles from these "pirates" and including it on their commercial content is also piracy.

Umm, no. It may be unethical but the "pirates" have no copyright protections for a movie dialogue unless they wrote the movie.

-----


They would have copyright for the translation if it weren't itself illegal - §103 of the US Copyright Act. But this may be different in other jurisdictions.

-----


Two wrongs does not make a right. Translations are derivate works which means the new author has copyright, but they cannot be distributed without both the author of the original and the author of the derivate allowing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

-----


Couldn't they just cache some ads as well instead of limiting features. They could also log GPS and send it back later so they don't lose location data.

-----


Your theory does not hold up as the UK and others have multiple parties and a worse surveillance state.

-----


The UK is an interesting case study as for large chunks of its existence the publicly unacknowledged surveillance state, and legally unregulated surveillance state, policed itself on some very hard and fast rules.

MI5 (the internal security service) held very firmly to only gathering intelligence on political movements seeking to overthrow democracy rather than conforming to the wishes of the ruling party at the time. Successive left wing politicians on becoming Prime Minister feared there were large files on them or that the service wouldn't help. Instead they received briefings on the members of their party who were actually members of Militant Tendency, working for Russia or otherwise seeking to undermine democracy in the UK.

Compared to the FBI during the same period they were paragons of virtue. MI5 wasn't, and isn't perfect, but replacing a system of internal morality with outside laws and placement can easily corrupt.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: