Posts by ggcotanza

UK government's war on e-cigs is over

Re: Jesus, NO!

if living in the tropics is setting of fire alarms, uh, maybe you should stop living in the tropics?

Petulant Facebook claims it can't tell the difference between child abuse and war photography

Re: "How are facebook supposed to tell the difference?"

It's not the AI that did this though. It was personnel all down the line from beginning to end. Even if AI was involved in flagging the image it was a person who deleted it and provided the rational. That's what the article seems to suggest anyway. No mention of AI is present nor is it implied beyond flagging the image and even that's an assumption I personally wouldn't make.

Oi, Google! Remove links to that removed story, yells forceful ICO

Re: Convictions can be spent

What are you even talking about? How is Google de-indexing/not including certain search results that link to irrelevant personal information on an individual from ten years ago a matter of free speech? What non-sense. You're the reason people are so stupid.

It's not censorship, either. You know Facebook gives you the option to not include your profile in Google results? Is that censorship as well, self-censorship? Should Facebook take out that option because it infringes on your 'free speech' to find everyone's Facebook profile on Google? Do you realize how stupid that all sounds?

It's unfortunate, because while you're arguing about rather or not Google should de-index an embarrassing story about some random dude from 10 years ago, actual shit is happening and it isn't getting the attention it deserves. I hate you.

Re: Convictions can be spent

This has nothing to do with free speech. It has nothing to do with anything really. It's about de-indexing articles that contain irrelevant person information about a random individual. "what THEY dont want YOU to KNOW?!?!" No, that's idiotic. Idiots.

Need a green traffic light all the way home? Easy with insecure street signals, say researchers

Re: Why the different standards?

Really? I thought the article stated they had to be using compatible hardware as well as being in-range of the wireless communications in the first place. What you're saying is actually false. These systems aren't communicating with each other 'over the internet', as what you're saying would imply, and you're entire point is actually incorrect. You still need to travel to the applicable city/state and be within range.

What you're saying is like saying you can hack any and all (broadcasting) wireless routers from anywhere in the world regardless of rather or not the router is connected to the internet. Nonsense.