Banning Clarification

[suurfer]

I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying that you're as dim as a Toc H lamp.

Yeah, you and butters are the porn board authorities on the matter.
And you were both MENSA members!

 

[von_Bismarck]

Until dealing with Christoffel symbols.

Only done that with the Schwarzschild solution, which wasn't too bad. Good symmetry. Still, it's a few dozen PDEs.

 

[Sean]

Yeah, you and butters are the porn board authorities on the matter.
And you were both MENSA members!

Why do you lie so much?

 

[suurfer]

Why do you lie so much?

Oh feisty!

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/78b1946941bed42f5dc8c1fabdfa6b8d42f40f16/c=164-242-812-729/local/-/media/Indianapolis/GenericImages/2014/01/04//1388842358004-PrestoLogo-ND-fightingIrish.jpg?width=534&height=401&fit=crop

 

[Wok]

Only done that with the Schwarzschild solution, which wasn't too bad. Good symmetry. Still, it's a few dozen PDEs.

Speaking of GR: https://www.zmescience.com/science/...a-step-closer-to-a-theory-of-quantum-gravity/

Unruh himself discussing the Unruh effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka1fme974ng

Very fascinating.

 

[lovetoread]

The canteen in the first place I worked did spam fritters. They were to die for on a soft cob with a dollop of ketchup.

i you

 

[von_Bismarck]

Speaking of GR: https://www.zmescience.com/science/...a-step-closer-to-a-theory-of-quantum-gravity/

Unruh himself discussing the Unruh effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka1fme974ng

Very fascinating.

Someone who talks English! I saw that earlier today.

Had a chance to speak with Unruh a couple years ago. He was presenting, I believe, on gravitational wave astronomy. I spoke with him briefly about work one of his students was doing on the cosmological constant. (His argument was that vacuum energy treated as a proper gravitating thing could account for the constant, and showed the calculation to an order of magnitude. Cool stuff.)

 

[Wok]

Someone who talks English! I saw that earlier today.

Had a chance to speak with Unruh a couple years ago. He was presenting, I believe, on gravitational wave astronomy. I spoke with him briefly about work one of his students was doing on the cosmological constant. (His argument was that vacuum energy treated as a proper gravitating thing could account for the constant, and showed the calculation to an order of magnitude. Cool stuff.)

It is very cool knowing Λ could be unlocked. Lots of things allude to the nature of Λ. Unification seems so close, yet so far away.

Anyway, back to the Lit dramas.

 

[suurfer]

This one's better:

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WholeDearestAlleycat-size_restricted.gif

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why do you lie so much?

Well, there's this...

Think of it as method acting.

but then there's this...

I wonder if the trolling alts do like method acting. Do they become the person when they are in alt mode?

The good ones do. The bad ones can't help but let the distaste of their actual character, or lack thereof, through.

I can't find the link, but he remarked he woke up each day viewing the General Board as a "vast blank canvas" that he could use to paint his masterpieces. Textbook definition of shitpisting.

 

[butters]

The "right to repost someone's old avs" could get problematic.

What is to prevent someone of low moral character (*coughConager*cough) from posting someone's picture he found somewhere on the internet and then claiming "oh noe, so and so used that as an avatar back in 2006! Everybody knows that!" It then becomes a he-said-she-said shitfest, and the low moral character numpty wallows in the attention.

Another scenario: those occasional "show us your chest/tits/nips/dick/balls/earlobes" threads where someone flashes their naughty bits for a good 5 minutes and a splendid time is had by all fortunate enough to view them (and 3 days of angst by the "Dammit I missed it!" crew). Does someone who was quick enough to right-click-save the pic then have the "right" to repost it as they see fit?

no, it's been made very clear in the rules - if you do not own the copyright of the image, it does not belong to you and you cannot upload it to lit's servers without breaking the site's rules.

I thought 4est Trump was nipples. God, I need a fucking manual.

you're not wrong. certainly isn't rob

While it's true that once something is posted on the internet, it's probably there forever, I think the big issue is that Laurel doesn't want it uploaded via lit servers. With all the revenge porn legal cases now a days, I can understand the want to not deal with that shit as a site owner.

Personally, I don't know why people want to trot out others' old pics, but I know when I post something I do so with the knowledge that it can be saved/stockpiled by people. Hopefully never used against me, but completely fucking possible.

okay, don't know about some of the bans, but those that have involved the reposting of pictures they do not own - as in, these are NOT their pictures - as attachments to the site, well that's a rule-breaker as stated in the updated rules regarding posting images. if a person keeps doing this, it should be no surprises if they get banned. certain posters have been multi-banned for doing exactly this, especially when it's the posting of other people's pics of themselves. it's fuckin' simple: if the picture does not belong to you, you cannot upload it to lit. links are your friends.

this also includes, quite clearly, any images you find on the net that are not copy-right free images; that generally includes plenty we've all used as avatars before now and i don't know how much of a grey area that is... in the rules it states admin has the right to remove such images if they receive complaints from the image owner.

the rule has always been about not uploading copyright images to lit servers unless you own it, but it seems it's now getting enforced and can be a rule for bannings. you want to use a c/r pic you found on the web? link it if hotlinks are permitted by the owner.


fata, can't answer you about the other bans because i didn't see a lot of them before they were removed by admin, only hearing about them afterwards.

 

[von_Bismarck]

It is very cool knowing Λ could be unlocked. Lots of things allude to the nature of Λ. Unification seems so close, yet so far away.

Anyway, back to the Lit dramas.

I like to check quantum gravity news now and then, some of it's pretty wild. Here's an arXiv link, if you're interested. I think this paper has been revised once or twice, but I haven't checked. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00543

Lit dramas it is.

 

[suurfer]

Well, there's this...


but then there's this...



I can't find the link, but he remarked he woke up each day viewing the General Board as a "vast blank canvas" that he could use to paint his masterpieces. Textbook definition of shitpisting.

Aah, so now it's no longer Nipples who's following me around with "ugly paki" slurs.
It's Que.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Copyright attaches the second a piece of original work is created and fixed. This applies to both published and unpublished works. Copyright protections are in effect the moment you write a blog post, snap a photo, or create a video. The moment you upload a selfie, you’re protected by copyright. Even if you never publish that selfie on Instagram because your face looks so splotchy that a filter can’t fix it – that image is still protected by copyright law.

https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/guide-copyright-fair-use-laws-online-images/

6. The material I want to reproduce was posted anonymously to an online discussion or news group. That means the work is in the public domain.

Not true. Neither the ease with which users can upload or download information on the Internet, nor the fact that it is anonymous, places a work in the public domain. In fact, the Copyright Act specifically protects anonymous and pseudonymous works from unauthorized copying. Postings and republications of protected material, if not done with the consent of the copyright owner, may constitute copyright infringement. Of course, due to the nature of such postings, there may be implied consent to copy material received from A, in any reply B makes to such communication.

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copy_myths.html

 

[FukLuk]

Good times.

Honestly, it's a thing of beauty. /nerd

Until dealing with Christoffel symbols.

Only great American nerds get this.

 

[Comshaw]

I don't know, there are posters whose identity is clear, who've been in the forum for ages. She knows it and we know it.
But BB seems to have been getting on her nerves lately.

I think her message is clear: "With White nationalism terrorism on the rise globally, stupid jokes or comments are no longer tolerated."
I mean even Trump is weighing in (as hypocritical as that may or not be)
and asking tech giants to screen for red flags re potential killers.
BB was not only banned, but his "Trump's nukes" thread was also closed down.

It's not just lately. She's been banning bb alts for a long time, years. bb wasn't that bad back when s/he joined the first time, but after the first ban it seemed to bring out completely irrational behavior in bb and s/he's been that way ever since. For a short time I thought it was an act. I now think s/he has a psychiatric problem. But that isn't the point. Each time bb comes back s/he does the same shtick so gets banned. Ish and AJ on the other hand have TRIED (emphasis on tried) to stay within the rules, most of the time. I think perhaps (although I have no way of knowing for sure) Laurel let's them be if they stay within the rules. Come to think of it, I guess you're right; if that's the case she does let them come back.

Comshaw

 

[butters]

https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/guide-copyright-fair-use-laws-online-images/



http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copy_myths.html

yup

this shit is out there and easy to find.

why some get banned so quickly over it seems to be more about how many times they've already been warned or banned already.

 

[FataMorgana]

i you

Beat me and make me cheap.

 

[FukLuk]

Beat me and make me cheap.

Fuck off, noob.

 

[suurfer]

It's not just lately. She's been banning bb alts for a long time, years. bb wasn't that bad back when s/he joined the first time, but after the first ban it seemed to bring out completely irrational behavior in bb and s/he's been that way ever since. For a short time I thought it was an act. I now think s/he has a psychiatric problem. But that isn't the point. Each time bb comes back s/he does the same shtick so gets banned. Ish and AJ on the other hand have TRIED (emphasis on tried) to stay within the rules, most of the time. I think perhaps (although I have no way of knowing for sure) Laurel let's them be if they stay within the rules. Come to think of it, I guess you're right; if that's the case she does let them come back.

Comshaw

myself included, alongside AJ and Ish.

Speaking of BB:
I'm a known BB fan, I like his other puns even tho I hated and told him so many times the "n this n that" and orangutan pics. of Michelle. But those don't put the site in danger, his stupid jokes like "Trump should nuke x and y" do.
You can no longer make stupid jokes after the Pittsburgh, Christchurch and Walmart shootings.

He Has to put a cap on that, we don't want to lose our second home which is "the great GB" (to paraphrase eyer).
I'm hoping he's reading these.

 

[theault_b]

And you know this how? Do you have information the rest don't have, or are you just speculating? Personally I'd like to know why the ban, but only because I'm a nosy old bastard.


Comshaw

Addressed to my previous, I'll answer as best as I can.

Let me... suggest that I personally witnessed three such incidents (There have been many more to which I have been tangentially... interested) Each of the three BANNINGS occurred without discernible violation and without any warning - to posters who had never been so much as reprimanded before. The BANNINGS took place in the middle of the (USA) night. They were all but announced by Butters the very next morning.

These were "forever" BANS - meaning that, in the screen blocking access to these posters, the term of the BAN was "forever". And, specifically, NO REASON GIVEN was the "Reason Given".

In one instance, a very rigorous thread discussion concerning many of the issues being re-hashed in this thread - The entire thread - not just any potential "violation" - was nuked. There was a sudden BAN and any Credibility/Accountability/Lesson to be gleaned by the greater community was conspicuously - and without any explanation - covered up.

The details of the other two were even more bizarre. ABSOLUTELY NO VIOLATION even remotely occurred other than again... Butters voicing objections to... mostly at whomever she deemed (incorrectly I might add) she believed these posters to be. Butters was miffed. These otherwise innocuous posters were BANNED Again, NO WARNING or reprimand.

All kinds of abstraction can be made, but there are common denominators abound. Certainly the rash of BANNINGS has rampaged of late without published rule to account.

See how far this place would have gone had the banner FREE SPEECH - NO SPAM been ALL THE VIEWS L DEEMS FIT TO PRINT? Would have been a different... moneymaker.

 

[FataMorgana]

https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/guide-copyright-fair-use-laws-online-images/



http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copy_myths.html

Nice one. Didn't know that about selfies.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Nice one. Didn't know that about selfies.

I think what WE said was correct. Quoting a photo posted is different than right clicking and uploading said photo.

 

[FataMorgana]

Whilst I agree with quite a bit of the banning angst, I think poor ole butters gets a lot of undeserved shit about it. As far as I know she's not even a mod? Some of you talk like she's the man behind the curtain. And Lace is the little yappy Toto trying to expose her.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Butters was attempting to explain what she thought happened. That was her choice. Get over it.