Jump to content


Spartan Inner Circle Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. This form isn't really critical to us, and I also decided to move it to another URL. I can be like "Google, you lovable rascals, what have you done now LOL". However, I heard that a local ERP company was slapped with a similar false positive notice. For their entire site/service. They have to do everything by the book so they got a 3rd party security consultants involved - after auditing their whole server. I'm not them, but that seriously pisses me off.
  2. Excellent question. I'm not sure how these companies would know the "fakeness" of any piece - even if it had stuff that was clearly false. Facebook reportedly laid off their content verification team, and fully relies on the algorithm. This has probably increased the "echo chamber" effect. Google seems to go by pagerank as usual, so if there's a network of sites writing about a topic they can dominate the results for a search term. I'm a bit skeptical about this announcement. Could be just lip service because none of this matters for their bottom line.
  3. Nope. If it's a new feature maybe us Finns get it in 2018 or something.
  4. As if I didn't have enough on my table already Google decided to slap our site with WNC-806900 aka social engineering content complaint. The page in question is a rather simple trial account form. I suspect that the reason for this flagging is a bit of Javascript that automatically populates username and password fields. This is done for user convenience. Our system needs to have usernames, but users log in by email. Thus the usernames can be any string of garbage - well, except for the actual email because of... ummm... ehhh... reasons? We're sending the passwords out so automatically generating them at least makes sure they're strong. There's also some limitations in the form system which made the Javascript look like a good and quick solution. However, I've now switched this code to PHP as much as I can. I'm basically just venting a bit here, but maybe this could help someone. Reconsideration request is on it's way, of course.
  5. Sure. Well, mine are in two plastic bags and in a cupboard. However, for most of my stuff isn't totally obsolete. Unless you count the Commodore C64 in that cupboard, but that thing should still work. I've moved in 00's and probably thrown away some broken and obsolete stuff. However, I bought my mother's half of the house and sort of inherited a thing my parents used to call "the junk closet". I don't even know what some of those cables are for, or what the ancient gizmos are supposed to do. Prolly should investigate that place some day.
  6. The point of the ad is to provoke an emotional response, and the image lacks the context we have. We probably just disagree on this no matter how long we keep this up. Again, I think you're expecting way too much. Some people may know the themes and how these modern stories are generally structured, but most simply don't. Also, women in superhero movies haven't been in the lead roles that much in the past. And it's understandable because the movies follow the comics witch were marketed to much different demographic back in the day. Some of the more notable superhero stories are telling a story of a lone hero who's an outcast because of his powers, or perhaps the fact that his actions would put everyone around him in danger. As you (or someone else) said X-men is quite progressive in this sense. Of course this also stems from the comics themselves - the comic authors eventually started to incorporate social commentary, politics, deeper themes, and strong female characters. I'm not an expert on this, but I think this was a thing to do around 80's and 90's. Unfortunately that's the way it works. It's easy enough to explain these kinds of comments, or issue a public apology. Most people have the attention spam of a fruit fly when it comes to news. But in the case of a populist such as Trump you can see how some of them are doubling down on this kind of behavior. It's Trump's shtick. It's what his fans want to see. That term SJW usually just reflects poorly on the person using it. Just saying. It's a shorthand for a silly straw man, that's all. It's perfectly fine to criticize anything and everything, but you should at least make and argument instead of bitching and moaning about some kind of imaginary enemy. Perhaps the guys or gals at the helm actually thought that this was legitimate criticism on their ad? Not the movie itself, not the writing of the movie - simply a poster. You've probably seen how nobody in the industry bats and eye when some fundamentalist "family" group complains about movies. If this was completely ludicrous to the industry execs why on earth would they even react?
  7. Why would you expect that? Ads are a medium that plays with associations and emotions. This is the reaction that this particular ad got in some people. Do you really expect them to step back, study the lore and narrative of some make-believe universe, and then rationalize away their initial reaction to a violent image that they saw? Perhaps even explain that to their children? I simply don't understand why you'd expect this. I would not have that kind of reaction, and probably more than half of my circle of friends would get the context to some extend at least. However, I can't expect that everyone in my home country has these same experiences and interests. These movies are far beyond the point that they're just marketed to a group of fans. They need to cater to much larger audience than a bunch of comic book fans or even the fans of the movie franchise. I have pretty low expectations for my fellow countrymen. I'm struggling to find a nice way talk about the Average Joe in the US, bless his heart. Sorry, I don't see the argument here either. Most people don't read sci-fi, and many comic book readers don't recognize the deeper themes if there are any. I agree that most people in the age group 15-55 probably have seen a superhero movie, but they've been a mixed bag. For example, some are very campy and silly, and it's not uncommon for them to have all-male lead characters.
  8. That's how your politics seems to work, but if he didn't want these accusations leveled against him maybe he should've not been, you know, berating women? I'm from the other side of the world, and even I know what this guy has actually said. The comments are creepy, sexist, racist and delusional.
  9. Do you really expect that an average moviegoer understands who these characters are, and what they stand for? Even if there's perfectly good explanation in the lore of this particular fantasy universe it's not apparent to most people. People don't know everything about a random comic book or some other fairytale. Heck, I'm a geek and all I can do is to guess which comic book universe these characters belong to. I agree with Jack G's point of view. That's why people took offense. It's also very pragmatic for the studio to simply alter their marketing. They're just doing what's best for them and their bottom line. "Feminists" are not really any single group or even homogenous in their opinions. They seem to disagree on more things that they agree on. It's pretty hard to see the point in these generalizations. Sure, some of them probably care about movies because they may shape how we view the world. However, it's a good idea to try to please everyone as much as you can when it comes to huge movie franchises. You don't have to be a feminist to enjoy a "strong independent woman" character. I see this as a good business decision rather than giving in to some ideology.
  10. In Finland we're couple of years behind in some tech things, and this might be one of them. However, the story is the same. QR codes appeared, there were some buzz in the industry, and then they vanished almost completely. At least one chain of stores was still using them when I last saw their catalogue, but I've not seen a QR for a while. As someone pointed out they were too cumbersome. Also, the marketers who adopted them didn't really have any good reason to use the codes. I've seen a physical banner that explained the construction happening behind the fence, and a QR code that went to a webpage that had exactly the same content. Scan a few of these, and you're going to be disgusted at the stupidity of the whole phenomenon. Which is a shame because there really are some interesting potential uses.
  11. nettiapina

    Hey Terra

    Both me and gnojham are guests in Mike's hotel. Sure, it's still his forum and we have to behave, but we've paid for a service too. This might be one of the reasons why some of us see the forum in a different way than others. There's some extremely useful hardcore SEO stuff posted in the hidden parts.
  12. nettiapina

    Hey Terra

    I've got a solution for you. Don't read the frigging OT forum! Pretty easy, huh? It seems that you're of the opinion that it's 95% garbage so maybe you should try to find something worthwhile instead. You know, this is what I do most of the time. I don't actually disagree with you that much on the threads being useless to an outsider, but I don't see the point of this bitching and moaning. Clearly there's some value to the participants. If you're trying to find gems from this kind of an OT forum you're doing it wrong.
  13. Actually criticism is on the list of stuff that's explicitly allowed by this law. If you're posting legitimate criticism you should be in the clear. This is why someone like YourMovieSucks can legally do what he does - criticize a movie with videos that use a lot of footage from that movie. YouTube's DMCA notice policies are FUBAR, and allow blatant illegal behavior from content owners, but that's another story. And if you'd literally call something "poop" you'd be taking Penn & Teller's approach. You know, call someone a quack or fraud and they can sue. Call them an idiot and you're just voicing an opinion. (I had much ruder word here, but you get the picture.) The income from content is not the ultimate deciding factor, it's just one of the considerations. If your use is transformative and/or doesn't hurt the original author you might be ok. The examples you provided, however, are likely not. Your rule of thumb makes sense in my opinion. These laws and precedents are rather complex, but usually the manufacturer doesn't mind if you're bringing some sort of value to them. Well, Google's seems to be in the "allowed uses" list. It's also possible for you to ask them to not show your pictures, but that'd be just plain stupid in most cases.
  14. I actually have an ancient digital copy of Marshall's book, and I'll probably get the new one (or ask my boss if the company can buy it). Fully agree, it's a really good book.
  15. I'm kinda falling out of a similar habit too. Today this forum seemed like the obvious place to visit.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.