All trolling is the same. The only difference is what it takes to get the victim to go on the internet and tell everyone how upset you are. If you're bar is: Death threats... guess what the trolls going to say? You do not understand your attacker, and that's your problem. I am trying to educate you, so stop treating me like I'm your threat. I am not. I'm not trolling you at all. The fact that the trolls in question have you so wound up you're attacking anyone that doesn't go along with your mixed up narrative of what's really happening meanings they are winning hardcore. If you want to keep enjoying the internet, you're going to have to learn how to deal with people like this and the way to deal with them is simple. Ignore them.
If every online death threat were investigated we'd run out of police in about 10seconds. How about every death threat made in a bar while we're at it?
Is a death threat from an 8th grade that immediately starts giggling after they post it threatening? Because that's what you're getting upset about... and that's the point I was making with my post. You're literally get trolled by a modern version of Bart Simpson. You seem to think that because they have a keyboard they're for some reason adults.
In the 80s I remember there was a wave of prank 911 calls. People were in an uproar. It confusing emergency services! Oh no! Every time there was a new call... there was a new story on the evening news. So they of course got worse, and worse... until the local news stopped reporting on it. Then it stopped.
You're getting trolled. And I don't mean in the idiot modern definition of Troll = someone that's argumentative. I mean really trolled, in the orgional sense of the word. They are saying whatever it takes to get a rise out of you, and you're falling for it hook line and sinker.
Yes - because somehow laughing at someone and threatening, perhaps seriously, and at least in a manner where the risk factors are unknown, to rape and murder them and their children and perhaps their parents too.... is *obviously* the same thing.....
teenage kids posting things anon to the internet should be taken seriously now? This entire fiasco has been a joke.
Death threats are illegal, they don't become legal because they're On The Internet any more than an old technology should become patentable because it's done On The Internet.
She isn't demanding that all women on the internet not be degraded online, she's trying to bring criminal charges against people who are sending her death threats.
Says the person that modded me troll and then posted anon. Ironic that you're using the same methods as the people you despise don't you think?
We don't. Because the people in question are likely 12 and 13yrs old and couldn't get convicted anyway. The people in an uproar over this have this idea in their heads that there are an army of tech savvy Rush Limbaughs out their attacking them. And that's certainly not what's going on. The majority of people on the internet are under the age of 18... think about it for more than a second and you'll agree. The idea that you could sit in a chat room filled with teenage boys that can speak in complete anonymity and not get made fun of is a laughable. "The Internet" is not a PBS debate forum, it's a dirty coed locker room in highschool and there's no teacher.
The fact that anyone takes this seriously shows just how naive they really are. Think about it... someone can type words... on the Internet... and you're in an uproar. That's like putting a button in the middle of the mall that if you push it, it calls a swat team. Of course it's going to get pressed over and over and over again. Stop sending the swat team, the kids will stop pressing it.
Dear Internet,
We, the women of the Internet, hereby demand to be treated with respect and dignity. We refuse to be talked down to, insulted, or otherwise degraded while on-line. Furthermore we demand that you finally acknowledge that we do in fact understand technology and the internet as well as any...
Why are you laughing?!?! STOP LAUGHING! That's it, I'm suing someone! Give me your name... got it... Seemore... Butts... Got it, We'll be seeing you in court... Mr.... hey!!! Get back here.
Meanwhile, I cannot even install a fence near the shitty stream in my yard.
You can, you just don't know how to get the permitting right. Usually "I want to modify a wetland to keep my dog from getting wet" doesn't fly. Talk to a lawyer experienced in these things and he'll help you form an argument that'll work. If I were you, I'd start with the "Safety" of children around a possible flood prone waterway.
A relative of mine just became very wealthy after selling his farm to a sandmine. The sandmine's going to dig out all the sand... haul it off for Fracking, then turn the remaining pit into a lake/wetland and return it to the state after which it'll become a wildlife refuge. Something that was important to my very outdoorsy relative.
They actually sent in geologists, took core samples, and did all sorts of tests to determine what the sand would be best used for. Certain sizes/grains/etc... are better for beaches, Crude oil, natural gas, etc... depending on what you have, the more money you get. He lucked out and had it all. The sandy soil that plagued him as a farmer for years actually made him rich in the end. As a joke I looked up how much he paid for the land back in the 80s... and figured out the price of Apple and Microsoft stock at the time... and proved to him that he made more money buying sand than he would have investing in either. He got a pretty big kick out that because when he bought it I was a kid and he said "If you're going to invest in anything, invest in land. It's the only thing they're not making any more of."
The DMCA is the US's implementation of the WIPO treaty. WIPO is the treaty that all signing parties agreed to, the DMCA is the law that enforces it in the US. Each signing party would have their own law to enforce the treaty. You'd have to look at individual laws in the member-states of the EU to know which particular law enforces the treaty there.
And now you know... and knowing is half the battle!
The occurence of this sort of fraud in the 19th century led to the emergence of the role of auditors, whose responsibility is to ensure that the accounts are telling the truth; as a result this sort of fraud is rare in Western countries. The question now becomes one of who the auditors were - were they ones who should have done the job, or were the banks fooled into accepting a poor audit. In either case however the auditors will be on the hook unless they can prove that the CEO was doing a VERY good job of hiding the facts.
Auditors do not have omnipotent powers. Specifically, management and sysadmins could easily fool them if they so chose to. I maintain some large databases and could easily just hide records from the auditors when they came around. I don't and have no reason to, but if I were up to something? The effort would be trivial. Likewise, management could enact rules and policies that would force me to hide such info. It would be suspicious, but there are plenty of sysadmins that just do what they're told out there, and I'm sure that's who management would hire if that's what they needed. Auditors are there to prevent stupid and/or low level employees from robbing the company. When the CEO is involved? The auditors are useless.
How does American Law apply to Europeans and people in Germany --- or do US companies carry the American flag with them when they provide services in Europe and such?
It's not vague, it's inclusive. They meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence in federal criminal investigations and that's what they did. Had they meant something different, they'd have chosen different words. The "strict constructionists" on the court are favoring the idea that the law doesn't mean exactly what it says, but some they're-going-to-define-it-for-us subset of what it says? This makes sense to you?
Nevermind the consequences if they limit the meaning -- it will be legal to destroy most kinds of evidence in a criminal investigation. It's all A-OK if it didn't contain financial records right? Right?
And then the cops walk up to you while you're in the park smoking a joint, declare destruction of federal evidence and you get 20yrs. And no, I'm not kidding, that really will happen if this gets upheld.
You're citing the cuts the republicans forced by threatening legislative innaction that would recrash the economy as evidence that Obama is complicit in anti-science behaviors?
I mean, there's lots Obama has done, hasn't done, but the shit the republicans intentionally caused by threatening criminally irresponsible negligence as a condition of obeying their legislative agenda isn't "his".
Seriously? wtf? Do you have any idea how the budget process works? and who the hell is modding you up? This is the presidential budget proposal. Read:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2... The president writes, whatever he wants, and sends it over to congress. He does not need their input or approval. This is the budget he's suggesting congress should consider. Several budgets are sent to congress by several departments of government. None have any legal bearing on what congress will pass. But obviously the presidents suggestions carry a lot of weight. Mainly it's considered the presidents "wish list"
By setting funding as he did in his proposal he's telling congress "I don't expect any more than this" He could have suggested tippling funding in this proposal. He wouldn't have gotten it. But by setting it the way he did you can be sure that science funding wont even be discussed.
So there's a claim that republicans cut spending for science, and I link to the democratic presidents current budget proposal, that keeps funding at that very same rate (a cut if you consider inflation), and you think that's not relevant?
And if Netflix decided to host their service is Honduras because it was cheap, would US ISPs be required to run trunks across the Gulf of Mexico because you decided you wanted that to have priority? Because using your argument, they really could do that.
Trust me, the billing for these peers is usually $0 because they are usually between ISPs. i.e. ATT Connects with Verizon. There's pretty much equal traffic between the 2. So ATT does half the peers and Verizon does half the peers. About ever 3 months the two look at the traffic that they traded and if there was a significant mismatch one pays the other. Every ISP has a department that handles that (they also handle other financial disputes but that's irreverent)
Netflix moving 1/3rd of the internet traffic in one direction? Yea, they are going to have a big bill. Sorry, that's how it works guys.
My God... Please stop! Peering has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Stop confusing the two.
No ISP has any legal, moral or regulatory obligation to connect to any specific peer. If they did, the peer could just charge whatever they wanted. It's up to the content provider and the ISP to work out who they want to use together. Those agreements are fraught with arguments, bullying, etc... it should be addressed by the FCC. But none of that has anything to do with Net Neutrality. If it did, the content provider could make a similar argument that "Those people living out on that island. We want them to have our service! You're violating Net Neutrality by not running a cable across the ocean floor!" The ISP as an independent business has the right to hookup whichever customers they want inside the guidelines of their franchise agreements with local towns... as well as whichever peers they want. Netflix can no more force them to use Level3 than the ISP can force Netflix to use a different peer (and that was the actual argument) The ISPs just said "No thanks. We'll do without." which was well within their rights.
A violation of Net Neutrality would be like "ok, we don't want you watching netflix so... Netlfix is priority 9999 on our sandvine... hahahaha!"
Netflix could, and did, fix their bandwidth issues by connecting to the peers the ISPs were ok with them using. Again, you could argue that Netflix should have had more bargaining power in that regard. The ISPs usually force content providers into using the ISPs subsidiary peers. But that's not a net neutrality issue. We almost lost the Net Neutrality battle over this stupid mixup of terms.
Living near and often visiting Chicago and it's lake front... I can attest to the fact that the absolute last thing it needs is yet another useless modern art building at the expense of Grass and trees. I have friends and family that live in Chicago, and all of their yards are spotty grass, fence, spotty grass, fence, alley, fence, spotty grass... for miles and mile and miles. They visit the lakefront parks weekly so as not to shoot themselves in the head after realizing that they indeed moved to a dystopian urban nightmare with a higher murder rate than Afghanistan.
One more building with nothing interesting in it will do no-one any good.
Slashdot Mirror
All trolling is the same. The only difference is what it takes to get the victim to go on the internet and tell everyone how upset you are. If you're bar is: Death threats... guess what the trolls going to say? You do not understand your attacker, and that's your problem. I am trying to educate you, so stop treating me like I'm your threat. I am not. I'm not trolling you at all. The fact that the trolls in question have you so wound up you're attacking anyone that doesn't go along with your mixed up narrative of what's really happening meanings they are winning hardcore. If you want to keep enjoying the internet, you're going to have to learn how to deal with people like this and the way to deal with them is simple. Ignore them.
If every online death threat were investigated we'd run out of police in about 10seconds. How about every death threat made in a bar while we're at it?
Is a death threat from an 8th grade that immediately starts giggling after they post it threatening? Because that's what you're getting upset about... and that's the point I was making with my post. You're literally get trolled by a modern version of Bart Simpson. You seem to think that because they have a keyboard they're for some reason adults.
In the 80s I remember there was a wave of prank 911 calls. People were in an uproar. It confusing emergency services! Oh no! Every time there was a new call... there was a new story on the evening news. So they of course got worse, and worse... until the local news stopped reporting on it. Then it stopped.
You're getting trolled. And I don't mean in the idiot modern definition of Troll = someone that's argumentative. I mean really trolled, in the orgional sense of the word. They are saying whatever it takes to get a rise out of you, and you're falling for it hook line and sinker.
Yes - because somehow laughing at someone and threatening, perhaps seriously, and at least in a manner where the risk factors are unknown, to rape and murder them and their children and perhaps their parents too.... is *obviously* the same thing.....
teenage kids posting things anon to the internet should be taken seriously now? This entire fiasco has been a joke.
Death threats are illegal, they don't become legal because they're On The Internet any more than an old technology should become patentable because it's done On The Internet.
She isn't demanding that all women on the internet not be degraded online, she's trying to bring criminal charges against people who are sending her death threats.
Says the person that modded me troll and then posted anon. Ironic that you're using the same methods as the people you despise don't you think?
We don't. Because the people in question are likely 12 and 13yrs old and couldn't get convicted anyway. The people in an uproar over this have this idea in their heads that there are an army of tech savvy Rush Limbaughs out their attacking them. And that's certainly not what's going on. The majority of people on the internet are under the age of 18... think about it for more than a second and you'll agree. The idea that you could sit in a chat room filled with teenage boys that can speak in complete anonymity and not get made fun of is a laughable. "The Internet" is not a PBS debate forum, it's a dirty coed locker room in highschool and there's no teacher.
The fact that anyone takes this seriously shows just how naive they really are. Think about it... someone can type words... on the Internet... and you're in an uproar. That's like putting a button in the middle of the mall that if you push it, it calls a swat team. Of course it's going to get pressed over and over and over again. Stop sending the swat team, the kids will stop pressing it.
Dear Internet,
We, the women of the Internet, hereby demand to be treated with respect and dignity. We refuse to be talked down to, insulted, or otherwise degraded while on-line. Furthermore we demand that you finally acknowledge that we do in fact understand technology and the internet as well as any...
Why are you laughing?!?! STOP LAUGHING! That's it, I'm suing someone! Give me your name... got it... Seemore... Butts... Got it, We'll be seeing you in court... Mr.... hey!!! Get back here.
How many did they trap at once? Was it a double? Triple rainbow?!?!
Meanwhile, I cannot even install a fence near the shitty stream in my yard.
You can, you just don't know how to get the permitting right. Usually "I want to modify a wetland to keep my dog from getting wet" doesn't fly. Talk to a lawyer experienced in these things and he'll help you form an argument that'll work. If I were you, I'd start with the "Safety" of children around a possible flood prone waterway.
A relative of mine just became very wealthy after selling his farm to a sandmine. The sandmine's going to dig out all the sand... haul it off for Fracking, then turn the remaining pit into a lake/wetland and return it to the state after which it'll become a wildlife refuge. Something that was important to my very outdoorsy relative.
They actually sent in geologists, took core samples, and did all sorts of tests to determine what the sand would be best used for. Certain sizes/grains/etc... are better for beaches, Crude oil, natural gas, etc... depending on what you have, the more money you get. He lucked out and had it all. The sandy soil that plagued him as a farmer for years actually made him rich in the end. As a joke I looked up how much he paid for the land back in the 80s... and figured out the price of Apple and Microsoft stock at the time... and proved to him that he made more money buying sand than he would have investing in either. He got a pretty big kick out that because when he bought it I was a kid and he said "If you're going to invest in anything, invest in land. It's the only thing they're not making any more of."
So go here: http://www.thecoverproject.net...
Then to kinkos...
It's a gold cart with a cool stereo. Meh.
That's because... there is no difference.
Facebook features are scams.
Google is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
The DMCA is the US's implementation of the WIPO treaty. WIPO is the treaty that all signing parties agreed to, the DMCA is the law that enforces it in the US. Each signing party would have their own law to enforce the treaty. You'd have to look at individual laws in the member-states of the EU to know which particular law enforces the treaty there.
And now you know... and knowing is half the battle!
The occurence of this sort of fraud in the 19th century led to the emergence of the role of auditors, whose responsibility is to ensure that the accounts are telling the truth; as a result this sort of fraud is rare in Western countries. The question now becomes one of who the auditors were - were they ones who should have done the job, or were the banks fooled into accepting a poor audit. In either case however the auditors will be on the hook unless they can prove that the CEO was doing a VERY good job of hiding the facts.
Auditors do not have omnipotent powers. Specifically, management and sysadmins could easily fool them if they so chose to. I maintain some large databases and could easily just hide records from the auditors when they came around. I don't and have no reason to, but if I were up to something? The effort would be trivial. Likewise, management could enact rules and policies that would force me to hide such info. It would be suspicious, but there are plenty of sysadmins that just do what they're told out there, and I'm sure that's who management would hire if that's what they needed. Auditors are there to prevent stupid and/or low level employees from robbing the company. When the CEO is involved? The auditors are useless.
So they fired Kari Byron.
And now they are showing the poop shoot of a snake?
Man... they're on a roll.
How does American Law apply to Europeans and people in Germany --- or do US companies carry the American flag with them when they provide services in Europe and such?
By treaty.
It's not vague, it's inclusive. They meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence in federal criminal investigations and that's what they did. Had they meant something different, they'd have chosen different words. The "strict constructionists" on the court are favoring the idea that the law doesn't mean exactly what it says, but some they're-going-to-define-it-for-us subset of what it says? This makes sense to you?
Nevermind the consequences if they limit the meaning -- it will be legal to destroy most kinds of evidence in a criminal investigation. It's all A-OK if it didn't contain financial records right? Right?
And then the cops walk up to you while you're in the park smoking a joint, declare destruction of federal evidence and you get 20yrs. And no, I'm not kidding, that really will happen if this gets upheld.
You're citing the cuts the republicans forced by threatening legislative innaction that would recrash the economy as evidence that Obama is complicit in anti-science behaviors?
I mean, there's lots Obama has done, hasn't done, but the shit the republicans intentionally caused by threatening criminally irresponsible negligence as a condition of obeying their legislative agenda isn't "his".
Seriously? wtf? Do you have any idea how the budget process works? and who the hell is modding you up?
This is the presidential budget proposal.
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
The president writes, whatever he wants, and sends it over to congress. He does not need their input or approval. This is the budget he's suggesting congress should consider. Several budgets are sent to congress by several departments of government. None have any legal bearing on what congress will pass. But obviously the presidents suggestions carry a lot of weight. Mainly it's considered the presidents "wish list"
By setting funding as he did in his proposal he's telling congress "I don't expect any more than this" He could have suggested tippling funding in this proposal. He wouldn't have gotten it. But by setting it the way he did you can be sure that science funding wont even be discussed.
So there's a claim that republicans cut spending for science, and I link to the democratic presidents current budget proposal, that keeps funding at that very same rate (a cut if you consider inflation), and you think that's not relevant?
Yes
And if Netflix decided to host their service is Honduras because it was cheap, would US ISPs be required to run trunks across the Gulf of Mexico because you decided you wanted that to have priority? Because using your argument, they really could do that.
Trust me, the billing for these peers is usually $0 because they are usually between ISPs. i.e. ATT Connects with Verizon. There's pretty much equal traffic between the 2. So ATT does half the peers and Verizon does half the peers. About ever 3 months the two look at the traffic that they traded and if there was a significant mismatch one pays the other. Every ISP has a department that handles that (they also handle other financial disputes but that's irreverent)
Netflix moving 1/3rd of the internet traffic in one direction? Yea, they are going to have a big bill. Sorry, that's how it works guys.
My God... Please stop!
Peering has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Stop confusing the two.
No ISP has any legal, moral or regulatory obligation to connect to any specific peer. If they did, the peer could just charge whatever they wanted. It's up to the content provider and the ISP to work out who they want to use together. Those agreements are fraught with arguments, bullying, etc... it should be addressed by the FCC. But none of that has anything to do with Net Neutrality. If it did, the content provider could make a similar argument that "Those people living out on that island. We want them to have our service! You're violating Net Neutrality by not running a cable across the ocean floor!" The ISP as an independent business has the right to hookup whichever customers they want inside the guidelines of their franchise agreements with local towns... as well as whichever peers they want. Netflix can no more force them to use Level3 than the ISP can force Netflix to use a different peer (and that was the actual argument) The ISPs just said "No thanks. We'll do without." which was well within their rights.
A violation of Net Neutrality would be like "ok, we don't want you watching netflix so... Netlfix is priority 9999 on our sandvine... hahahaha!"
Netflix could, and did, fix their bandwidth issues by connecting to the peers the ISPs were ok with them using. Again, you could argue that Netflix should have had more bargaining power in that regard. The ISPs usually force content providers into using the ISPs subsidiary peers. But that's not a net neutrality issue. We almost lost the Net Neutrality battle over this stupid mixup of terms.
Living near and often visiting Chicago and it's lake front... I can attest to the fact that the absolute last thing it needs is yet another useless modern art building at the expense of Grass and trees. I have friends and family that live in Chicago, and all of their yards are spotty grass, fence, spotty grass, fence, alley, fence, spotty grass... for miles and mile and miles. They visit the lakefront parks weekly so as not to shoot themselves in the head after realizing that they indeed moved to a dystopian urban nightmare with a higher murder rate than Afghanistan.
One more building with nothing interesting in it will do no-one any good.