.... the girl was arrested BEFORE the police attempted to contact her parents. I don't know what kind of totalitarian hellhole you live in, but here in Australia the schools don't call in the cops for disruptive students. The girl should have been taken aside by a senior teacher, and her parents contacted from the numbers on file.Seriously what kind of shit hole do you live in that the police can arrest you for not cooperating with their investigations into your own behaviour? I don't even have to identify myself to police here, and that is the way I like it.
This will get kicked out in court and this dumbass cop will get a rap on the knuckles and some bad press.
N.W.A. said it best (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiX7GTelTPM).
I think Tinker vs Des Moines Independent School District (1967) applies here.
I got the distinct impression that the cops had already been called by the time she had given a bunch of false numbers.
Did that remind anyone of this:
Skinner contemplates bringing the `Board of Education' out of retirement,
and tells Bart to call his father. Bart calls Moe.
Bart: Hello, is Homer there?
Moe: Homer who?
Bart: Homer... Sexual.
Moe: Wait one second, let me check. [calls] Uh, Homer Sexual? Hey, come on,
come on, one of you guys has got to be Homer Sexual! [guffaws from the
gang] You rotten liver pot! If I ever get a hold of you, I'll sink my
teeth into your cheek and rip your face off!
Your 'solution' is ridiculous and leads me to believe that you are still in school yourself. Minors generally do not have the wisdom to choose the best options available to them, and that's why education is required by law. If you had any common sense that comes from being an adult, you would know this.
Whatever happened to letting the parents make the choice?
FYI, I'm a college graduate, and I had a very hard time until I got to high school.
I still believe the education system should be optional, not compulsory. Let those who want to learn, and to hell with the rest. If they went to school and wasted resources because they were required by law to be there, it isn't going to change the fact that they're slinging dope and living on welfare after school.
Then again, this is Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, everyone wears hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.
For crying out loud, Wisconsin is a state that mandates bannisters and staircases be built to specific specs just so little kids can grip them. If they regulate the petty things, they'll regulate the sweaty things.
Run my own email and accept that email is an insecure protocol. Mobile phone, well if someone is sad enough to listen to my hours of drivel, well so be it;)
I was actually thinking in terms of the information you have to provide to get an account in the first place (in addition to the email being archived and mined).
You're absolutely correct for most situations that noone cares about the content. However, the "license" asserted (sure, they don't own it, but they can do whatever they want with it, and piss on you) would probably only come into play as soon as they notice some content they like, or if you try to monetize that content.
That's the reason I really lossy-compress images I post, tag them with my (c) info, and I don't post most things I do create that might be nice to sell later.
What facebook has done (and continues to do) is assert copyright to your work in all but de jure fashion.
"They invade our computers, and we fall back. They assimilate entire servers, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" - Linus Torvald
A small addendum: you may have to dial random extensions to actually get someone. I tried this once. I think I dialed 002 or 200 or 500 or something like that. Creativity pays dividends.
I second that, I am in the same boat. I spend my professional life sitting in front of a screen, now whilst I do have personal projects I work on at home, my entire social life is about getting out of the house and hanging with my friends. Personally I'd rather have a few close friends then 1000 people "I know". For those that I can't visit in person, I still spend time on the phone to them.
That may work well for you, but some of us have friends who scattered to the four winds after college. And it doesn't help that I live out in the middle of the country, where it's kind of hard to get out often.
That said, I don't usually friend someone unless I've met them in person, or plan to meet them. And if I haven't actually met them in person, I generally actually communicate with them, none of this "I have 1000 friends on my list" crap where I talk to few.
RFC1149 has been around for awhile now. Get out much? It was based on the older military protocol involving homing pigeons. See? A great deal of tech has a decidedly military bent to it! Brilliant!
What happens to photos and videos that I already granted someone else an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers)?
Attempting to deactivate your Facebook gives you a very interesting message:
Deactivating due to change in Terms of Service
Are you deactivating because you are concerned about Facebook's Terms of Service?
This was a mistake that we have now corrected. You own the information you put on Facebook and you control what happens to it. We are sorry for the confusion.
- The Facebook Team
Sadly, if you check the ToS, nothing has really changed. Just seems they are afraid people will be leaving en masse due to this.
The joke's on the users! The "corrected mistake" is just Facebook making the terms more favorable to themselves and usurping copy rights.
Is it just me, or does this beg important questions? Questions such as "What good is being the holder of a copyright if someone else has an irrevocable, exclusive license to do whatever they wish, including your mother, with the copyrighted material?" I was always under the impression the point of this copyright thingy that the big media is all uppity about was for the owner to control that information!
Wouldn't the exclusive license prevent one from further licensing the material that they themselves actually own? This almost seems unenforceable.
Of course, Mark Zuckerberg is going to sugarcoat it any way he can in order to make sure the drones stay calm and controlled. After all, Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't tell a lie. Especially not about copyrights and ownership.
ATTENTION SHOPPERS: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS. I REPEAT, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS CURRENTLY LOOMING OUTSIDE LOT 4. CONTINUE SHOPPING BUT PLEASE ENSURE YOU LEAVE VIA AN ALTERNATIVE EXIT AS WE ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO GUARANTEE YOUR SAFETY IN LOT 4, DUE TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 5 AND 6 ARE CURRENTLY FREE OF BAYING NECROTIC DOG PENIS. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS. THANK YOU.
Wow, I'd hate to meet the owner of that necrotic dog penis! And the owner of aforementioned dog is probably a British woman.
You could just ask the blogger nicely to remove the offending post.
If he is rude about it, you can always claim he's slandering you. After all, he won't be able to prove he's not accusing you of being a pedo, even if there really is a pedo with your name. =P
They also give incorrect information. I almost didn't get a job because of a plea bargain for some niggly college antics that spent me a night in jail. Of course, I got probation for it in lieu of 30 days in jail, but the background checker (Kroll, Inc) didn't make a note of that, and just boolean returned "Spent 30 days in jail a few years ago".
They both had critical flaws which made both of them unsuitable to be our next president.
Okay, let's say that we expect a standard of 10, that's what we consider suitable. Neither a 3 nor a 7 meet the standard. That doesn't mean that 3=7.
Well, to conservatives, Obama was a 3, and McCain was a 7. To liberals, McCain was a 3 and Obama was a 7. So if you add each one up, you get 10 for each, so it all works out and they are the same, in opposite ways.
Nothing in life is perfect. Inability to compromise is the downfall of Libertarians and Greens everywhere. Both have some great ideas (in my opinion, anything those two group agree on is as good as gold - social issues mainly), but the all-or-nothing attitude that they share keeps them from being taken seriously.
No, their downfall is not being able to break enough people away from the main parties, because those said individuals don't want to waste their dilute their vote and potentially have "the really bad one" win (ie I don't like McCain, and I really like Ron Paul, and I really, really hate Obama. If I vote for Paul, McCain has one less vote, and Obama might win a plurality, so both my guys lose). It's a problem with the voting system.
One is just a little more incompetent and cowardly than the other.
You pretty much voting for "just another senator" either way.
They're both a little more incompetent than the other in ways different from each other. For instance, Obama is the one who'd be able to talk his way out of an Illinois corruption scandal and into a white woman's bed, and McCain would be the one perfectly capable of fomenting a bloody rampage out of soldiers in the field. But I wouldn't expect them to be good at the reverse.
Slashdot Mirror
.... the girl was arrested BEFORE the police attempted to contact her parents. I don't know what kind of totalitarian hellhole you live in, but here in Australia the schools don't call in the cops for disruptive students. The girl should have been taken aside by a senior teacher, and her parents contacted from the numbers on file.Seriously what kind of shit hole do you live in that the police can arrest you for not cooperating with their investigations into your own behaviour? I don't even have to identify myself to police here, and that is the way I like it.
This will get kicked out in court and this dumbass cop will get a rap on the knuckles and some bad press.
N.W.A. said it best (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiX7GTelTPM).
I think Tinker vs Des Moines Independent School District (1967) applies here.
I got the distinct impression that the cops had already been called by the time she had given a bunch of false numbers.
Did that remind anyone of this:
Skinner contemplates bringing the `Board of Education' out of retirement, and tells Bart to call his father. Bart calls Moe.
Bart: Hello, is Homer there?
Moe: Homer who?
Bart: Homer... Sexual.
Moe: Wait one second, let me check. [calls] Uh, Homer Sexual? Hey, come on, come on, one of you guys has got to be Homer Sexual! [guffaws from the gang] You rotten liver pot! If I ever get a hold of you, I'll sink my teeth into your cheek and rip your face off!
Your 'solution' is ridiculous and leads me to believe that you are still in school yourself. Minors generally do not have the wisdom to choose the best options available to them, and that's why education is required by law. If you had any common sense that comes from being an adult, you would know this.
Whatever happened to letting the parents make the choice?
FYI, I'm a college graduate, and I had a very hard time until I got to high school.
I still believe the education system should be optional, not compulsory. Let those who want to learn, and to hell with the rest. If they went to school and wasted resources because they were required by law to be there, it isn't going to change the fact that they're slinging dope and living on welfare after school.
Hmm, this "phone in the butt" story appeared just after the bar of soap phone story... cue jokes about bending over.
That bar of soap one should've been in idle, too. No ifs, ands, or butts!
Then again, this is Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, everyone wears hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.
For crying out loud, Wisconsin is a state that mandates bannisters and staircases be built to specific specs just so little kids can grip them. If they regulate the petty things, they'll regulate the sweaty things.
Your mandated to be in schools. Your not mandated to pay attention.
Who wants to make the grammar joke?
His statement speaks for itself. That's the joke here.
Aside from the humor, he does make a valid point.
Damn, why can't our terrestrial equipment be this efficient?
Don't worry, we'll get there soon. The gov's stimulus package will start working its magic any minute now...
Will I get my beowulf cluster of ponies, then?
No. If it were a contract, and you stuck to the terms upon reaching the age of majority, the contract generally becomes valid, as I recall.
However, a EULA is not a contract, no matter how a company tries to spin it, so this may be moot.
Run my own email and accept that email is an insecure protocol. Mobile phone, well if someone is sad enough to listen to my hours of drivel, well so be it ;)
I was actually thinking in terms of the information you have to provide to get an account in the first place (in addition to the email being archived and mined).
You're absolutely correct for most situations that noone cares about the content. However, the "license" asserted (sure, they don't own it, but they can do whatever they want with it, and piss on you) would probably only come into play as soon as they notice some content they like, or if you try to monetize that content.
That's the reason I really lossy-compress images I post, tag them with my (c) info, and I don't post most things I do create that might be nice to sell later.
What facebook has done (and continues to do) is assert copyright to your work in all but de jure fashion.
"They invade our computers, and we fall back. They assimilate entire servers, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" - Linus Torvald
Sounds a bit like a Linus Maginot Line, to me.
They'll probably lose even more users since these new controversial TOS are even being covered on the local 10:00 news.
I wondered if my call to the local station would have an effect. I didn't think they'd care. Of course, I'm pleasantly proven wrong, for once.
I think I've been reading that as "exclusive" for quite awhile...silly me.
What happens if I decide to trademark something? Can I use that as grounds to sue over trademark dilution?
Depends on what the policies of your phone and/or email providers are...
A small addendum: you may have to dial random extensions to actually get someone. I tried this once. I think I dialed 002 or 200 or 500 or something like that. Creativity pays dividends.
I second that, I am in the same boat. I spend my professional life sitting in front of a screen, now whilst I do have personal projects I work on at home, my entire social life is about getting out of the house and hanging with my friends. Personally I'd rather have a few close friends then 1000 people "I know". For those that I can't visit in person, I still spend time on the phone to them.
That may work well for you, but some of us have friends who scattered to the four winds after college. And it doesn't help that I live out in the middle of the country, where it's kind of hard to get out often.
That said, I don't usually friend someone unless I've met them in person, or plan to meet them. And if I haven't actually met them in person, I generally actually communicate with them, none of this "I have 1000 friends on my list" crap where I talk to few.
I bet few here know that the famous RFC 1149 has actually been implemented.
RFC1149 has been around for awhile now. Get out much? It was based on the older military protocol involving homing pigeons. See? A great deal of tech has a decidedly military bent to it! Brilliant!
What happens to photos and videos that I already granted someone else an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers)?
Attempting to deactivate your Facebook gives you a very interesting message:
Sadly, if you check the ToS, nothing has really changed. Just seems they are afraid people will be leaving en masse due to this.
The joke's on the users! The "corrected mistake" is just Facebook making the terms more favorable to themselves and usurping copy rights.
Is it just me, or does this beg important questions? Questions such as "What good is being the holder of a copyright if someone else has an irrevocable, exclusive license to do whatever they wish, including your mother, with the copyrighted material?" I was always under the impression the point of this copyright thingy that the big media is all uppity about was for the owner to control that information!
Wouldn't the exclusive license prevent one from further licensing the material that they themselves actually own? This almost seems unenforceable.
Of course, Mark Zuckerberg is going to sugarcoat it any way he can in order to make sure the drones stay calm and controlled. After all, Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't tell a lie. Especially not about copyrights and ownership.
ATTENTION SHOPPERS: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS. I REPEAT, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS CURRENTLY LOOMING OUTSIDE LOT 4. CONTINUE SHOPPING BUT PLEASE ENSURE YOU LEAVE VIA AN ALTERNATIVE EXIT AS WE ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO GUARANTEE YOUR SAFETY IN LOT 4, DUE TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 5 AND 6 ARE CURRENTLY FREE OF BAYING NECROTIC DOG PENIS. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS. THANK YOU.
Wow, I'd hate to meet the owner of that necrotic dog penis! And the owner of aforementioned dog is probably a British woman.
Boycotts aren't supposed to be easy. Neither is any other passive protest. Ghandi didn't go "oh well shit, this is hard, you win".
If you really want Facebook to pay attention, start letter writing campaigns to their advertisers. Start boycotting their advertisers
Better solution: Also harass them, using the phone lines. Jam down their lines.
Facebook, Inc.
156 University Ave or 471 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: 650-543-4800
Fax: 650-543-4801
Press: 650-543-4811
Unknown: 650-853-1300âZ
http://www.facebook.com/
You could just ask the blogger nicely to remove the offending post.
If he is rude about it, you can always claim he's slandering you. After all, he won't be able to prove he's not accusing you of being a pedo, even if there really is a pedo with your name. =P
They also give incorrect information. I almost didn't get a job because of a plea bargain for some niggly college antics that spent me a night in jail. Of course, I got probation for it in lieu of 30 days in jail, but the background checker (Kroll, Inc) didn't make a note of that, and just boolean returned "Spent 30 days in jail a few years ago".
They both had critical flaws which made both of them unsuitable to be our next president.
Okay, let's say that we expect a standard of 10, that's what we consider suitable. Neither a 3 nor a 7 meet the standard. That doesn't mean that 3=7.
Well, to conservatives, Obama was a 3, and McCain was a 7. To liberals, McCain was a 3 and Obama was a 7. So if you add each one up, you get 10 for each, so it all works out and they are the same, in opposite ways.
Nothing in life is perfect. Inability to compromise is the downfall of Libertarians and Greens everywhere. Both have some great ideas (in my opinion, anything those two group agree on is as good as gold - social issues mainly), but the all-or-nothing attitude that they share keeps them from being taken seriously.
No, their downfall is not being able to break enough people away from the main parties, because those said individuals don't want to waste their dilute their vote and potentially have "the really bad one" win (ie I don't like McCain, and I really like Ron Paul, and I really, really hate Obama. If I vote for Paul, McCain has one less vote, and Obama might win a plurality, so both my guys lose). It's a problem with the voting system.
One is just a little more incompetent and cowardly than the other.
You pretty much voting for "just another senator" either way.
They're both a little more incompetent than the other in ways different from each other. For instance, Obama is the one who'd be able to talk his way out of an Illinois corruption scandal and into a white woman's bed, and McCain would be the one perfectly capable of fomenting a bloody rampage out of soldiers in the field. But I wouldn't expect them to be good at the reverse.