I created my facebook account under a pseudonym. If I ever find them selling anything of mine (fat chance, but you never worry about it until it happens to you), all I have to do is state that the "person" who originally posted those pictures did so without my permission, and facebook will be at the wrong end of a copyright lawsuit.
I also make sure to tag any pictures of mine with a nice (c) (The legal one) and the year as well as my real name. That way, the Facebook name and the real one don't match, and I can claim plausible deniability.
Also, granting an irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive license to royalty-free use of my stuff for commercial purposes probably falls under the definition of "unconscionable contract" in the US. But I'm not a lawyer, and unconscionable contracts are quite iffy.
Until you know who launched this, under what circumstances, and in which jurisdiction, don't assume that it's following American conventions. In other words, guilty until proven innocent
If you've ever watched Nancy Grace, you'd apply that to America, too.
Lunix just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Lunix which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.
Ironically, this post is almost on-topic for once, given the fact that the article is about the upcoming Windows release. Too bad it's posted in most of the commentaries where it IS off-topic.
By the way, I've never heard of Lunix. Would you care to explain what it is?
Where are the guards? Where are the security personnel who watch doors to secret/classified labs containing computers with sensitive information? These are simple questions. They are about people with direct responsibility to the safeguarding of these computers. These sorts of people are people who don't always know what it is that they are guarding and thus may not know how vital their jobs are to this nation. I don't worry about these questions because they have easy answers like, "He took a long lunch", "No one was watching the door" etc.
I worry about the other people. The people who walk by every day and notice something is missing but don't deign to ask a simple question, "where did that computer go?" 67 computers went missing and not one scientist noticed? Scientists are educated in the scientific method where a lack of information, or wrong information is seen as the enemy. Scientists should hold themselves duty bound to always tell the truth if only for the reason that if the truth is not told, there can be no progress.
In truth, scientists should be as much the guardians of the information they are privy too as the people whose job it is to expressly guard those computers.
What has become of these computers is just as an important a questions as what has become of our (the scientific community) morality. For if we can not change our attitudes towards our responsibilities then we can not change our behaviors in respect to them.
For all our sakes, I hope they accidentally skipped a room when they were searching.
While you're quite wrong on a bunch of stuff, let me point out that just because someone is good at surface science or handling energy cross-sections doesn't make them any smarter in other ways. Or observant, for that matter.
Some of the smartest people I've ever known (including myself) have made some of the dumbest mistakes and said some of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
noting it was more likely to cause 'cybersecurity issues.'
This is a no-duh! type statement. Since actual classified material wasn't obtained, somehow the problem is less severe, right? After all, those 'cybersecurity issues' would never be used for anything as piddly as obtaining classified information.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the point of espionage?
Where have you been? Courts have always not only made medical decisions, but ones in various other areas of science, too, when there is a dispute. What exactly do you think forensics are, anyway? They do the same things courts have always done - rely on expert witnesses. As soon as you come up with a better way to correctly solve disputes involving factual claims, please do let the world know.
Why am I modded troll? Troll mods are for inappropriate posts meant to offend or offer nothing of constructive value (off-topic might be constructive, but don't relate to the conversation). The troll mod isn't meant for you to voice disagreement.
I misread the article as the court stating as if it were a fact, rather than deciding the evidence was inconclusive/insufficient.
i.e. The Government decrees that "black is white" and expecting everyone to suddenly internalize it., rather than saying "Well, you don't have sufficient evidence to prove that black isn't a color." It's a terrible example, but I can't think of a good one at the moment.
...that courts now have medical degrees and are qualified to make medical decisions on behalf of the population. Of course, there's no way this could possibly be abused.
Why don't they just deactivate them and leave them in place? That shouldn't cost too much, I wouldn't think...
Yeah, it's not like some bored MIT students would figure out how to hack into them and have their own little surveillance network...
While I don't care for that idea, either, somehow the idea of a bunch of nerds with no lives watching me isn't all that terrifying.
I've got a better one. Tell your child to stop playing the game. If a parent can see what their child is doing in order to press a red button, then they can just as easily tell their child what not to do.
Relying on physical means to control your child's behaviour only sends the message that physical means are the only means to control their behaviour and if they can avoid or counter the physical means, they can behave as they wish. Are the people who proposed this bill afraid of their own children? Is physical control what they rely on?
So, when he says "no", you'd just going to say "no" again, and threaten to hold your breath until he complies?
Ultimately, all authority is backed by physical force. The child would be better off to learn that early.
I suppose you're one of those goobers who thinks discipline is letting the kid do whatever he wants whenever he wants.
I agree. This is stupid. This means if someone gets 51% of the votes in Iowa they get 100% of the electoral votes. How is that any more fair than the system as it stands? All it does is give Iowa more swing in the election (until the other states implement this, then we're back to square 1).
Not only this, but it perpetuates the 2-party system, rather than opening it up to third parties. I've wanted to vote for the libertarian candidates since I could vote, but since I also don't want a certain guy to win, I have to cast my vote for the guy who isn't him who's most likely to win.
This isn't a good idea, I don't think. It needs to be proportional, but all the states would have to be proportional, otherwise your Californias and Floridas would be able to override split votes in the proportional states.
Part of the problem with troll posts, and this is: troll posts aren't generally trying to pass themselves off as a reputable source. Or any kind of source of information, for that matter. They don't even come to the level of Weekly World News.
You are free to speak your mind. You are not free to harm someone. Any damages levied against you are for harm. That it was done through speech or through a fist to the face is immaterial.
Actually, you are free to harm anyone you want. Of course, we're free to string you up for the attempt or actually succeeding.
The law doesn't stop you from doing anything. It can only reward or punish you for your actions.
From the bill of rights. By putting a cost on certain words you are abridging my freedom of speech as I would be limited by the amount of money I am willing and able to spend on putting forward my words. No limitation on speech is legal. Just as conversely if one is to assume one has the right to not hear things one cannot be forced to listen to them in any form. Thus mandating a form of communication is also illegal as it would put people in the position where they may be forced to listen to something they do not wish to. Harassment either verbal or physical is a form of trespass and does not fall under speech. As an internet forum is neither a physical place or a reasonably inescapable venue there can be no trespass and therefore no crime can be committed with regards to speech.
At least that's how I view it. The word of law is the word of law let's stop letting lawyers 'interpret' it for us shall we. IANAL YMMV and other acronyms I'm sure that may apply.
Silly trolls. The US Constitution only applies to the Federal Gov't. It isn't positive law like seatbelt laws or drunk driving laws. It describes the operating framework for governance, not how the little people should behave.
It seems to me that many defamation cases could be avoided if people would just use some basic qualifiers to lend truth to their statements.
If someone says "Maybe you have sex with farm animals" that statement is less libelous than the statement "I know you have sex with farm animals."
We just need to teach trolls how to use the proper qualifiers in their statements.
Why not teach them the art of using loaded questions?
Actionable: Mr Smith is a wife-beater.
Not actionable: Mr Smith, is it true that you are no longer a wife-beater?
Actionable: Mr Smith blows goats and fucks sheep.
Not actionable: I wonder if Mr Smith blows goats and fucks sheep.
See? Not only can you ask about Mr Smith's ongoing relations with farm animals, but also if he still beats them. Bestiality, domestic assault, sodomy, indecent exposure, animal abuse, AND trespassing. It's like a six-for-one deal, all with just a few non-committal questions!
This is exactly what I would expect in a world where everyone feels they should be able to go through life without being offended. Politicians are just bending to the will of the (dumb) masses.
I think the problem here needs to be solved by maybe revisiting the language of the bill of rights. We need a constitutional convention anyways. Let's throw this one on the heap.
I find it ironic that none of the responses to this article, as of 3:25pm on Feb 11, 2009 have been marked as trolls. Nay, even the usual troll posts haven't shown up yet...a first in/. history! I shall mark this day on my calendar.
Why? Because this crap was posted on the internet.
Two facts:
It's on the internet, so it must be true.
Truth is a defense against libel.
Ergo, since it was published on the internet, it is true, and since it is true, there is no actionable action:)
As an aside, since there is a distinction between slander (spoken) and libel (written), how would either technically apply to internet posts, as they are neither spoken or fixed to paper in a permanent form?
Slashdot Mirror
I created my facebook account under a pseudonym. If I ever find them selling anything of mine (fat chance, but you never worry about it until it happens to you), all I have to do is state that the "person" who originally posted those pictures did so without my permission, and facebook will be at the wrong end of a copyright lawsuit.
I also make sure to tag any pictures of mine with a nice (c) (The legal one) and the year as well as my real name. That way, the Facebook name and the real one don't match, and I can claim plausible deniability.
Also, granting an irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive license to royalty-free use of my stuff for commercial purposes probably falls under the definition of "unconscionable contract" in the US. But I'm not a lawyer, and unconscionable contracts are quite iffy.
Are crowbars illegal?
Not if your name is Gordon Freeman!
Until you know who launched this, under what circumstances, and in which jurisdiction, don't assume that it's following American conventions. In other words, guilty until proven innocent
If you've ever watched Nancy Grace, you'd apply that to America, too.
Lunix just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Lunix which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.
Ironically, this post is almost on-topic for once, given the fact that the article is about the upcoming Windows release. Too bad it's posted in most of the commentaries where it IS off-topic.
By the way, I've never heard of Lunix. Would you care to explain what it is?
Where are the guards? Where are the security personnel who watch doors to secret/classified labs containing computers with sensitive information? These are simple questions. They are about people with direct responsibility to the safeguarding of these computers. These sorts of people are people who don't always know what it is that they are guarding and thus may not know how vital their jobs are to this nation. I don't worry about these questions because they have easy answers like, "He took a long lunch", "No one was watching the door" etc. I worry about the other people. The people who walk by every day and notice something is missing but don't deign to ask a simple question, "where did that computer go?" 67 computers went missing and not one scientist noticed? Scientists are educated in the scientific method where a lack of information, or wrong information is seen as the enemy. Scientists should hold themselves duty bound to always tell the truth if only for the reason that if the truth is not told, there can be no progress. In truth, scientists should be as much the guardians of the information they are privy too as the people whose job it is to expressly guard those computers. What has become of these computers is just as an important a questions as what has become of our (the scientific community) morality. For if we can not change our attitudes towards our responsibilities then we can not change our behaviors in respect to them. For all our sakes, I hope they accidentally skipped a room when they were searching.
While you're quite wrong on a bunch of stuff, let me point out that just because someone is good at surface science or handling energy cross-sections doesn't make them any smarter in other ways. Or observant, for that matter.
Some of the smartest people I've ever known (including myself) have made some of the dumbest mistakes and said some of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
noting it was more likely to cause 'cybersecurity issues.'
This is a no-duh! type statement. Since actual classified material wasn't obtained, somehow the problem is less severe, right? After all, those 'cybersecurity issues' would never be used for anything as piddly as obtaining classified information.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the point of espionage?
coat it in honey and feed it to a bear.
No good, the bear will follow you around looking for more handouts. In the meantime operatives are tracking the bear.
All things considered, it isn't too hard to track a trail of empty picinic baskets.
three of the 13 computers which went missing in the past year were stolen from a scientist's home
Either this guy gets robbed a lot, or he's been stealing laptops.
"While I don't care for that idea, either, somehow the idea of a bunch of nerds with no lives watching me isn't all that terrifying."
Says the slashdot geek who obviously has no idea whatsoever about either MIT students or their lives on and off campus.
#define TONGUE
#define CHEEK
CHEEK.insert(TONGUE)
Where have you been? Courts have always not only made medical decisions, but ones in various other areas of science, too, when there is a dispute. What exactly do you think forensics are, anyway? They do the same things courts have always done - rely on expert witnesses. As soon as you come up with a better way to correctly solve disputes involving factual claims, please do let the world know.
Why am I modded troll? Troll mods are for inappropriate posts meant to offend or offer nothing of constructive value (off-topic might be constructive, but don't relate to the conversation). The troll mod isn't meant for you to voice disagreement.
I misread the article as the court stating as if it were a fact, rather than deciding the evidence was inconclusive/insufficient.
i.e. The Government decrees that "black is white" and expecting everyone to suddenly internalize it., rather than saying "Well, you don't have sufficient evidence to prove that black isn't a color." It's a terrible example, but I can't think of a good one at the moment.
Do we really want courts deciding scientific fact?
Why not? The media industry decides on the law.
...that courts now have medical degrees and are qualified to make medical decisions on behalf of the population.
Of course, there's no way this could possibly be abused.
Why don't they just deactivate them and leave them in place? That shouldn't cost too much, I wouldn't think... Yeah, it's not like some bored MIT students would figure out how to hack into them and have their own little surveillance network...
While I don't care for that idea, either, somehow the idea of a bunch of nerds with no lives watching me isn't all that terrifying.
What's the price of our civil liberties these days?
I'll give you some magic beans for them.
Why don't they just deactivate them and leave them in place? That shouldn't cost too much, I wouldn't think...
You got to keep on your underpants! Wuss.
I would have needed to get cheek implants if I wanted any extra padding.
<obligatory>"Hi. I'm Jack Valenti, and these are my cheeks!"</obligatory>
I've got a better one. Tell your child to stop playing the game. If a parent can see what their child is doing in order to press a red button, then they can just as easily tell their child what not to do. Relying on physical means to control your child's behaviour only sends the message that physical means are the only means to control their behaviour and if they can avoid or counter the physical means, they can behave as they wish. Are the people who proposed this bill afraid of their own children? Is physical control what they rely on?
So, when he says "no", you'd just going to say "no" again, and threaten to hold your breath until he complies?
Ultimately, all authority is backed by physical force. The child would be better off to learn that early.
I suppose you're one of those goobers who thinks discipline is letting the kid do whatever he wants whenever he wants.
I agree. This is stupid. This means if someone gets 51% of the votes in Iowa they get 100% of the electoral votes. How is that any more fair than the system as it stands? All it does is give Iowa more swing in the election (until the other states implement this, then we're back to square 1).
Not only this, but it perpetuates the 2-party system, rather than opening it up to third parties. I've wanted to vote for the libertarian candidates since I could vote, but since I also don't want a certain guy to win, I have to cast my vote for the guy who isn't him who's most likely to win.
This isn't a good idea, I don't think. It needs to be proportional, but all the states would have to be proportional, otherwise your Californias and Floridas would be able to override split votes in the proportional states.
Part of the problem with troll posts, and this is: troll posts aren't generally trying to pass themselves off as a reputable source. Or any kind of source of information, for that matter. They don't even come to the level of Weekly World News.
You are free to speak your mind. You are not free to harm someone. Any damages levied against you are for harm. That it was done through speech or through a fist to the face is immaterial.
Actually, you are free to harm anyone you want. Of course, we're free to string you up for the attempt or actually succeeding.
The law doesn't stop you from doing anything. It can only reward or punish you for your actions.
or abridging the freedom of speech
From the bill of rights. By putting a cost on certain words you are abridging my freedom of speech as I would be limited by the amount of money I am willing and able to spend on putting forward my words. No limitation on speech is legal. Just as conversely if one is to assume one has the right to not hear things one cannot be forced to listen to them in any form. Thus mandating a form of communication is also illegal as it would put people in the position where they may be forced to listen to something they do not wish to. Harassment either verbal or physical is a form of trespass and does not fall under speech. As an internet forum is neither a physical place or a reasonably inescapable venue there can be no trespass and therefore no crime can be committed with regards to speech. At least that's how I view it. The word of law is the word of law let's stop letting lawyers 'interpret' it for us shall we. IANAL YMMV and other acronyms I'm sure that may apply.
Silly trolls. The US Constitution only applies to the Federal Gov't. It isn't positive law like seatbelt laws or drunk driving laws. It describes the operating framework for governance, not how the little people should behave.
It seems to me that many defamation cases could be avoided if people would just use some basic qualifiers to lend truth to their statements. If someone says "Maybe you have sex with farm animals" that statement is less libelous than the statement "I know you have sex with farm animals." We just need to teach trolls how to use the proper qualifiers in their statements.
Why not teach them the art of using loaded questions?
See? Not only can you ask about Mr Smith's ongoing relations with farm animals, but also if he still beats them. Bestiality, domestic assault, sodomy, indecent exposure, animal abuse, AND trespassing. It's like a six-for-one deal, all with just a few non-committal questions!
This is exactly what I would expect in a world where everyone feels they should be able to go through life without being offended. Politicians are just bending to the will of the (dumb) masses.
I think the problem here needs to be solved by maybe revisiting the language of the bill of rights. We need a constitutional convention anyways. Let's throw this one on the heap.
How about a bill of no-rights?
I find it ironic that none of the responses to this article, as of 3:25pm on Feb 11, 2009 have been marked as trolls. Nay, even the usual troll posts haven't shown up yet...a first in /. history! I shall mark this day on my calendar.
Why? Because this crap was posted on the internet.
Two facts:
Ergo, since it was published on the internet, it is true, and since it is true, there is no actionable action :)
As an aside, since there is a distinction between slander (spoken) and libel (written), how would either technically apply to internet posts, as they are neither spoken or fixed to paper in a permanent form?