and everything to do with the fact that he was *redistributing their data* without consent.
Just as a point of clarification - Does FaceBook claim to own the copyright to information entered by the users
of their site?
If not, the strongest claim FB could make would seem to boil down to theft of service ("stealing" their bandwidth
via his spider). And the very fact that they have a robots file defines what they consider fair game in
that regard (if they allow Google and Yahoo etc to do it, tough to say
Yeah? What harm is that going to be? A bit of environmental contamination on the sea floor? That's harm, sure, but it's pretty tame as such things go. A full-scale nuclear explosion? Not actually on the table. Terrorists with submersibles and scuba gear bringing it up and disassembling the inoperative rusting hulk in some far-fetched attempt to reconstruct a nuclear bomb? That's not "harm", that's a Tom Clancy novel, and it's a dud because they shot their nuclear engineer before he warned them that their tr
Your error is in assuming that the fact that BadAnalogyGuy used the phrase wrongly means that the phrase itself has no useful meaning. I noticed that both you and he used professions in your discussion, but that's not where "hate speech" is a useful term. It's when speech is used to generate hate about something that isn't reasonably changeable, like a person's skin color or religion, that it takes on meaning.
Virg
Yes it does give you the authority! Do you know nothing about how servers work?If you look at a page on the web, you send a message to the server, asking “could you please give me that page there?”And the server then can decide under what conditions it honors your request.These rules are decided by the site hoster upon installation.If the server gives you the page freely, and without any conditions (which nearly all web servers do), then you can do with it whatever you want.Or in short: You pass
And the US gov was having a go at Australia about proposed Internet censorship? Oh, I see. Your's is just for terrorist threats... right...America - Land of the scared and home of the watched.
As long as the law clearly indicates that the powers are authorized for use against attacks (rather than against political speech or against copyright infringement) I don't see any issue with this thing.
It's a saying that means, as was said above, "to detain someone in conversation against their wishes". It carries the imagery of forcing someone into a space the size of a buttonhole so you can have your conversational way with them, no butts required.
Actually, I rather enjoyed it. It's not a good film, it's really quite bad, but not unwatchably so. Certainly nowhere near as bad as the Internet will tell you.
If I had to watch a film, and could only choose from really bad ones, I would pick Battlefield Earth before Plan 9. Although maybe it's a close thing!
You have absolutely no idea how many linux and apple gamers use windows simply because it's the only thing that will run their games.hint: a ton. I'd go so far as to say even half of all pc gamers.
This is clearly is bad for the individual geek who makes their living selling simple custom programs that do only what the user wants/needs and nothing that they don't, unlike Microsoft omnibus packages. It's a case of government by large corporation over the individual if this passes.
Why should corporations care? Two words "litigation exposure." A bot-net living in your network takes down an e-commerce site for day. They will see you in court. Good luck with that "don't blame me, blame my ISP" defense.
I think that kind of "not my problem" thinking is what is driving the current cloud computing craze. Corporations seem to think that they can side step the accountability hassle if they outsource IT to the cloud . Good luck with that too.
If I had been logged in, I would have been treated like a breitbart.com was treated in this case, and the precise content of what I had said would always be drowned out by a chorus of argumentation. If you have unpopular views, being AC is the only way to have people consider whether those views are actually accurate or not, which is all I want.
Well until the next idiot and the next idiot and so on come along and try to pull the same stunt. Sometimes it's best to just nip it in the bud before it blows up and you have tons of *******s trying to make up excuses for why they should be above a rule that everyone else but them has to follow.
When I make a phone call, I don't expect privacy either. But I do expect my 4th amendment rights to be in force. So just because someone can tap in and listen, doesn't mean that the government can do so to gather evidence... And that's the subtle difference here. Just because "someone" can read what I sent, doesn't give the government the right to spy in on it.
I'll give you another example. You're in your back-yard at your house talking with a friend. Sure, neighbors can likely hear your conversation, so you don't have an unusual expectation of privacy. But, if a FBI agent is sitting in a tree 100 yards away with a sound amplifier pointed at you (and hence recording/listening in to your conversation), that would be an invasion of your 4th amendment rights. And privacy is relative (you even allude to it in your quote). The fact that "objectively reasonable" is used to qualify privacy shows that it's relative. In your back yard, you wouldn't expect someone to explicitly listen in to your conversation (unless you were yelling). Conversely, if you were on a crowded train, you wouldn't expect any type of privacy from verbal communication (But you would expect a reasonable level of privacy if you were typing on your computer on said train). That's the difference. Not if there is any form of privacy, but if there is a reasonable expectation given the circumstances...
JMHO...
Slashdot Mirror
and everything to do with the fact that he was *redistributing their data* without consent. Just as a point of clarification - Does FaceBook claim to own the copyright to information entered by the users of their site? If not, the strongest claim FB could make would seem to boil down to theft of service ("stealing" their bandwidth via his spider). And the very fact that they have a robots file defines what they consider fair game in that regard (if they allow Google and Yahoo etc to do it, tough to say
Were little old ladies form Pasadena...
ctrl-shift-o is your friend. Deeply nested namespaces are rarely a problem for me. I just type the name of the class and hit ctrl-shift-o in eclipse.
Hasn't this dude ever heard of 4chan? Or dating sims? Or sanity?
Your error is in assuming that the fact that BadAnalogyGuy used the phrase wrongly means that the phrase itself has no useful meaning. I noticed that both you and he used professions in your discussion, but that's not where "hate speech" is a useful term. It's when speech is used to generate hate about something that isn't reasonably changeable, like a person's skin color or religion, that it takes on meaning. Virg
Yes it does give you the authority! Do you know nothing about how servers work?If you look at a page on the web, you send a message to the server, asking “could you please give me that page there?”And the server then can decide under what conditions it honors your request.These rules are decided by the site hoster upon installation.If the server gives you the page freely, and without any conditions (which nearly all web servers do), then you can do with it whatever you want.Or in short: You pass
They can't do that to our users. Only we can do that to our users .
And the US gov was having a go at Australia about proposed Internet censorship? Oh, I see. Your's is just for terrorist threats... right...America - Land of the scared and home of the watched.
As long as the law clearly indicates that the powers are authorized for use against attacks (rather than against political speech or against copyright infringement) I don't see any issue with this thing.
It's a saying that means, as was said above, "to detain someone in conversation against their wishes". It carries the imagery of forcing someone into a space the size of a buttonhole so you can have your conversational way with them, no butts required.
Actually, I rather enjoyed it. It's not a good film, it's really quite bad, but not unwatchably so. Certainly nowhere near as bad as the Internet will tell you. If I had to watch a film, and could only choose from really bad ones, I would pick Battlefield Earth before Plan 9. Although maybe it's a close thing!
You have absolutely no idea how many linux and apple gamers use windows simply because it's the only thing that will run their games.hint: a ton. I'd go so far as to say even half of all pc gamers.
Cut 300 million dollars worth of government workers.Done.
This is clearly is bad for the individual geek who makes their living selling simple custom programs that do only what the user wants/needs and nothing that they don't, unlike Microsoft omnibus packages. It's a case of government by large corporation over the individual if this passes.
I have to say, you are incredibly american to paint all americans with the same brush too.It's just ironic.. that's all.
He takes great care to pre-roll the ones out of them.
This sounds more like a 'nerd' version of an escort service. Just far lamer - you don't even get points for being seen around town with a hot chick.
I don't know...
Split, compress, and uuencode it before sending. Reverse process on other side.
Why should corporations care? Two words "litigation exposure." A bot-net living in your network takes down an e-commerce site for day. They will see you in court. Good luck with that "don't blame me, blame my ISP" defense. I think that kind of "not my problem" thinking is what is driving the current cloud computing craze. Corporations seem to think that they can side step the accountability hassle if they outsource IT to the cloud . Good luck with that too.
http://www.dailyshow.com/
If I had been logged in, I would have been treated like a breitbart.com was treated in this case, and the precise content of what I had said would always be drowned out by a chorus of argumentation. If you have unpopular views, being AC is the only way to have people consider whether those views are actually accurate or not, which is all I want.
Well until the next idiot and the next idiot and so on come along and try to pull the same stunt. Sometimes it's best to just nip it in the bud before it blows up and you have tons of *******s trying to make up excuses for why they should be above a rule that everyone else but them has to follow.
When I make a phone call, I don't expect privacy either. But I do expect my 4th amendment rights to be in force. So just because someone can tap in and listen, doesn't mean that the government can do so to gather evidence... And that's the subtle difference here. Just because "someone" can read what I sent, doesn't give the government the right to spy in on it. I'll give you another example. You're in your back-yard at your house talking with a friend. Sure, neighbors can likely hear your conversation, so you don't have an unusual expectation of privacy. But, if a FBI agent is sitting in a tree 100 yards away with a sound amplifier pointed at you (and hence recording/listening in to your conversation), that would be an invasion of your 4th amendment rights. And privacy is relative (you even allude to it in your quote). The fact that "objectively reasonable" is used to qualify privacy shows that it's relative. In your back yard, you wouldn't expect someone to explicitly listen in to your conversation (unless you were yelling). Conversely, if you were on a crowded train, you wouldn't expect any type of privacy from verbal communication (But you would expect a reasonable level of privacy if you were typing on your computer on said train). That's the difference. Not if there is any form of privacy, but if there is a reasonable expectation given the circumstances... JMHO...