So why do they work? Because they make a profit from their own time spent or own efforts, as well; sure they allow someone else to profit off of that, but it's a system of organization, one built by consent.
However, no financial loss or damages otherwise were inflicted upon myspace. If that was the case, they should have the right to sue or perhaps criminal charges can be filed then.
What is your hard on with people losing their anonymity on the internet? You a spammer? You must be pretty pathetic if you want to see people sent to jail over claiming to be Bruce Wayne on facebook...
There's a difference between writing a bad check/credit card fraud and submitting false information to protect your identity.
How about this--if I'm a black person, and I post on Stormfront.org pretending to be white, am I committing a felony by misrepresenting my racial "heritage", so to speak?
And, additionally, there's always a reason to remain some discretion anywhere. Would you go out advertising your name and address publicly if you wanted to buy something from a sex shop?
Maybe you are afraid of that information being handed to the government...
If I go into Firefox and set my user agent to Opera or IE, am I committing a felony by lying to the server over what browser I am using?
What if I'm afraid of the business selling my information to spammers (despite claiming the contrary?)
Why is it a criminal matter and not a civil one? There's not even theft committed in this case.
Why wouldn't you provide a real name? You have no idea who has access to your information; a hacker or rogue employee, for instance, can use the information to harass you or whatever. Not only that, but phishing sites exist and there's always the remote possibility of DNS poisoning.
Hell, I've been harassed over people calling my house thanks to being forced to provide that information publicly when registering a domain name. That's not fun.
Why should it be any more of a felony to lie to myspace than to lie to someone on the street over what my name is?
Then you should perhaps read it closer. It doesn't say what you think it says. "Necessary and proper", under your interpretation (an interpretation that goes against the belief in enumerative powers that the founders mostly all held) doesn't mean "anything goes as long as it's "good", it's not spelling out what the government can do; actually, it basically says that laws should be necessary and proper within what is already allowed under the constitution.
You're right about Bob Barr, but the whole "what little control the government still exercises on Corporate America" comment made me laugh.
The United States government has a lot of control and regulations on corporations. If you don't think so, then you really have no idea how the system works, at all.
Anyway, quit making corporations be the great big boogeyman and take responsibility for your own damn life. Don't like what a business is offering? Don't go there. Sounds too simple, doesn't it? Essentially, that's as simple as it needs to be; all control businesses has over the lives of people is either because of government contracts or deals or the fact they mass action willingly has handed it over to them (and isn't that the most democratic thing of all?) through purchasing the services or what have you.
So whenever someone says anything mean to me, and it makes me depressed, I have the right to sue back? Or if I incidentally kill myself over it because I"m an overly-sensitive person or I can't take criticize well at all, they should have a case?
It's a very dangerous precedent to send people to jail or otherwise censor what people can say or do because it might cause someone to hurt themselves (due to their own emotions, or whatnot). If I told someone to simply shoot themself and they went and did it, should I be responsible for that fact that they couldn't help but follow my instructions?
Not everyone is equal, or takes criticize or bullying the same way. Socially stigmatizing people is a good way to handle it, but sending people to jail for unkind words? The girl in this case that killed herself 1) was on the internet, 2) was gullible enough to fall for this kind of trolling, 3) was overly sensitive or already damaged to begin with, and 4) was old enough to know better than to give a shit.
I for one doubt that the sole reason this girl killed herself was because of the trolling, anyway. She was emotionally unstable, true, but making it illegal not to trip over the feelings of sensitive people is not a good idea either.
Being mean or harsh shouldn't be illegal. I know the whole "social responsibility" and "unity" thing is all the craze now, but let's not go making every single "undesirable" behavior illegal, hmmm?
Again, it's still competition. And regardless, the problem is one of infrastructure. This isn't an easy problem to fix. Beating your chest on how much you hate big business isn't going to solve any problems, too.
That doesn't change the fact that there's competition.
The entire system is screwed up because of how the infrastructure is set up, but you cannot claim that Verizon is a monopoly if there is a competition, even if the competition charges more. Service does not have to directly mirror another company's in order to be considered "competition", if it did, there would be no point to competition anyway.
Great idea. Too bad no one alive today is responsible for the murders and theft of the past, and the Native Americans alive today only exist because of such interference in the first place.
"We" didn't do it. Quit using that word to further your political agendas, Mr. Noam Chomsky Quote. People did it in the past, yes, but that doesn't mean the sin magically transfers to all the people still alive, like some sort of "original sin" from the bible.
Slashdot Mirror
3.11 should be enough for anybody.
Why is a huge gap between rich and poor a bad thing, if the rich aren't taking from the poor and earning it fairly (without taking or stealing)?
So why do they work? Because they make a profit from their own time spent or own efforts, as well; sure they allow someone else to profit off of that, but it's a system of organization, one built by consent.
Hmmm... Star Trek takes place in a future where mankind has embraced socialism and lives in a utopia....
Being contacted by smug socialists shaming you because you're not one? Yes, that's certainly new, certainly unheard of.
*mumbles something about Guantanamo Bay*
.....so?
this is why I love government bureaucrats. They tend to be smarter then the average bear.
I was with you until right around... there.
I'd like to take a course on penetration. I might actually learn something.
However, no financial loss or damages otherwise were inflicted upon myspace. If that was the case, they should have the right to sue or perhaps criminal charges can be filed then.
What is your hard on with people losing their anonymity on the internet? You a spammer? You must be pretty pathetic if you want to see people sent to jail over claiming to be Bruce Wayne on facebook...
How about, the site just terminates membership if they find you submitted false information?
There's a difference between writing a bad check/credit card fraud and submitting false information to protect your identity.
How about this--if I'm a black person, and I post on Stormfront.org pretending to be white, am I committing a felony by misrepresenting my racial "heritage", so to speak?
And, additionally, there's always a reason to remain some discretion anywhere. Would you go out advertising your name and address publicly if you wanted to buy something from a sex shop?
Maybe you are afraid of that information being handed to the government...
If I go into Firefox and set my user agent to Opera or IE, am I committing a felony by lying to the server over what browser I am using?
What if I'm afraid of the business selling my information to spammers (despite claiming the contrary?)
Why is it a criminal matter and not a civil one? There's not even theft committed in this case.
Why wouldn't you provide a real name? You have no idea who has access to your information; a hacker or rogue employee, for instance, can use the information to harass you or whatever. Not only that, but phishing sites exist and there's always the remote possibility of DNS poisoning.
Hell, I've been harassed over people calling my house thanks to being forced to provide that information publicly when registering a domain name. That's not fun.
Why should it be any more of a felony to lie to myspace than to lie to someone on the street over what my name is?
Australia? Australia even censors video games; you can't legally sell certain video games over there. Sounds great!
Grass is always greener...
Then you should perhaps read it closer. It doesn't say what you think it says. "Necessary and proper", under your interpretation (an interpretation that goes against the belief in enumerative powers that the founders mostly all held) doesn't mean "anything goes as long as it's "good", it's not spelling out what the government can do; actually, it basically says that laws should be necessary and proper within what is already allowed under the constitution.
You're right about Bob Barr, but the whole "what little control the government still exercises on Corporate America" comment made me laugh.
The United States government has a lot of control and regulations on corporations. If you don't think so, then you really have no idea how the system works, at all.
Anyway, quit making corporations be the great big boogeyman and take responsibility for your own damn life. Don't like what a business is offering? Don't go there. Sounds too simple, doesn't it? Essentially, that's as simple as it needs to be; all control businesses has over the lives of people is either because of government contracts or deals or the fact they mass action willingly has handed it over to them (and isn't that the most democratic thing of all?) through purchasing the services or what have you.
Extremely poor economic conditions, usually, along with civil unrest.
So whenever someone says anything mean to me, and it makes me depressed, I have the right to sue back? Or if I incidentally kill myself over it because I"m an overly-sensitive person or I can't take criticize well at all, they should have a case?
It's a very dangerous precedent to send people to jail or otherwise censor what people can say or do because it might cause someone to hurt themselves (due to their own emotions, or whatnot). If I told someone to simply shoot themself and they went and did it, should I be responsible for that fact that they couldn't help but follow my instructions?
Not everyone is equal, or takes criticize or bullying the same way. Socially stigmatizing people is a good way to handle it, but sending people to jail for unkind words? The girl in this case that killed herself 1) was on the internet, 2) was gullible enough to fall for this kind of trolling, 3) was overly sensitive or already damaged to begin with, and 4) was old enough to know better than to give a shit.
I for one doubt that the sole reason this girl killed herself was because of the trolling, anyway. She was emotionally unstable, true, but making it illegal not to trip over the feelings of sensitive people is not a good idea either.
Being mean or harsh shouldn't be illegal. I know the whole "social responsibility" and "unity" thing is all the craze now, but let's not go making every single "undesirable" behavior illegal, hmmm?
Next time I fill in a fake name or address signing up on a web site I should be charged with a felony?
...so?
Again, it's still competition. And regardless, the problem is one of infrastructure. This isn't an easy problem to fix. Beating your chest on how much you hate big business isn't going to solve any problems, too.
That doesn't change the fact that there's competition.
The entire system is screwed up because of how the infrastructure is set up, but you cannot claim that Verizon is a monopoly if there is a competition, even if the competition charges more. Service does not have to directly mirror another company's in order to be considered "competition", if it did, there would be no point to competition anyway.
Heh, and someone else said SpeakEasy is a competitor in his area, and they provide better service.
"Monopoly"? You didn't even check; you just want to bitch about big business.
yes and tell me all about the bourgeoisie and proletariat while you're at it
Great idea. Too bad no one alive today is responsible for the murders and theft of the past, and the Native Americans alive today only exist because of such interference in the first place.
"We" didn't do it. Quit using that word to further your political agendas, Mr. Noam Chomsky Quote. People did it in the past, yes, but that doesn't mean the sin magically transfers to all the people still alive, like some sort of "original sin" from the bible.