Making ad revenue - off people who were misled, in order to get them to the website - is fraud. The perp isn't going to understand this because he doesn't want to understand. There's no persuading a brick wall. Let it go.
Seems pragmatic to me, even if it wasn't at all vindictive.
Often I've wished there was a Wikipedia of white-collar con artists. I don't mean a list of those convicted of crimes. Where considerable proof or a clear admission existed (and the criteria will be hard to define, I realize) - even more so when there's multiple misdeeds such as fraud - it shouldn't be so easy for lampreys to just move on to the next kill with no repercussions. I wouldn't want to accidentially hire one of the spam kings if they were attempting to gain legitimacy in some other field. I don't want to have anything to do with the key decision-makers that went after eToy, or made drastic changes to their site's privacy policy without allowing opt-out, or sold their customer list despite clear promises not to do that - or the people who actually orchestrated the Enron "shaft". While I know how to use search engines, it's too easy for the devious and the breathtakingly incompetent to escape notice because a little time has gone by and their unscrupulous acts are "ancient history".
How could such a reference site exist without it devolving into an unreliable, mudslinging libel-fest? And I guess the absence of information there about a person wouldn't be definitive, either way.
(An anecdotal example, on the local level... A gas station operator in central California was found to be jiggering his pumps so they dispensed less than the display indicated. He paid a fine - and three(?) years later was caught doing the very same thing. And he still wasn't barred from ever owning another gas station. "Of course" the swindled saw no refund, but that's not my main point here. At some point I want a habitual thief to be blocked from fleecing customers in the same market sector, ever again, or face utter and absolute financial devastation.
If the courts are unable to protect us from such people, and particularly when they reenter the same field again and again, I would love to at least have a place to check and see if they have a long history of behaving like thieves. Maybe what I want is the BBB as it could be, instead of what it is. Sure, it's too much effort to be constantly checking on the "morality" of every business owner - but that choice should be mine, and yours. We can't avoid chronically bad people if the information about their badness is too difficult or even impossible to obtain.)
Maybe "shackles" wasn't objective enough. That market is certainly not free (though any number of opinions, here and elsewhere, express confidence in its power to penalize bad things and advance good ones). In order to churn from one supplier to another, no matter what the motive, an actual choice of suppliers has to exist.
Thank you thank you! My thoughts exactly. Cleland built such an elaborate castle-in-the-air of what could happen, all but ignoring past history and present-day shackles on the free market, that I couldn't understand why this scaremongering from an entirely different reality was aired at all...
How I wish my favorite ("major") artists across the pond gave me a way to send money directly to them! I'm absolutely serious. I'm a musician, and it would feel great to put ten bucks directly into their hands. Good grief, even an online tip jar would work...
One of my favorite US bands has the new media equivalent of a fan club - but their privacy policy webpage 404's out (!), the legalese on their T&C webpage is gruesome and e-mails to the webmaster have been ignored.
Thank you - I was wondering how they could use the phrase "legal process" and resist the temptation to add a little winking smiley or something immediately after it...
...is not evil, but psychopathic, just like all the other corporations out there.
This sentence seems to imply that the two adjectives are mutually exclusive. In any case you're trying so hard to compare an effect with a cause that it seems that you might have an uncommon and subjective definition of the word "evil" (which makes communication difficult, by accident or design).
Thick skin can be a boon or a curse. It can allow one to weather the storm or serenely ignore what needs to be heard...
We're trying to create an honest, fun, interesting portal.
...for thirteen-year-olds.
I look at this latest development, following so many other baffling ones, and feel a dull ache. Once I was happy - even eager - to send bucks toward Jim, Marc and Jim. How depressing to think it would've been a mercy to retire the company name long before the conception of the beta's k3wl arcade labyrinth. It's like a mutated descendant of GEnie gone horribly wrong.
condone: excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with
When they joke about prison rape all they are asking for is something called karmic balance.
There's truth in humor. I have to echo the other respondent - there is nothing "balanced" about "asking for" people to be raped. If that prospect eases anyone's mind as a response to the completely unrelated phenomena of insufficient consequences, they're seriously disturbed...
But then I guess a big advantage of being a coward is the ability to make indefensible statements of behalf of all/. users.
Maybe you're reacting to a different post, because you seem to have recognized only two words from mine. You completely ignored the verb in my last sentence, overlooked that I cited not one but three examples of AGs - and wrapped up your tangential rant with ad hominem irrelevance. That's a shame. A genuine discussion would have been nice (note the past tense).
Slashdot Mirror
...but I happen to believe that most, if not all...
Hey, believe whatever you choose to believe.
Your inability to handle reality demonstrates the true worth of your comment.
Making ad revenue - off people who were misled, in order to get them to the website - is fraud.
The perp isn't going to understand this because he doesn't want to understand. There's no persuading a brick wall. Let it go.
"designed" !== "used to"
/>
<grrr
"...extend the copyright laws so they would not go public domain" ?!?
/>
The fsck you say. What freedom-loving country could ever do such a thing?
< grrr
While it seems that long ago, try 37.
<grrr
From TFA -
/>
"Aaron's home computer sported this icon for about three weeks, until another student tipped off VanderMolen."
And from the quoted opinion:
"...Aaron circulated it among classmates for three weeks"
Google News returns only one result for the names of the teacher and school (at the time of this post)...
<grrr
Seems pragmatic to me, even if it wasn't at all vindictive.
/>
Often I've wished there was a Wikipedia of white-collar con artists. I don't mean a list of those convicted of crimes. Where considerable proof or a clear admission existed (and the criteria will be hard to define, I realize) - even more so when there's multiple misdeeds such as fraud - it shouldn't be so easy for lampreys to just move on to the next kill with no repercussions. I wouldn't want to accidentially hire one of the spam kings if they were attempting to gain legitimacy in some other field. I don't want to have anything to do with the key decision-makers that went after eToy, or made drastic changes to their site's privacy policy without allowing opt-out, or sold their customer list despite clear promises not to do that - or the people who actually orchestrated the Enron "shaft". While I know how to use search engines, it's too easy for the devious and the breathtakingly incompetent to escape notice because a little time has gone by and their unscrupulous acts are "ancient history".
How could such a reference site exist without it devolving into an unreliable, mudslinging libel-fest? And I guess the absence of information there about a person wouldn't be definitive, either way.
(An anecdotal example, on the local level... A gas station operator in central California was found to be jiggering his pumps so they dispensed less than the display indicated. He paid a fine - and three(?) years later was caught doing the very same thing. And he still wasn't barred from ever owning another gas station. "Of course" the swindled saw no refund, but that's not my main point here. At some point I want a habitual thief to be blocked from fleecing customers in the same market sector, ever again, or face utter and absolute financial devastation.
If the courts are unable to protect us from such people, and particularly when they reenter the same field again and again, I would love to at least have a place to check and see if they have a long history of behaving like thieves. Maybe what I want is the BBB as it could be, instead of what it is. Sure, it's too much effort to be constantly checking on the "morality" of every business owner - but that choice should be mine, and yours. We can't avoid chronically bad people if the information about their badness is too difficult or even impossible to obtain.)
FWIW
<grrr
Who gets to maintain the definition of "wrong"?
/>
<grrr
Thank you. Right on the money.
("Welcome to Westworld, where nothing can go wrong... go wrong... go wrong...")
<grrr
Good one...!
:)
/>
I wonder how long you've been waiting for the opportunity to do that.
<grrr
Maybe "shackles" wasn't objective enough.
/>
That market is certainly not free (though any number of opinions, here and elsewhere, express confidence in its power to penalize bad things and advance good ones).
In order to churn from one supplier to another, no matter what the motive, an actual choice of suppliers has to exist.
But I think we're well OT now...
<grrr
Thank you thank you! My thoughts exactly. Cleland built such an elaborate castle-in-the-air of what could happen, all but ignoring past history and present-day shackles on the free market, that I couldn't understand why this scaremongering from an entirely different reality was aired at all...
/>
<grrr
How I wish my favorite ("major") artists across the pond gave me a way to send money directly to them! I'm absolutely serious. I'm a musician, and it would feel great to put ten bucks directly into their hands. Good grief, even an online tip jar would work...
/>
One of my favorite US bands has the new media equivalent of a fan club - but their privacy policy webpage 404's out (!), the legalese on their T&C webpage is gruesome and e-mails to the webmaster have been ignored.
<grrr
Uh... no.
You must be new.
Unfortunately your post will now continue to exist.
<grrr
Thank you - I was wondering how they could use the phrase "legal process" and resist the temptation to add a little winking smiley or something immediately after it...
/>
<grrr
This sentence seems to imply that the two adjectives are mutually exclusive.
In any case you're trying so hard to compare an effect with a cause that it seems that you might have an uncommon and subjective definition of the word "evil" (which makes communication difficult, by accident or design).
<grrr
I look at this latest development, following so many other baffling ones, and feel a dull ache. Once I was happy - even eager - to send bucks toward Jim, Marc and Jim. How depressing to think it would've been a mercy to retire the company name long before the conception of the beta's k3wl arcade labyrinth. It's like a mutated descendant of GEnie gone horribly wrong.
<grrr
!!?
<grrr
"Am I Art Or Not?"
/>
<grrr
False. Unfortunately I've learned about low-power broadcast stations in many markets that can't get the local cable monopoly to carry them...
<grrr
Despite the demonstrated skill level of these "senior" examiners, I'm trying to hope for the best.
<grrr
Friends don't let friends use My* subdirectories.
/>
<grrr
Sweeping generalization.
condone: excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with
There's truth in humor. I have to echo the other respondent - there is nothing "balanced" about "asking for" people to be raped. If that prospect eases anyone's mind as a response to the completely unrelated phenomena of insufficient consequences, they're seriously disturbed...
But then I guess a big advantage of being a coward is the ability to make indefensible statements of behalf of all
<grrr
"Exemplar" ??
/>
Maybe you're reacting to a different post, because you seem to have recognized only two words from mine. You completely ignored the verb in my last sentence, overlooked that I cited not one but three examples of AGs - and wrapped up your tangential rant with ad hominem irrelevance.
That's a shame. A genuine discussion would have been nice (note the past tense).
<grrr