Let me make this quick: If you had two smartphones, the same 1GB (if that's all you used) would have cost you $60 a month. Now, it's $50, and $50 is less than $60.
From TFA:
Under the new pricing plan, a smartphone customer opting for the cheapest data bucket, 1 gigabyte, will pay $90 before taxes and fees ($40 for phone access and $50 for 1 GB)
$40 + $50 != $60, by any stretch of the imagination.
The new "share everything" plans are designed to make it easier (and a bit cheaper) for families with a bunch of smartphones, a tablet or two, and text-messaging addicted teenagers. Not for single-device customers looking for a bargain.
Q: I'm single and I just want a smartphone, that's it. The cheapest Shared Everything plan looks pretty expensive at $90 per month, and that's with just 1 gigabyte of data. Is there no alternative?
A: There's one cheaper plan, intended for first-time smartphone buyers. It gives you unlimited calling and texting, and just 300 megabytes of data per month. If you're frugal with data usage, that will get you by. It costs $80 per month.
All the "poor" people I see and hear about always have a TV, cable, cell phone, microwave, and at least 1 car. That's not poor.
Gad-damn but you must be a sad, hateful little creature. Microwave? Really? I guess to assholes like this, you're not "poor" unless you're cooking your dinner over a trash fire while living in a box under the overpass.
That's called being homeless, not poor, fuckhead, and having been both, I'm quite comfortable in telling you that you obviously have never had to deal with any actual hardship in your life, and therefore are talking out of your ass.
I don't want to make their clubs illegal or prevent them from marrying others, or in general make their lives any harder. I just want them to keep their nonsense to themselves. Quite different than what Jerry Falwell wants.
Fair enough; I suppose hatin' on someone else's point of view isn't really that bad so long as you're not trying to prevent them from having it. Entitled to our opinions, after all.
Religion is a front for assholes, its only real purpose is what the assholes use it for.
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point, as I still believe religion itself is not the problem, but rather the application thereof.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a manâ(TM)s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.â (Matthew 10:34-39
Huh, well I'll be damned... Of course, surely there's no chance that you're completely misinterpreting this statement, or taking it out of context, is there?
That Jesus fellow sure said a lot of intolerant stuff.
1 statement != "a lot of intolerant stuff." He also said
“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? (Matthew 5:43-47 )
and
“Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12)
and
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for those who live by the sword, die by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)
Doesn't seem like a lot of hatin' going on there...
I like fictional books as much as the next guy, but this is not one that preaches tolerance or really much of anything I can support.
I can't speak for the validity of the story of Jesus Christ, all I know is that, according to legend, for the most part he was a pretty mellow dude who thought people shouldn't treat each other like shit, and that's something I can agree with.
I do concur that the Christian Bible itself is pretty fucked up when it comes to tolerance and treatment of others, due in large part to the inclusion of the Torah (AKA the Old Testament).
What with all the anti-women, anti-gay, other assorted bigotry and assholery.
Everyone's a bigot, you know. Me, I'm a bigot against stupid motherfuckers. Hate 'em, can't stand to be around them, wish they'd all take a long walk off a short pier.
You, you are quite obviously bigoted against those that choose to follow religion; just look at how viciously you are attacking them right now. The question is, by what standard should bigotry be judged? Is your hatred of religious followers any better than Jerry Falwell's hatred of homosexuals? I guess it depends on who you ask.
Not trying to bust balls here, man, just pointing out that religion itself isn't the problem, it's assholes. Assholes ruin everything.
Sayeth the pot to the kettle. Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you make some more blind assumptions about me, that'll make you look like a real Oxford scholar!
You've said your peace so nobody else's matters, eh?
You know, if you're going to try and write an intellectual appearing retort, you might want to make sure you use the correct spelling...
Just saiyan.
Such dangerous traits in those who presume to have a superior opinion, when in fact they're as ignorant as they come.
Indeed they are, Monseigneur Pot. I, for one, know better, in that opinions are subjective and thus incapable of superiority, but rather are all equally invalid in the face of facts.
Shit, you couldn't even bother to answer my reply. You just tried to change the subject (while flip-flopping on your position, no less) to avoid appearing like the argumentative prick you are. If you can't be bothered with facts or reality, go post your rantings on extremist YouTube videos like a good lunatic.
Yeah, that... or, you totally missed my entire premise from the get-go, and therefore your reply wasn't worthy of a valid response. Of course, I'm certain a self-important narcissist such as yourself will completely ignore that fact, and continue your quaint little tirade about how awful it is that someone on the internet holds a differing world view than yourself.
Christianity is very intolerant. It for instance teaches that all who do not believe in it burn in hell forever. That sounds pretty intolerant.
Then you don't know Christianity, but rather an interpretation of it given by egocentric assholes who substitute the actual teachings of Jesus Christ for cherry-picked phrases from the Bible. Don't take my word for it, crack one open and read the words of Christ yourself (just the words of Christ, not all that filler), and then point to me where Jesus himself said anything even remotely intolerant.
As I said before, it is not the religion itself that you find intolerant, but rather the method by which individuals apply it. Blaming religion for how certain people apply it is like blaming a bullet for shooting someone - it's ridiculous, they're inanimate objects, and inanimate objects are incapable of emotions such as intolerance.
Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander? I sure hope not - what an abject waste of taxpayer monies such a thing would be...
Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much?
Considering that I'm not British, and thus couldn't give less of a damn what laws their government passes, yes, yes it is.
why is updating a grossly outdated standard that unreasonable to you?
Well, so far I've heard at least 2 different interpretations of the amendment - you say it updates a "grossly outdated law," although you fail to mention how, and someone else claims it adds harassment to the current standard for libel and slander. Considering the discrepancy between people who claim to understand how this law is being amended, I believe my skepticism regarding its necessity is valid.
For example, let's say a spam law about postal mail was created a couple decades ago - it would explicitly describe conditions relevant to postal mail, why shouldn't it be amended to include email when it came out? Why should a law explicitly about telephones not have been amended to cover cellphones?
Because mail is mail, and phones are phones, and both are forms of communication; the medium by which said communication is transmitted should not be a factor in considering application of the law. If your legislators are writing laws so specific as to define the medium by which the law is bound, they're doing it wrong.
Here's an example of a law done right:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Note how the writer does not specify what is meant by "papers and effects;" this is to mean that the law is all encompassing regarding those items, so it doesn't matter if your "papers" are actual, physical paper or digital documents stored on a physical medium, they're both covered (FYI, this particular gem was written a good 250 years before the advent of flash drives, yet they are still covered).
Whether it's a script or a law, code for a growing and changing environment will likely need to be patched and updated.
In the US, it is currently illegal to slander someone else. Just because someone slandered you anonymously on a computer does not mean we need a brand new law that states it's illegal to slander someone anonymously on a computer, the old law covers it just fine.
It seems to me the mentality is that civil punishment isn't enough, we need criminal laws so we can ruin lives, and that is a notion I cannot get onboard with. Overcriminalization is one of the biggest problems facing modern society, IMO.
Worth noting, it has already been pointed out that this case is a matter of amending current slander and libel law to include online harassment (which, again, I assumed would be covered by existing harassment laws), so really our entire discussion has been non sequitur .
Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
There isn't. This bill is an amendment to the current law.
Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander? I sure hope not - what an abject waste of taxpayer monies such a thing would be...
The combination of sentences in your post, coupled with the post you were referring to, appears to be a fallacy of equivocation. However, I see now that you may have been stating that religion is a non-issue, but intolerance of any sort (other than recursive, lol) is not to be tolerated.
The latter, I would have agreed with; however, you then said
Which religions that are mainstream in America are not intolerant?
Which leads me to believe my original supposition is the correct one.
To answer that quandary, Few of the religions I have studied are intolerant by design; much to the contrary, on paper Christianity (which I know is the specific belief you're referring to, evidenced by use of the word "mainstream") is the most tolerant, loving, peaceful belief structure known to mankind. Upon pondering, I can really only think of two faiths which are, or at least appear to be, dogmatic in their intolerance - Judaism and Shintoism.
I posit that it is not the religion itself that you find intolerant, but rather the method by which individuals apply it. While I agree that you should point out the intolerance (and often hypocrisy) of the individual, it is disengenuous at best and downright silly at worst to blame religion for what people do in the name of theirs. Religion is a tool, an inanimate object, and thus is incapable of human properties such as intolerance or hate. May as well blame the bullet for committing the murder.
For those of you willing to listen to my reason and not knee jerk hate me, you have to understand that there are certain people who very carefully hide IN ORDER to hate on their neighbors in SMALL TOWN forums. If you live in a big city, consider yourself immune. Otherwise please hear me out:
Judging from your username and the source you linked to, I seriously doubt you have much experience with small, midwestern communities, and definitely know less about them than those of us who actually live there, but sure, I'll hear you out.
But in SMALL TOWN forums, among a couple hundred or thousand people who are neighbors, hiding and hating is a serious problem, and should be fought.
And you know this how? Membership in "SMALL TOWN forums" on the internet are not necessarily limited to people who actually live there, you know. For all we know, the prick calling Jim's wife a methwhore is some 13 year old in his mother's Orange County, CA basement.
Even it it wasn't, who gives a fuck? Sticks and stones, man, sticks and stones.
Only in that context, a small town forum, do I agree anonymity need to be unmasked.
Why? So you can hunt down the individual who said something you don't like and harass them for it?
Have you ever even been to a small midwestern community, let alone lived in one? I have and do, and let me tell you, if you're different in any way (like, say, being a "nerd" or homosexual), anonymity is a survival necessity. Matthew Shepard's story is a perfect example of what happens when rednecks find out that you're something they don't like. Or maybe that's what you're gunning for?
There are people out there with serious problems, and they ruin small community forums with their abusive attitude by constantly steering all discussions to their strife.
No, what 'ruins' small communities is coastal assholes who insist they know how we middle Americans think. You don't. Piss off.
You are talking about one troll who can basically sit on a forum and utterly destroy it, for a small community.
No. See, around these parts, there's a saying - "If I took every bad thing some idiot said about me to heart, I'd never get any sleep." That wisdom applies to internet forums as well.
Please understand that this is a real problem before you form an opinion on the matter:
So, to back your assumptions about the effect of online negativity in rural America, you link to... a New York Times article? Really dude? Right, because the asshats that refer to this entire region as "flyover country" are going to be the experts on heartland psychology. And I'm a flying golden panda bear.
Your freedom to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose.
Nice to see this cliche used in the proper context, for once.
Harrassment and libel have real victims and even if you do not agree with how easy libel actions are brought to the courts in England and Wales, you would agree with the need for some sort of law prohibiting people from causing harm in these ways.
You mean there aren't already laws on the books which criminalize slander and libel?
Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
Most people who vote base their decision on stupid stuff.
FTFY.
The mentality of the typical U.S. voter boils down to "Who cares that Candidate A would start another war in the middle east, strip us of our Constitutional rights, and give trillions of our dollars to his campaign benefactors - he's against/for abortion/illegals/puppy mills/gay stuff/[insert preferred non-issue here], and so am I, so I'm going to vote for him."
You can sue somebody for laying out a set of facts and then expressing their opinion about those facts, but that doesn't mean you're justified or that you'll win.
FTFY.
Not that I think it's right to sue someone for telling the truth, merely pointing out that it is possible.
I hit the flag button and found "copyright infringement" very simple to find. "Great!" I thought, "So simple to fix this problem." Nope, that takes me to a DMCA page where I have to type in a real name, e-mail address, phone number and supporting information.
I believe that to file a DMCA take down... you are supposed to be the copyright holder. AFAIK, the DMCA isn't intended for just any crazy yahoo to claim that something is copyrighted and should be taken down. They SHOULD be asking for your contact information, in order to ensure that it is a valid notice.
Yeah, but having to fill out a DMCA takedown notice just to use the site's internal flagging mechanism? Kind of seems like they're discouraging users from notifying them of infringing content, does it not?
IANAL either, but I do know the definition of 'due diligence,' and what OP is describing is not it.
Yea, the lesson being a good work ethic and genuine interest in what you're doing will fuck you over faster than a shady underling looking to steal your job (been there as well; joke's on him, that job sucked!).
If, in your professional estimation, you feel your work is undervalued, the budget is insufficient, or management lacks the necessary leadership qualities for you to do your work with a minimum of hassle... then do the minimum amount of work necessary to keep suspicion away and spend the rest of your energy finding another place to work
I still can't get over how having a strong work ethic and genuine interest in what you do is more harmful to a career than being one of those lazy, bare-minimum fuckers I often end up cleaning up after. That's what I get for being raised by people who felt it was important to instill a sense of pride in workmanship in their offspring.
I'm only explaining this because if you are a hacker, you won't be content with just knowing what to do, you'll have to know why. Well, now you know. So don't concern yourself over-much with this state of affairs; Just focus on getting slotted in with a company that doesn't engage in exploitative behavior, and trust your instincts about it. If something doesn't feel right, it's because it isn't -- if you get that vibe, don't drop anchor there.
Thanks for the kind words and consideration. These days, I'm a heck of a lot better about not giving a shit about my work than I used to be.
Then again, I'm one of those infosec control-freak types who will corner a salesperson and brutally interrogate them over the crap their iPad has brought into my networks, or even better, the confidential documents they store in public, online data warehouses...
"You put WHAT on Google Docs??!!"
YMMV.
Keep it in house. That way, when something inevitably gets fucked, you can actually do something about it.
What a hacker does not do, is produce a solution that will be easily maintained.
Wrong, that depends on the hacker.
Also depends on who's following along afterwards. Even the simplest hacks will quickly confound pedigreed ponies who only know how to follow directions.
Most of the hacks I've managed over the years would (by design) be fairly simple for another hacker to figure out, but those MBA's running the department? Yeah, good luck with that, Chuckles.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me make this quick: If you had two smartphones, the same 1GB (if that's all you used) would have cost you $60 a month. Now, it's $50, and $50 is less than $60.
From TFA:
Under the new pricing plan, a smartphone customer opting for the cheapest data bucket, 1 gigabyte, will pay $90 before taxes and fees ($40 for phone access and $50 for 1 GB)
$40 + $50 != $60, by any stretch of the imagination.
The new "share everything" plans are designed to make it easier (and a bit cheaper) for families with a bunch of smartphones, a tablet or two, and text-messaging addicted teenagers. Not for single-device customers looking for a bargain.
Indeed; that is addressed in a Q&A page linked from TFA:
Q: I'm single and I just want a smartphone, that's it. The cheapest Shared Everything plan looks pretty expensive at $90 per month, and that's with just 1 gigabyte of data. Is there no alternative?
A: There's one cheaper plan, intended for first-time smartphone buyers. It gives you unlimited calling and texting, and just 300 megabytes of data per month. If you're frugal with data usage, that will get you by. It costs $80 per month.
All the "poor" people I see and hear about always have a TV, cable, cell phone, microwave, and at least 1 car. That's not poor.
Gad-damn but you must be a sad, hateful little creature. Microwave? Really? I guess to assholes like this, you're not "poor" unless you're cooking your dinner over a trash fire while living in a box under the overpass.
That's called being homeless, not poor, fuckhead, and having been both, I'm quite comfortable in telling you that you obviously have never had to deal with any actual hardship in your life, and therefore are talking out of your ass.
I don't want to make their clubs illegal or prevent them from marrying others, or in general make their lives any harder. I just want them to keep their nonsense to themselves. Quite different than what Jerry Falwell wants.
Fair enough; I suppose hatin' on someone else's point of view isn't really that bad so long as you're not trying to prevent them from having it. Entitled to our opinions, after all.
Religion is a front for assholes, its only real purpose is what the assholes use it for.
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point, as I still believe religion itself is not the problem, but rather the application thereof.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a manâ(TM)s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.â (Matthew 10:34-39
Huh, well I'll be damned... Of course, surely there's no chance that you're completely misinterpreting this statement, or taking it out of context, is there?
That Jesus fellow sure said a lot of intolerant stuff.
1 statement != "a lot of intolerant stuff." He also said
and
and
Doesn't seem like a lot of hatin' going on there...
I like fictional books as much as the next guy, but this is not one that preaches tolerance or really much of anything I can support.
I can't speak for the validity of the story of Jesus Christ, all I know is that, according to legend, for the most part he was a pretty mellow dude who thought people shouldn't treat each other like shit, and that's something I can agree with.
I do concur that the Christian Bible itself is pretty fucked up when it comes to tolerance and treatment of others, due in large part to the inclusion of the Torah (AKA the Old Testament).
What with all the anti-women, anti-gay, other assorted bigotry and assholery.
Everyone's a bigot, you know. Me, I'm a bigot against stupid motherfuckers. Hate 'em, can't stand to be around them, wish they'd all take a long walk off a short pier.
You, you are quite obviously bigoted against those that choose to follow religion; just look at how viciously you are attacking them right now. The question is, by what standard should bigotry be judged? Is your hatred of religious followers any better than Jerry Falwell's hatred of homosexuals? I guess it depends on who you ask.
Not trying to bust balls here, man, just pointing out that religion itself isn't the problem, it's assholes. Assholes ruin everything.
So cocky and arrogant, you.
Sayeth the pot to the kettle. Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you make some more blind assumptions about me, that'll make you look like a real Oxford scholar!
You've said your peace so nobody else's matters, eh?
You know, if you're going to try and write an intellectual appearing retort, you might want to make sure you use the correct spelling...
Just saiyan.
Such dangerous traits in those who presume to have a superior opinion, when in fact they're as ignorant as they come.
Indeed they are, Monseigneur Pot. I, for one, know better, in that opinions are subjective and thus incapable of superiority, but rather are all equally invalid in the face of facts.
Shit, you couldn't even bother to answer my reply. You just tried to change the subject (while flip-flopping on your position, no less) to avoid appearing like the argumentative prick you are. If you can't be bothered with facts or reality, go post your rantings on extremist YouTube videos like a good lunatic.
Yeah, that... or, you totally missed my entire premise from the get-go, and therefore your reply wasn't worthy of a valid response. Of course, I'm certain a self-important narcissist such as yourself will completely ignore that fact, and continue your quaint little tirade about how awful it is that someone on the internet holds a differing world view than yourself.
Oh, the humanity...
Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much?
Considering that I'm not British, and thus couldn't give less of a damn what laws their government passes, yes, yes it is.
Then... why are you reading this article and comment thread at all?
Boredom and OCD.
Clearly it means enough for you to post (with neatly spaced out quotes too, which had to have taken some time).
Not really, modern HTML is easy. Besides, I wouldn't make a very good grammar Nazi if I didn't insist on proper formatting for myself, now would I?
Christianity is very intolerant. It for instance teaches that all who do not believe in it burn in hell forever. That sounds pretty intolerant.
Then you don't know Christianity, but rather an interpretation of it given by egocentric assholes who substitute the actual teachings of Jesus Christ for cherry-picked phrases from the Bible. Don't take my word for it, crack one open and read the words of Christ yourself (just the words of Christ, not all that filler), and then point to me where Jesus himself said anything even remotely intolerant.
As I said before, it is not the religion itself that you find intolerant, but rather the method by which individuals apply it. Blaming religion for how certain people apply it is like blaming a bullet for shooting someone - it's ridiculous, they're inanimate objects, and inanimate objects are incapable of emotions such as intolerance.
Only people possess that capability.
Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander? I sure hope not - what an abject waste of taxpayer monies such a thing would be...
Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much?
Considering that I'm not British, and thus couldn't give less of a damn what laws their government passes, yes, yes it is.
why is updating a grossly outdated standard that unreasonable to you?
Well, so far I've heard at least 2 different interpretations of the amendment - you say it updates a "grossly outdated law," although you fail to mention how, and someone else claims it adds harassment to the current standard for libel and slander. Considering the discrepancy between people who claim to understand how this law is being amended, I believe my skepticism regarding its necessity is valid.
For example, let's say a spam law about postal mail was created a couple decades ago - it would explicitly describe conditions relevant to postal mail, why shouldn't it be amended to include email when it came out? Why should a law explicitly about telephones not have been amended to cover cellphones?
Because mail is mail, and phones are phones, and both are forms of communication; the medium by which said communication is transmitted should not be a factor in considering application of the law. If your legislators are writing laws so specific as to define the medium by which the law is bound, they're doing it wrong.
Here's an example of a law done right:
Note how the writer does not specify what is meant by "papers and effects;" this is to mean that the law is all encompassing regarding those items, so it doesn't matter if your "papers" are actual, physical paper or digital documents stored on a physical medium, they're both covered (FYI, this particular gem was written a good 250 years before the advent of flash drives, yet they are still covered).
Whether it's a script or a law, code for a growing and changing environment will likely need to be patched and updated.
Only if it's poorly written.
My point is this:
In the US, it is currently illegal to slander someone else. Just because someone slandered you anonymously on a computer does not mean we need a brand new law that states it's illegal to slander someone anonymously on a computer, the old law covers it just fine.
It seems to me the mentality is that civil punishment isn't enough, we need criminal laws so we can ruin lives, and that is a notion I cannot get onboard with.
Overcriminalization is one of the biggest problems facing modern society, IMO.
Worth noting, it has already been pointed out that this case is a matter of amending current slander and libel law to include online harassment (which, again, I assumed would be covered by existing harassment laws), so really our entire discussion has been non sequitur .
Understand that there are no laws against libel or slander - they are not criminal acts.
Just because something is not a criminal offense, does not mean it's not against the law; there is such a thing as a civil infraction.
I believe you're thinking of torts, in which no particular law has been broken but one party has suffered some sort of harm.
I did not; in all honesty, my interest in foreign legal matters is minimal.
My main purpose in replying was to congratulate you on using the fist/nose idiom in proper context, which is seldom ever done.
Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
There isn't. This bill is an amendment to the current law.
Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander? I sure hope not - what an abject waste of taxpayer monies such a thing would be...
The latter, I would have agreed with; however, you then said
Which religions that are mainstream in America are not intolerant?
Which leads me to believe my original supposition is the correct one.
To answer that quandary, Few of the religions I have studied are intolerant by design; much to the contrary, on paper Christianity (which I know is the specific belief you're referring to, evidenced by use of the word "mainstream") is the most tolerant, loving, peaceful belief structure known to mankind. Upon pondering, I can really only think of two faiths which are, or at least appear to be, dogmatic in their intolerance - Judaism and Shintoism.
I posit that it is not the religion itself that you find intolerant, but rather the method by which individuals apply it. While I agree that you should point out the intolerance (and often hypocrisy) of the individual, it is disengenuous at best and downright silly at worst to blame religion for what people do in the name of theirs. Religion is a tool, an inanimate object, and thus is incapable of human properties such as intolerance or hate. May as well blame the bullet for committing the murder.
For those of you willing to listen to my reason and not knee jerk hate me, you have to understand that there are certain people who very carefully hide IN ORDER to hate on their neighbors in SMALL TOWN forums. If you live in a big city, consider yourself immune. Otherwise please hear me out:
Judging from your username and the source you linked to, I seriously doubt you have much experience with small, midwestern communities, and definitely know less about them than those of us who actually live there, but sure, I'll hear you out.
But in SMALL TOWN forums, among a couple hundred or thousand people who are neighbors, hiding and hating is a serious problem, and should be fought.
And you know this how? Membership in "SMALL TOWN forums" on the internet are not necessarily limited to people who actually live there, you know. For all we know, the prick calling Jim's wife a methwhore is some 13 year old in his mother's Orange County, CA basement.
Even it it wasn't, who gives a fuck? Sticks and stones, man, sticks and stones.
Only in that context, a small town forum, do I agree anonymity need to be unmasked.
Why? So you can hunt down the individual who said something you don't like and harass them for it?
Have you ever even been to a small midwestern community, let alone lived in one? I have and do, and let me tell you, if you're different in any way (like, say, being a "nerd" or homosexual), anonymity is a survival necessity. Matthew Shepard's story is a perfect example of what happens when rednecks find out that you're something they don't like. Or maybe that's what you're gunning for?
There are people out there with serious problems, and they ruin small community forums with their abusive attitude by constantly steering all discussions to their strife.
No, what 'ruins' small communities is coastal assholes who insist they know how we middle Americans think. You don't. Piss off.
You are talking about one troll who can basically sit on a forum and utterly destroy it, for a small community.
No. See, around these parts, there's a saying - "If I took every bad thing some idiot said about me to heart, I'd never get any sleep." That wisdom applies to internet forums as well.
Please understand that this is a real problem before you form an opinion on the matter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/small-town-gossip-moves-to-the-web-anonymous-and-vicious.html
So, to back your assumptions about the effect of online negativity in rural America, you link to... a New York Times article? Really dude? Right, because the asshats that refer to this entire region as "flyover country" are going to be the experts on heartland psychology. And I'm a flying golden panda bear.
Your freedom to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose.
Nice to see this cliche used in the proper context, for once.
Harrassment and libel have real victims and even if you do not agree with how easy libel actions are brought to the courts in England and Wales, you would agree with the need for some sort of law prohibiting people from causing harm in these ways.
You mean there aren't already laws on the books which criminalize slander and libel?
Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
Most people who vote base their decision on stupid stuff.
FTFY.
The mentality of the typical U.S. voter boils down to "Who cares that Candidate A would start another war in the middle east, strip us of our Constitutional rights, and give trillions of our dollars to his campaign benefactors - he's against/for abortion/illegals/puppy mills/gay stuff/[insert preferred non-issue here], and so am I, so I'm going to vote for him."
Why should we be tolerant of religion? Why can we not be intolerant of intolerance?
Oh, irony.
FYI, religion does not automatically equate to intolerance.
You can sue somebody for laying out a set of facts and then expressing their opinion about those facts, but that doesn't mean you're justified or that you'll win.
FTFY.
Not that I think it's right to sue someone for telling the truth, merely pointing out that it is possible.
I hit the flag button and found "copyright infringement" very simple to find. "Great!" I thought, "So simple to fix this problem." Nope, that takes me to a DMCA page where I have to type in a real name, e-mail address, phone number and supporting information.
I believe that to file a DMCA take down... you are supposed to be the copyright holder. AFAIK, the DMCA isn't intended for just any crazy yahoo to claim that something is copyrighted and should be taken down. They SHOULD be asking for your contact information, in order to ensure that it is a valid notice.
Yeah, but having to fill out a DMCA takedown notice just to use the site's internal flagging mechanism? Kind of seems like they're discouraging users from notifying them of infringing content, does it not?
IANAL either, but I do know the definition of 'due diligence,' and what OP is describing is not it.
Well... except for porn sites. They have about 10 - 15 blocked third party cookies, but none of them are Google/Facebook........
To a marketing weasel, that last sentence reads "untapped market."
Facebook might be the biggest enemy of privacy on the web right now.
I don't think so.
I assume you've learned your lesson then.
Yea, the lesson being a good work ethic and genuine interest in what you're doing will fuck you over faster than a shady underling looking to steal your job (been there as well; joke's on him, that job sucked!).
If, in your professional estimation, you feel your work is undervalued, the budget is insufficient, or management lacks the necessary leadership qualities for you to do your work with a minimum of hassle... then do the minimum amount of work necessary to keep suspicion away and spend the rest of your energy finding another place to work
I still can't get over how having a strong work ethic and genuine interest in what you do is more harmful to a career than being one of those lazy, bare-minimum fuckers I often end up cleaning up after. That's what I get for being raised by people who felt it was important to instill a sense of pride in workmanship in their offspring.
I'm only explaining this because if you are a hacker, you won't be content with just knowing what to do, you'll have to know why. Well, now you know. So don't concern yourself over-much with this state of affairs; Just focus on getting slotted in with a company that doesn't engage in exploitative behavior, and trust your instincts about it. If something doesn't feel right, it's because it isn't -- if you get that vibe, don't drop anchor there.
Thanks for the kind words and consideration. These days, I'm a heck of a lot better about not giving a shit about my work than I used to be.
All a recipe for disaster IMO.
Then again, I'm one of those infosec control-freak types who will corner a salesperson and brutally interrogate them over the crap their iPad has brought into my networks, or even better, the confidential documents they store in public, online data warehouses...
"You put WHAT on Google Docs??!!"
YMMV.
Keep it in house. That way, when something inevitably gets fucked, you can actually do something about it.
What a hacker does not do, is produce a solution that will be easily maintained.
Wrong, that depends on the hacker.
Also depends on who's following along afterwards. Even the simplest hacks will quickly confound pedigreed ponies who only know how to follow directions.
Most of the hacks I've managed over the years would (by design) be fairly simple for another hacker to figure out, but those MBA's running the department? Yeah, good luck with that, Chuckles.