This is about the stupidest thing I have ever read. Exactly how is it unethical to sell me a product that I want, that does exactly what I want it to do for a price I am happy to pay, unethical?
If it were advertised to do more but didn't, that would be unethical.
Yeah and California has plenty of it as well. They have so much that they are currently scrambling to pass laws making it nearly impossible to get it out of the ground. One of many reasons why they are declaring bankruptcy.
Oh, I see. Facebook failed to have bots watching all posts for suicide threats and procedures in place to alert the local authorities and then reach through the computer to detain the poster.
Given those failings, Facebook really is to blame. At least in the eyes of the logically challenged or fantasy world inhabiting.
the Italian situation is still different. For the trespass case to be similar, you would have to have two people trespass on your property, get into a fight and then have the loser sue you for the injuries sustained during the fight.
Since one is a legal product in all jurisdictions where the original producer or its legal agents made the first sale, then no they are not responsible.
Since one is not a legal in most jurisdictions, then yes, they are responsible.
See, engaging in illegal behavior opens the door for problems down the road.
But is Facebook the criminal for having "allowed" someone to engage in bullying within their product? If you want to hold Facebook accountable, then you have two choices to make: 1) Establish a reasonable way for companies to police the content posted by its users without being overly draconian in the censorship or 2) Live in a world where the internet has absolutely no social sites. Option 2 would mean that all of the old BBS style social sites would also not exist; Slashdot would not exist. There is no alternative because their is absolutely no way any sane person would allow a third party to post anything if they could be held accountable for that content.
Are you sure that it is always illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I am 100% positive that it is entirely legal and can be done with absolutely no legal repercussions. If you think it through for just a few minutes, you can also see how that is.
As to the harassment, etc. Nobody has alleged that Facebook nor its employees were engaged in that behavior. It is only alleged that users of Facebook's product engaged in that behavior. I realize it is all the rage in some circles to find ways to hold gun manufacturers accountable for any misuse of guns but do we really want companies held accountable for the way its products are misused by customers?
If Facebook can be held accountable for facilitating the harassment, then why not whichever company built the computers used to enter the harassing content into Facebook? Why not also the companies that manufactured the components such as the CPU, video cards, network adapters, etc.?
But did Facebook or any Facebook employee engage in the harassment or did a third party use Facebook to carry out the harassment? We are really stretching logic when we start holding companies accountable for any and all abuses of their products by the users of those products. i used a car example above so I'll use an even more ridiculous example here ridiculous but identical.
If it so happened that all of the US waterboarding that may have happened had been carried out with Evian water, should Evian be held accountable?
So how does the girls family have any recourse against Facebook if there was absolutely no relationship between Facebook and the girl?
Wouldn't that be the same as Johnny's parents suing GM or Daimler or Ferrari because Fred uses one of their cars to run down Johnny? Or is it different "on a computer" or "on the internet"?
But the claim is that she had no relationship with Facebook. I can see allowing action against Facebook to proceed to the extent that it is forcing Facebook to help identify its users who were engaged in the bullying but we must then agree that all companies should be able to be forced to give up information on their "actual" users/customers (don't get started on users being the product not the customer, it is irrelevant to this discussion) when accusations of illegal/improper activity are at play.
In other words, if Facebook can face legal consequences because some of its users posted stuff about underage people, then WikiLeaks can face legal consequences for being involved in the dissemination of classified material. I'm sure there are thousands of other examples that could be used as well, like ISPs giving up info on torrent users.
Uh-huh. So your ISP is to blame if they allow you to send harrassing emails? Slashdot is to if you post crap that I claim is harrassing?
Do you not understand the difference between moderated and unmoderated places. A printed newspaper or magazine is fully moderated. Their website may or may not be.
I know you don't speak for all of Slashdot but I just love how the general feeling is that comment sections should be wholly unmoderated so as to prevent any form of censorship and then there is also the general feeling that coporations should be held wholly responsible for the unmoderated content produced by their users.
By this logic, any city should be held responsible if it allows people to wander the streets talking loudly enough that others might hear.
Are you sure he was threatening assassination? I always thought he was making an exaggerated claim about the swiftness and extent to which new gun control laws would be enacted and that Uncle Ted would rather go to jail than turn in his guns.
So, Sarah Palin said we shouldn't retreat but reload. If she was also talking in the sense of government agents coming to take away guns then she was basically expressing the same attitude as Thomas Jefferson. If she was talking about not relenting on getting the message out or not backing down from the political fight but instead raising more money than Obama and running more ads and campaigning even more, then what the hell are you complaining about. The latter is most likely the context in which she was speaking.
What a load of crap. Protip: MSNBC does not actually know what the average tea party supporter thinks or says. They'll only tell you about the most extreme example they can find.
Kind of like saying that Louis Farrakhan or the New Black Panthers accurately represent the views of every single black in the States, which also seems to be something MSNBC claims.
And yet many left wingers (SPLC especially) use the lyrics of music to demand that the government more closely watch or shut down certain groups. At least, when those individuals are light skinned. When you ask for more government intervention into other people's lives, you maybe shouldn't complain that yours got interfered with as well. Better would be to always argue for less intervention; at least you can claim conistency.
Being critical in the sense of a movie or book critic, yes. Being critical as in always disagreeing with, no. Sometimes governments are doing the right thing. I'm sure we can all find one or two examples if we put on our thinking caps and concentrate.
Like the dark complexion Muslim that shot up an army base wasn't terrorism because it also happened to be his place of employment? Kind of like how the Boston marathon thing was most likely white guys protesting high taxes and such, except it wasn't?
Seriously, this administration wouldn't recognize an act of terrorism if... well they've happened and you should be able to get the point.
Not the AC but... every time a politician starts talking about restricting guns or access to guns and ammo, I buy more. I contribute to organizations that fight politicians trying to do that. What does that get me? Around here, generally scorn because that isn't a freedom most around here seem to support. We should only support the other freedoms. You know, the freedom not to have to make choices because the government should give us everything we want.
Well, when you expect the government to be responsible for clothing you, feeding you, housing you, doctoring you, etc. why shouldn't you then expect the government to also take care of thinking for you as well?
Except it is written 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, etc. so we called that two-tenths when I went through mechanical design. Had it been written 1 1/5, 1 2/5, etc. then I would have written fifths.
Slashdot Mirror
This is about the stupidest thing I have ever read. Exactly how is it unethical to sell me a product that I want, that does exactly what I want it to do for a price I am happy to pay, unethical?
If it were advertised to do more but didn't, that would be unethical.
Yeah and California has plenty of it as well. They have so much that they are currently scrambling to pass laws making it nearly impossible to get it out of the ground. One of many reasons why they are declaring bankruptcy.
Up until last year, Wisconsin if the rack was being used for its intended purpose. Illinois is still anti-gun rack.
With all the copulating in your post, I imagine the things you wished for will happen all by themselves.
"pink and invisible"? If they are invisible, how do you know they are pink?
Started under GWB with heavy Dem suppport and pushing. Finished under Obama and mostly paid out under Obama.
Also, Paulson's replacement was on the lobbying side during the negotiations under GWB, so yes, Obama's team owns it as much or more than GWB.
Oh, I see. Facebook failed to have bots watching all posts for suicide threats and procedures in place to alert the local authorities and then reach through the computer to detain the poster.
Given those failings, Facebook really is to blame. At least in the eyes of the logically challenged or fantasy world inhabiting.
the Italian situation is still different. For the trespass case to be similar, you would have to have two people trespass on your property, get into a fight and then have the loser sue you for the injuries sustained during the fight.
Since one is a legal product in all jurisdictions where the original producer or its legal agents made the first sale, then no they are not responsible.
Since one is not a legal in most jurisdictions, then yes, they are responsible.
See, engaging in illegal behavior opens the door for problems down the road.
So maybe the government of Italy should be policing the other idiots in Italy who actually posted the videos and made the mean comments.
Were they employees of Facebook? If not, then leave Facebook out of it.
But is Facebook the criminal for having "allowed" someone to engage in bullying within their product? If you want to hold Facebook accountable, then you have two choices to make: 1) Establish a reasonable way for companies to police the content posted by its users without being overly draconian in the censorship or 2) Live in a world where the internet has absolutely no social sites. Option 2 would mean that all of the old BBS style social sites would also not exist; Slashdot would not exist. There is no alternative because their is absolutely no way any sane person would allow a third party to post anything if they could be held accountable for that content.
Are you sure that it is always illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I am 100% positive that it is entirely legal and can be done with absolutely no legal repercussions. If you think it through for just a few minutes, you can also see how that is.
As to the harassment, etc. Nobody has alleged that Facebook nor its employees were engaged in that behavior. It is only alleged that users of Facebook's product engaged in that behavior. I realize it is all the rage in some circles to find ways to hold gun manufacturers accountable for any misuse of guns but do we really want companies held accountable for the way its products are misused by customers?
If Facebook can be held accountable for facilitating the harassment, then why not whichever company built the computers used to enter the harassing content into Facebook? Why not also the companies that manufactured the components such as the CPU, video cards, network adapters, etc.?
But did Facebook or any Facebook employee engage in the harassment or did a third party use Facebook to carry out the harassment? We are really stretching logic when we start holding companies accountable for any and all abuses of their products by the users of those products. i used a car example above so I'll use an even more ridiculous example here ridiculous but identical.
If it so happened that all of the US waterboarding that may have happened had been carried out with Evian water, should Evian be held accountable?
So how does the girls family have any recourse against Facebook if there was absolutely no relationship between Facebook and the girl?
Wouldn't that be the same as Johnny's parents suing GM or Daimler or Ferrari because Fred uses one of their cars to run down Johnny? Or is it different "on a computer" or "on the internet"?
But the claim is that she had no relationship with Facebook. I can see allowing action against Facebook to proceed to the extent that it is forcing Facebook to help identify its users who were engaged in the bullying but we must then agree that all companies should be able to be forced to give up information on their "actual" users/customers (don't get started on users being the product not the customer, it is irrelevant to this discussion) when accusations of illegal/improper activity are at play.
In other words, if Facebook can face legal consequences because some of its users posted stuff about underage people, then WikiLeaks can face legal consequences for being involved in the dissemination of classified material. I'm sure there are thousands of other examples that could be used as well, like ISPs giving up info on torrent users.
Uh-huh. So your ISP is to blame if they allow you to send harrassing emails? Slashdot is to if you post crap that I claim is harrassing?
Do you not understand the difference between moderated and unmoderated places. A printed newspaper or magazine is fully moderated. Their website may or may not be.
I know you don't speak for all of Slashdot but I just love how the general feeling is that comment sections should be wholly unmoderated so as to prevent any form of censorship and then there is also the general feeling that coporations should be held wholly responsible for the unmoderated content produced by their users.
By this logic, any city should be held responsible if it allows people to wander the streets talking loudly enough that others might hear.
"Are agricultural subsidies part of fascism also..." Yes, fascism, socialism, communism, take your pick. They are part of those systems.
Are you sure he was threatening assassination? I always thought he was making an exaggerated claim about the swiftness and extent to which new gun control laws would be enacted and that Uncle Ted would rather go to jail than turn in his guns.
So, Sarah Palin said we shouldn't retreat but reload. If she was also talking in the sense of government agents coming to take away guns then she was basically expressing the same attitude as Thomas Jefferson. If she was talking about not relenting on getting the message out or not backing down from the political fight but instead raising more money than Obama and running more ads and campaigning even more, then what the hell are you complaining about. The latter is most likely the context in which she was speaking.
What a load of crap. Protip: MSNBC does not actually know what the average tea party supporter thinks or says. They'll only tell you about the most extreme example they can find.
Kind of like saying that Louis Farrakhan or the New Black Panthers accurately represent the views of every single black in the States, which also seems to be something MSNBC claims.
And yet many left wingers (SPLC especially) use the lyrics of music to demand that the government more closely watch or shut down certain groups. At least, when those individuals are light skinned. When you ask for more government intervention into other people's lives, you maybe shouldn't complain that yours got interfered with as well. Better would be to always argue for less intervention; at least you can claim conistency.
Being critical in the sense of a movie or book critic, yes. Being critical as in always disagreeing with, no. Sometimes governments are doing the right thing. I'm sure we can all find one or two examples if we put on our thinking caps and concentrate.
Like the dark complexion Muslim that shot up an army base wasn't terrorism because it also happened to be his place of employment? Kind of like how the Boston marathon thing was most likely white guys protesting high taxes and such, except it wasn't?
Seriously, this administration wouldn't recognize an act of terrorism if... well they've happened and you should be able to get the point.
Not the AC but... every time a politician starts talking about restricting guns or access to guns and ammo, I buy more. I contribute to organizations that fight politicians trying to do that. What does that get me? Around here, generally scorn because that isn't a freedom most around here seem to support. We should only support the other freedoms. You know, the freedom not to have to make choices because the government should give us everything we want.
Well, when you expect the government to be responsible for clothing you, feeding you, housing you, doctoring you, etc. why shouldn't you then expect the government to also take care of thinking for you as well?
Except it is written 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, etc. so we called that two-tenths when I went through mechanical design. Had it been written 1 1/5, 1 2/5, etc. then I would have written fifths.