Google made the 90 day deadline up, sure. But they are enforcing it, which I think is pretty cool. MS wanted them to wait two days. TWO DAYS. Which says to me they were testing the waters. No way those two days were actually crucial for MS. If you can finish the job in 92 days, you can finish it in 90 days (especially when you have the resources MS has). They were simply finding out if Google would bend their 90 day rule. Next time, it would be a week. The time after, it would be a month. Until they could and would just ignore it. Since Google stuck to their guns, MS has to resort to the tactic of making Google out to be the bad guy. Which, to be fair, they kind of are. MS doesn't like to be bossed around any more than anyone else. But to me, this is the type of pressure which is on the whole beneficial to the users in the long run.
Personally, I get annoyed at how often I have to re-enter data across the various Google services, because the different services aren't allowed to share data.
I understand and appreciate your point, also the one about simplified privacy policy. But for me, it's the other way around. It freaks me out when I go from one site to another and my personal info follows me. I wouldn't mind so much if there was an opt out, but apparently there isn't.
Would BDSM be considered violent? What about the stuff from Kink.com, where a woman may be tied up and beaten with various whips? I think they even have a series where two women wrestle and the winner fucks the loser with a strap-on.
Does the legality change when there's an interview at the beginning or end where the female explicitly states that they consented to their treatment, going so far as to describe what was done to her and whether she enjoyed it?
I admire the goal of trying to get rid of truly violent porn - the stuff that lacks consent. If it was limited to nonconsensual stuff, I can see it kinda sorta working. But as long as two consenting adults can violate the law, said law will be immoral and unethical - and nearly impossible to enforce.
You're assuming there is already a law on the books. There isn't. This is merely, at the moment, a discussion. And the points you are raising would be key points, I imagine. I don't know if the governmental committee is going to come to a conclusion I'll like, but I'm happy that this is being discussed.
but this law won't just be targeting shock videos.
How do you know that?
Also, I'm not defending the UK law. I'm not familiar with that at all. I just wanted to point out, that the Icelandic Interior Minister isn't trying to ban porn, as such. Furthermore, I'm with him on the need to discuss the issue, as opposed to having knee-jerk reactions.
Care to give a link to a page where they have that clearly defined?
I'd love to, but this issue is actually being discussed right now. As in, the ban isn't as imminent as the articles suggests, but the Interior Minister is opening up the debate. If you read icelandic (or if Google translate has improved drastically on its icelandic-to-english translations) you can try his homepage: http://www.ogmundur.is/fra-lesendum/nr/6571/ where he clarifies his stand on this, including how the definitions are lacking.
There's certainly none given in the linked article. If you mean "porn created against the will of the participants through violence" then most of us would be for this. If you mean "porn the government happens to decide is violent" as happened in the UK then I think that's a bit less clear. A whole bunch of perfectly legal acts have become illegal if filmed. Even between consenting adults. People are right to be suspicious.
I don't know what'll come out of this discussion in Iceland. I would love it if a workable definition of violent porn emerged, with a fairly broad consensus, and a practical way of keeping it at a minimum. I'm not, however, holding my breath. At this point, merely a rational discussion seems like something to hope for, but not expect.
And who determines what is "violent"? And why should the depiction of violence in porn be any different than the depiction of violence in any other context? And who are you (or Dines) to determine that for other people? Short of someone being forced into doing porn and forced into doing actual violence in the violent porn, who cares?
Those are really good questions, and is exactly, to my mind, what the discussion should be about. What IS violent porn? Where are the lines and even can any be drawn? I don't have the answers, and I'm certainly not interested in policing anyone's fetishes. But I do think the discussion is valuable. Take child pornography, for example. Most people (including me) would be quick to say that's abuse at all times. But what if the pornographic photo is photoshopped from an innocent photo, then what?
Some people have weird foot fetishes and other crap. I find that pretty gross. However, as long as everyone involved is willing
This is an argument I'm very sympathetic to. But to me it's like free speech - it doesn't mean you can say just anything. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, just for fun. In the same way, your right to indulge your fetishes ends when it infringes on the rights of others. Then the question becomes, when does porn infringe on the rights of others? (I'm talking seriously infringes, not just if it squicks you). I don't know, but I think it's a worthy discussion to have.
We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent movies which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime
If one is to be banned, the other should also be, for the same reasons.
I don't see a difference. Do you?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. There is a difference, a very clear difference, between simulated violence and actual violence. And I think that's the key difference here. I wouldn't support a ban which included, say, a ban on a dramatic movie where child abuse was one of the themes, but I do support a ban on child pornography.
I have to wonder if this would really do anything useful.
Well, that's what the discussion should be about. The problem, in Iceland as well as on Slashdot, is that it tends towards the knee-jerk variety of "They can't ban porn! It's art! An abomination! Free speech! Pointless! Mine!" or what have you, instead of a thoughtful discourse on how would you define violent porn (your point about bdsm was a good one) and how you would, in practice, go about enforcing such a ban (or perhaps just let it be symbolic).
If they just mean banning porn that's depicting actual violence against women (and I don't mean bdsm or something, I mean actual rape and sexual assault, not consenting staged acts), then that's perfectly reasonable. But if they're banning *depictions* of violent sexual acts, then it's probably pointless.
I don't know exactly what they are considering, seeing as things are at the discussion stage yet, as far as I know. So what they are doing is exploring those issues, seeing if they can define those parameters.
I find it very interesting how even bringing the subject up seems to get people very upset and ready to dismiss any such idea. But how about child pornography? We can surely agree that that's abuse in all cases and should be dealt with. But how? Isn't it necessary to discuss these things?
Paternalistic, sexist bullshit. I don't see them whining about the civil rights of men in porn. No, it's only women who need protection.
As far as I'm aware, this legislation isn't confined to women in any way. It's aimed to ban violent porn, and men can be raped just as much as women can. So it's about protecting men just as much as it is about protecting women.
This is dumb, as a woman who's various parts are all over the internet I think this is bullshit.
But your various parts on the internet are there with your consent? And you weren't being abused/raped? In which case, this particular legislation has nothing to do with you. All your parts in all their glory should still be available in Iceland afterwards, just as they are now.
Read the article; it's violent porn that's the target, not anything else. Which admittedly isn't particularly clear (unless you read Icelandic) and it's easy to imagine it's just another religious/paternalistic BS.
This ban is aimed at violent porn, not porn (as in naked people having sex). So, just to be clear, images depicting naked people having sex will be a-ok, whereas images depicting, say, women being raped or abused would not. It's the consenting adults principle, if you will.
How do I know this? Well, first of all, it's in the article: " "We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," he said. " The "he" here is Ögmundur Jónasson, the Interior Minister. Also, he's discussed this on his homepage (which is in Icelandic, but here's the link: http://www.ogmundur.is/fra-lesendum/nr/6571/) where he specified that his concern is violent porn, NOT porn itself.
That said, I'm pretty skeptical about this being possible in practice, but I'd love to hear Slashdot's opinion about if people here think it is.
And why does said discussion have to happen on the same website as the news story?
It doesn't. Unless the newspaper wants to increase clicks per news item by getting those who get caught up in a discussion to come back and check their replies (just like I did, just now for this discussion). It would perhaps increase the longevity of each news item a little.
Since newspaper sites are in the business of getting people to look at them, they cannot be counted on to create an effective moderation system, any more than you can trust the discussion system at Fox News or Huffington Post. Profit and a free and dynamic discussion may very well be incompatible.
Perhaps there are sites that want to. I would love to read my news at a site which encouraged civil and reasoned discussion even if the general consensus would sometimes tend to disagree with my own opinion. In any case, I hope you are wrong on the last point!
Comment sections for general news sites are pretty bad ideas. I don't believe developing better commenting systems is going to change that.
See, as the system is now for most newspapers, I won't disagree. But on the other hand, if the comments sections were actually decent, you could read the newspaper and discuss the news with others who also happened to be reading the newspaper and were interested in the same story you are. A decent commenting system doesn't actually have to do much beyond keeping the noise down at manageble levels and allow for back and forth discussion. There isn't any actual value in it beyond the social factor, but depending on your circumstances, that can actually be pretty big.
The measure would negatively affect consumers who have come to expect rich content and free services through the Internet,
Personally it freaks me out whenever I go on a random site and it shows me my own facebook profile picture along with a message such as "Be the first of your friends to recommend this article!!"
I'm still caving to peer pressure and keeping a FB profile, but I resent it always more and more. One thing is for sure - that's one company I'm not investing in any time soon.
This was concentrating on forgetting / ignoring, IOW what eidetics don't do. That's not the same thing as determining relevance.
Well, from the blurb with the article, that's the hypothesis:
The results bolster a hypothesis known in schizophrenia circles as the hyperlearning hypothesis, which posits that people suffering from schizophrenia have brains that lose the ability to forget or ignore as much as they normally would. Without forgetting, they lose the ability to extract what's meaningful out of the immensity of stimuli the brain encounters.
Which, presumably, is the point of this exercise, i.e. infecting computers with schizophrenia (am I the only one who feels this is horribly wrong on many levels?).
I suppose it's ironic that they're basing the plant in the one state that people WILL buy with idealism instead of sense.
I don't think it's irony so much as simple practicality.
Tesla has always stated that they wanted to start with sexy, expensive cars and work their way towards full size, affordable cars. The S sedan is a step along the way. And economic downturn or not, there are still plenty of people willing to plonk down $50k for a luxury sedan. I'm quite sure they'll find a few buyers in the SF Bay Area.
I guess I'm wondering more about Facebook than about the users. I'm already thinking of leaving. Facebook, I'm pretty sure, wants us to stay. Thus, they don't want to push the users past the tolerance level, but right now, assuming I'm a prime specimen of the average Joe, we're pretty close.
I'm just confused as to the cost-benefits for Facebook here. Getting a track record for annoying users and badly handling their private data doesn't seem like a good business model to me. That is to say, unless they think they'll just get away with it and nobody will notice or care. But people do, and still they go down that road. Again and again.
From the article, it seems as if this new move is only useful to data miners, not Facebook users. So they're basically screwing with us (I use, albeit sparingly, Facebook).
Facebook's done similar things to user's data before, and we've have had some success in protesting those changes. But I'm getting fed up. I don't want to have to worry about every single time Facebook has some sort of an update, that my personal data is going to be distributed publicly. I've had to change my privacy settings before, where stuff that I previously had private was suddenly public. Now it seems I have no option but to delete part of my profile in order to keep my stuff private.
What I wonder is how long Facebook thinks they'll get away with this until everyone is fed up and leaves?
Oops, this tells me that I should not try to post responses on/. when I'm at work and don't have much time to craft my responses:)
I certainly am not on the "just punish" side, and I much prefer criminals, juveniles or older ones, to have all possible resources to make something better of their lives.
My point was (well, was supposed to be) if you and Joe commit a crime, you shouldn't have to endure a heavier punishment for it than Joe just because some computer program has calculated that you are at a higher risk to re-offend than Joe.
If the program doesn't do that, only opens up different resources for the juveniles/offenders to help them, then yeah, I'm all for it. It just sounded like "justice" was going to be meted out according to some probability analysis and that creeped me out.
Of course, if you'd bothered to read TFA (and were able to ignore the author's histrionics), you'd realize that the idea is to use this technology to differentially sentence offenders based on the likelihood of recidivism. That is, juveniles who have already committed a crime.
In my opinion, that's even worse. Even if person A has a higher risk of re-offending than person B, I thought the idea of justice was to give everyone the same treatment.
Why would an individual care if his or her browsing history is published online? Employers search for Facebook or MySpace pages because these websites contain 'proof' that you behaved in some way or other (e.g. pictures), but a browsing history does not tell them anything other than, 'a computer in my household has accessed these websites at some point in time or other,' which can easily be accounted for by explaining that a friend pranked your machine with tentacle porn or your children were just really excited about Misty and Ash Ketchum.
True, but if you are looking for a job, then this may be the thing that stops you from getting an interview. And in Japan, the competition is steep, I hear.
This is definitely possible. I don't understand the slightly derogatory tone in the article/summary.
Well, the derogatory tone in the article is par for the course for this particular rag. I think there is some kind of a rule that the Daily Star, the Daily Mail and a few others have to publish at least one perpetual arousal symptom story per month (the sufferer is always young, female and unattached). Then there is the story about the adulterer, from the mistress' point of view but trashing her nevertheless, the fat lady trying every diet possible story... etc. These stories are all pretty sordid, sad and derogatory toward women. I hate them, but they have a very distinct, disturbing pull...
And finally, since I'm on a rant, TFA isn't even an article, it's a friggin' blurb advertising an article in a magazine!
...would be widely embraced on campus. And much of the "truth is out there" stuff is little more than a religion.
Wait. Why would an atheist, on or off campus, want to embrace any sort of a religion? I thought the whole point of being an atheist was to be rid of all that shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Google made the 90 day deadline up, sure. But they are enforcing it, which I think is pretty cool. MS wanted them to wait two days. TWO DAYS. Which says to me they were testing the waters. No way those two days were actually crucial for MS. If you can finish the job in 92 days, you can finish it in 90 days (especially when you have the resources MS has). They were simply finding out if Google would bend their 90 day rule. Next time, it would be a week. The time after, it would be a month. Until they could and would just ignore it. Since Google stuck to their guns, MS has to resort to the tactic of making Google out to be the bad guy. Which, to be fair, they kind of are. MS doesn't like to be bossed around any more than anyone else. But to me, this is the type of pressure which is on the whole beneficial to the users in the long run.
Personally, I get annoyed at how often I have to re-enter data across the various Google services, because the different services aren't allowed to share data.
I understand and appreciate your point, also the one about simplified privacy policy. But for me, it's the other way around. It freaks me out when I go from one site to another and my personal info follows me. I wouldn't mind so much if there was an opt out, but apparently there isn't.
Would BDSM be considered violent? What about the stuff from Kink.com, where a woman may be tied up and beaten with various whips? I think they even have a series where two women wrestle and the winner fucks the loser with a strap-on.
Does the legality change when there's an interview at the beginning or end where the female explicitly states that they consented to their treatment, going so far as to describe what was done to her and whether she enjoyed it?
I admire the goal of trying to get rid of truly violent porn - the stuff that lacks consent. If it was limited to nonconsensual stuff, I can see it kinda sorta working. But as long as two consenting adults can violate the law, said law will be immoral and unethical - and nearly impossible to enforce.
You're assuming there is already a law on the books. There isn't. This is merely, at the moment, a discussion. And the points you are raising would be key points, I imagine. I don't know if the governmental committee is going to come to a conclusion I'll like, but I'm happy that this is being discussed.
but this law won't just be targeting shock videos.
How do you know that?
Also, I'm not defending the UK law. I'm not familiar with that at all. I just wanted to point out, that the Icelandic Interior Minister isn't trying to ban porn, as such. Furthermore, I'm with him on the need to discuss the issue, as opposed to having knee-jerk reactions.
Care to give a link to a page where they have that clearly defined?
I'd love to, but this issue is actually being discussed right now. As in, the ban isn't as imminent as the articles suggests, but the Interior Minister is opening up the debate. If you read icelandic (or if Google translate has improved drastically on its icelandic-to-english translations) you can try his homepage: http://www.ogmundur.is/fra-lesendum/nr/6571/ where he clarifies his stand on this, including how the definitions are lacking.
There's certainly none given in the linked article. If you mean "porn created against the will of the participants through violence" then most of us would be for this. If you mean "porn the government happens to decide is violent" as happened in the UK then I think that's a bit less clear. A whole bunch of perfectly legal acts have become illegal if filmed. Even between consenting adults. People are right to be suspicious.
I don't know what'll come out of this discussion in Iceland. I would love it if a workable definition of violent porn emerged, with a fairly broad consensus, and a practical way of keeping it at a minimum. I'm not, however, holding my breath. At this point, merely a rational discussion seems like something to hope for, but not expect.
And who determines what is "violent"? And why should the depiction of violence in porn be any different than the depiction of violence in any other context? And who are you (or Dines) to determine that for other people? Short of someone being forced into doing porn and forced into doing actual violence in the violent porn, who cares?
Those are really good questions, and is exactly, to my mind, what the discussion should be about. What IS violent porn? Where are the lines and even can any be drawn? I don't have the answers, and I'm certainly not interested in policing anyone's fetishes. But I do think the discussion is valuable. Take child pornography, for example. Most people (including me) would be quick to say that's abuse at all times. But what if the pornographic photo is photoshopped from an innocent photo, then what?
Some people have weird foot fetishes and other crap. I find that pretty gross. However, as long as everyone involved is willing
This is an argument I'm very sympathetic to. But to me it's like free speech - it doesn't mean you can say just anything. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, just for fun. In the same way, your right to indulge your fetishes ends when it infringes on the rights of others. Then the question becomes, when does porn infringe on the rights of others? (I'm talking seriously infringes, not just if it squicks you). I don't know, but I think it's a worthy discussion to have.
Um, let me try:
We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent movies which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime
If one is to be banned, the other should also be, for the same reasons.
I don't see a difference. Do you?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. There is a difference, a very clear difference, between simulated violence and actual violence. And I think that's the key difference here. I wouldn't support a ban which included, say, a ban on a dramatic movie where child abuse was one of the themes, but I do support a ban on child pornography.
I really do hope you see the difference.
I have to wonder if this would really do anything useful.
Well, that's what the discussion should be about. The problem, in Iceland as well as on Slashdot, is that it tends towards the knee-jerk variety of "They can't ban porn! It's art! An abomination! Free speech! Pointless! Mine!" or what have you, instead of a thoughtful discourse on how would you define violent porn (your point about bdsm was a good one) and how you would, in practice, go about enforcing such a ban (or perhaps just let it be symbolic).
If they just mean banning porn that's depicting actual violence against women (and I don't mean bdsm or something, I mean actual rape and sexual assault, not consenting staged acts), then that's perfectly reasonable. But if they're banning *depictions* of violent sexual acts, then it's probably pointless.
I don't know exactly what they are considering, seeing as things are at the discussion stage yet, as far as I know. So what they are doing is exploring those issues, seeing if they can define those parameters.
I find it very interesting how even bringing the subject up seems to get people very upset and ready to dismiss any such idea. But how about child pornography? We can surely agree that that's abuse in all cases and should be dealt with. But how? Isn't it necessary to discuss these things?
Paternalistic, sexist bullshit. I don't see them whining about the civil rights of men in porn. No, it's only women who need protection.
As far as I'm aware, this legislation isn't confined to women in any way. It's aimed to ban violent porn, and men can be raped just as much as women can. So it's about protecting men just as much as it is about protecting women.
This is dumb, as a woman who's various parts are all over the internet I think this is bullshit.
But your various parts on the internet are there with your consent? And you weren't being abused/raped? In which case, this particular legislation has nothing to do with you. All your parts in all their glory should still be available in Iceland afterwards, just as they are now.
Read the article; it's violent porn that's the target, not anything else. Which admittedly isn't particularly clear (unless you read Icelandic) and it's easy to imagine it's just another religious/paternalistic BS.
Just a quick FYI, people:
This ban is aimed at violent porn, not porn (as in naked people having sex). So, just to be clear, images depicting naked people having sex will be a-ok, whereas images depicting, say, women being raped or abused would not. It's the consenting adults principle, if you will.
How do I know this? Well, first of all, it's in the article: " "We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," he said. " The "he" here is Ögmundur Jónasson, the Interior Minister. Also, he's discussed this on his homepage (which is in Icelandic, but here's the link: http://www.ogmundur.is/fra-lesendum/nr/6571/) where he specified that his concern is violent porn, NOT porn itself.
That said, I'm pretty skeptical about this being possible in practice, but I'd love to hear Slashdot's opinion about if people here think it is.
And why does said discussion have to happen on the same website as the news story?
It doesn't. Unless the newspaper wants to increase clicks per news item by getting those who get caught up in a discussion to come back and check their replies (just like I did, just now for this discussion). It would perhaps increase the longevity of each news item a little.
Since newspaper sites are in the business of getting people to look at them, they cannot be counted on to create an effective moderation system, any more than you can trust the discussion system at Fox News or Huffington Post. Profit and a free and dynamic discussion may very well be incompatible.
Perhaps there are sites that want to. I would love to read my news at a site which encouraged civil and reasoned discussion even if the general consensus would sometimes tend to disagree with my own opinion. In any case, I hope you are wrong on the last point!
Comment sections for general news sites are pretty bad ideas. I don't believe developing better commenting systems is going to change that.
See, as the system is now for most newspapers, I won't disagree. But on the other hand, if the comments sections were actually decent, you could read the newspaper and discuss the news with others who also happened to be reading the newspaper and were interested in the same story you are. A decent commenting system doesn't actually have to do much beyond keeping the noise down at manageble levels and allow for back and forth discussion. There isn't any actual value in it beyond the social factor, but depending on your circumstances, that can actually be pretty big.
The measure would negatively affect consumers who have come to expect rich content and free services through the Internet,
Personally it freaks me out whenever I go on a random site and it shows me my own facebook profile picture along with a message such as "Be the first of your friends to recommend this article!!"
I'm still caving to peer pressure and keeping a FB profile, but I resent it always more and more. One thing is for sure - that's one company I'm not investing in any time soon.
This was concentrating on forgetting / ignoring, IOW what eidetics don't do. That's not the same thing as determining relevance.
Well, from the blurb with the article, that's the hypothesis:
The results bolster a hypothesis known in schizophrenia circles as the hyperlearning hypothesis, which posits that people suffering from schizophrenia have brains that lose the ability to forget or ignore as much as they normally would. Without forgetting, they lose the ability to extract what's meaningful out of the immensity of stimuli the brain encounters.
Which, presumably, is the point of this exercise, i.e. infecting computers with schizophrenia (am I the only one who feels this is horribly wrong on many levels?).
I'll go now and read tfa.
All of the comments I see here take a cynical view.
Considering that the discussion involves an insurance company, a cynical view is kind of inevitable.
You can complain about the use, but a tool (in this case a predictive model) is just a tool.
I don't think it's the tool as such which is the problem, but the many, varied, obvious ways in which it could be misused.
I suppose it's ironic that they're basing the plant in the one state that people WILL buy with idealism instead of sense.
I don't think it's irony so much as simple practicality.
Tesla has always stated that they wanted to start with sexy, expensive cars and work their way towards full size, affordable cars. The S sedan is a step along the way. And economic downturn or not, there are still plenty of people willing to plonk down $50k for a luxury sedan. I'm quite sure they'll find a few buyers in the SF Bay Area.
I guess I'm wondering more about Facebook than about the users. I'm already thinking of leaving. Facebook, I'm pretty sure, wants us to stay. Thus, they don't want to push the users past the tolerance level, but right now, assuming I'm a prime specimen of the average Joe, we're pretty close.
I'm just confused as to the cost-benefits for Facebook here. Getting a track record for annoying users and badly handling their private data doesn't seem like a good business model to me. That is to say, unless they think they'll just get away with it and nobody will notice or care. But people do, and still they go down that road. Again and again.
From the article, it seems as if this new move is only useful to data miners, not Facebook users. So they're basically screwing with us (I use, albeit sparingly, Facebook).
Facebook's done similar things to user's data before, and we've have had some success in protesting those changes. But I'm getting fed up. I don't want to have to worry about every single time Facebook has some sort of an update, that my personal data is going to be distributed publicly. I've had to change my privacy settings before, where stuff that I previously had private was suddenly public. Now it seems I have no option but to delete part of my profile in order to keep my stuff private.
What I wonder is how long Facebook thinks they'll get away with this until everyone is fed up and leaves?
Oops, this tells me that I should not try to post responses on /. when I'm at work and don't have much time to craft my responses :)
I certainly am not on the "just punish" side, and I much prefer criminals, juveniles or older ones, to have all possible resources to make something better of their lives.
My point was (well, was supposed to be) if you and Joe commit a crime, you shouldn't have to endure a heavier punishment for it than Joe just because some computer program has calculated that you are at a higher risk to re-offend than Joe.
If the program doesn't do that, only opens up different resources for the juveniles/offenders to help them, then yeah, I'm all for it. It just sounded like "justice" was going to be meted out according to some probability analysis and that creeped me out.
Of course, if you'd bothered to read TFA (and were able to ignore the author's histrionics), you'd realize that the idea is to use this technology to differentially sentence offenders based on the likelihood of recidivism. That is, juveniles who have already committed a crime.
In my opinion, that's even worse. Even if person A has a higher risk of re-offending than person B, I thought the idea of justice was to give everyone the same treatment.
Why would an individual care if his or her browsing history is published online? Employers search for Facebook or MySpace pages because these websites contain 'proof' that you behaved in some way or other (e.g. pictures), but a browsing history does not tell them anything other than, 'a computer in my household has accessed these websites at some point in time or other,' which can easily be accounted for by explaining that a friend pranked your machine with tentacle porn or your children were just really excited about Misty and Ash Ketchum.
True, but if you are looking for a job, then this may be the thing that stops you from getting an interview. And in Japan, the competition is steep, I hear.
This is definitely possible. I don't understand the slightly derogatory tone in the article/summary.
Well, the derogatory tone in the article is par for the course for this particular rag. I think there is some kind of a rule that the Daily Star, the Daily Mail and a few others have to publish at least one perpetual arousal symptom story per month (the sufferer is always young, female and unattached). Then there is the story about the adulterer, from the mistress' point of view but trashing her nevertheless, the fat lady trying every diet possible story... etc. These stories are all pretty sordid, sad and derogatory toward women. I hate them, but they have a very distinct, disturbing pull...
And finally, since I'm on a rant, TFA isn't even an article, it's a friggin' blurb advertising an article in a magazine!
Seriously.
Ok. This freaks me out. It's a screensaver on my wall that tracks my movements via a fashion disaster.
I'll pass, thanks.
...would be widely embraced on campus. And much of the "truth is out there" stuff is little more than a religion.
Wait. Why would an atheist, on or off campus, want to embrace any sort of a religion? I thought the whole point of being an atheist was to be rid of all that shit.