You're not looking at it from facebook's perspective. Serving the users is vital, but they need to make a profit - which means maintaining the value of their data to advertisers. A real names policy is difficult to enforce, but it also goes some way to ensuring the accuracy of that data. A lot of advertising is aimed at one gender or the other. Real names also allow for cross-correlation with other data sets - store loyalty cards, other websites, things like that.
Even legal names have their problems. There have been several instances of people who coincidentally have the same name as a celebrity getting kicked off for 'impersonation' even when they make it clear they are not the celeb. To me, the biggest problem is the power it gives trolls. There are a lot of Not Very Nice people on the internet, many of whome are on a quest to destroy some rival social faction (Religious, political, fans of the wrong sports team) through any means they can. Which includes things like contacting your neighbours with face fliers claiming you are a sex offender, or anonymously tipping off police that you are known locally as a meth dealer, or telling your employer that you were fired from your previous job for theft of company property. Even outside of such extreme incidents, there is the issue of employment - every sensible employer does the 'google background check' on applicants now, and if they find a candidate expressing any social/religious/political views outside of the mainstream or engaging in any less-than-reputable activity they will promptly throw that application into the bin as too risky. I doubt I'd have gotten my current job if my employer had been able to look me up and found my articles endorsing copyright infringement as a social movement.
What we really need, socially, is persistent pseudoanonyminity. The ability to exist online under many different, isolated identities - one can be an upright, dull office worker when working, then go home and log on to take part in some hostile internet debates in which everyone gets compared to Hitler, switch identity to go post your new story on that indescribably kinky erotic fiction site, and all while presenting the image of perfect civility and chastity to the family. But this approach doesn't allow Facebook to rake the money in nearly so effectively.
Name changes are just annoying to IT. New username, move user folder, new email address, update three different databases, update the address book, configure email alias... then wait about ten years until everyone stops emailing the old address.
Few dickheads are honest enough to admit they are dickheads. They instead look for something to justify their actions. They may have an unusual code of conduct, or an attitude of hostility towards their targets. A lot of the anti-gay dickheads use religion as justification, because with the right choice of religious faction to follow their actions become not just justifiable, but morally mandated. In their mind, he isn't being a dickhead by trying to rid Facebook of drag queens: He is defending Faith, Family and Freedom from the filth of the Homosexual Agenda that threatens to bring down civilisation, rape babies and give everyone AIDS.
Ideally the examination would involve a test of the student's ability to utilise their knowledge through some form of project. In practice this is impractical - coursework requires a substantial amount of examiner's time, and that means expense. Simple exam papers can be marked almost automatically. They are also legally safe, because the standard can be set down in absolute terms: Do this, get a mark. A more subjective evaluation would be subject to all manner of appeals and a great many students suing the examination board claiming (rightly or wrongly) that they have been discriminated against for one reason or another.
Because otherwise schools would have an incentive to cheat, or to take a lax attitude towards teaching, in order to inflate their grades. Or to go with an examination board that has a reputation for really easy questions, so any idiot can score an A.
The task of public defenders is to make their boss look bad. Any who is too good and manages to actually get their clients found not-guilty will be quickly shunted to another department in favor of one more eager to talk them into plea bargains. They are also kept deliberately over-worked and under-funded.
Something of a trap was laid. The coins were siezed from silk road - but the accused's defense is that he is not actually DPR, but rather an innocent person who was caught up in the investigation. If he admits to possessing the coins, he effectively admits his guilt.
It's not that uncommon for the government to sieze and sell assets they can demonstrate to be proceeds of or used in committing crime, even when they can't actually secure a conviction. It's a procedure much loved by law enforcement agencies, as in many countries including the US it can be done through a civil case rather than criminal, which makes it a lot easier for them to win. Iowa has a particular reputation for using this on out-of-state drivers - pull them over, find a pretext to search the crime, and if they find anything that could be considered a crime they seize the car and anything carried in it. No criminal charges needed - though they'll be sure to file some if the driver dare contest.
Christians desperately claim some sort of moral superiority. Statistics do not back this up, unless you abuse them with very specific definitions of christian.
The ratio issue is so bad that there have been scandals in the industry relating to the use of fake profiles to try to give the impression or having more women than are actually using the site.
You're already starting from a poor population. The socially-skilled men don't need to go on dating sites - they hooked up with ease in the real world. There are exceptions here and there - men who didn't get into flirting because they were too busy - but in general the potential population for a dating site has a higher creep-ratio than the general population.
Even if the NSA had some way to break Tor, they'd have to use it sparingly - if they use it for every drug dealer, so many people would have to know it would be sure to leak. So I imagine it'd be reserved for the most vital of cases, like DPR and other such kingpins. Not your regular rogue doctor selling a few pills or teen looking to score some pot.
Youtube tries very hard to avoid copyright infringement. They do so because they know perfectly well that even their best efforts aren't going to work.
For historical reasons, the CoL is semi-independant. It got a charter back when the country was still under the rule of kings, many centuries ago. It's unusual in being overtly governed by corporate interests, which has lead to some accusations that CoLP are a bit too close to those who pay their wages.
CoLP are responsible for regular stop-the-mugger policing in the area, but their main activities are in the type crime that comes from being a financial district. Fraud and financial crime. They also devote a great deal of effort to intellectual property crime, often working in conjunction with police forces elsewhere in the country to catch importers of counterfeit goods as well as their somewhat-infamous devotion to stopping copyright infringement.
Depends how much the US holes back. The refusal to inflict massive civilian casualties is the only thing keeping them from wiping out IS - as mentioned, there are nukes. But in the event that by some miracle IS actually realised their dream and became an existential threat to the US... if it comes down to 'them or me,' there wouldn't be such holding-back. The best IS could realistically hope to achieve is becoming a regional power.
I only gave that as an extreme example of what would happen in the highly unlikely event that ISIS actually succeded in their ambitions. They simply can't win: The more powerful they get, the more force becomes acceptable to use against them. Right now they are at the level where they aren't even worth the cost of a proper invasion. If they pulled off a major terrorist attack on the US or significent European power, they bump up to 'Invasion ready' level, just as Al Quida did after 9/11 - and you can see what happened to them.
I've had a near miss. I was standing nearby when there was a ground strike. I didn't see it though - I was facing the wrong way. I did see the sky flash white as the light was reflected from raindrops, and it was so loud it set off a couple of car alarms.
Exxon were initially fined $5B in damage - but this was reduce after appeal to only $500M. The spill was eventually attributed to a series of errors which could at best be described as gross incompetence and easily constitute criminal negligence, including operating the ship with a non-functional radar. Despite this no criminal charges were ever brought. It took ten years just go get the compensation from Exxon, as they appealed every decision made by the courts, including the unfavorable appeals.
You are quite right: One of the purposes of a corporation is to shield the individuals behind it from liability, both civil and criminal. But this also encourages illegality and recklessness. If they get caught, they are protected from any serious consequences. At worst their personal wealth may be reduced slightly.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not looking at it from facebook's perspective. Serving the users is vital, but they need to make a profit - which means maintaining the value of their data to advertisers. A real names policy is difficult to enforce, but it also goes some way to ensuring the accuracy of that data. A lot of advertising is aimed at one gender or the other. Real names also allow for cross-correlation with other data sets - store loyalty cards, other websites, things like that.
Even legal names have their problems. There have been several instances of people who coincidentally have the same name as a celebrity getting kicked off for 'impersonation' even when they make it clear they are not the celeb. To me, the biggest problem is the power it gives trolls. There are a lot of Not Very Nice people on the internet, many of whome are on a quest to destroy some rival social faction (Religious, political, fans of the wrong sports team) through any means they can. Which includes things like contacting your neighbours with face fliers claiming you are a sex offender, or anonymously tipping off police that you are known locally as a meth dealer, or telling your employer that you were fired from your previous job for theft of company property. Even outside of such extreme incidents, there is the issue of employment - every sensible employer does the 'google background check' on applicants now, and if they find a candidate expressing any social/religious/political views outside of the mainstream or engaging in any less-than-reputable activity they will promptly throw that application into the bin as too risky. I doubt I'd have gotten my current job if my employer had been able to look me up and found my articles endorsing copyright infringement as a social movement.
What we really need, socially, is persistent pseudoanonyminity. The ability to exist online under many different, isolated identities - one can be an upright, dull office worker when working, then go home and log on to take part in some hostile internet debates in which everyone gets compared to Hitler, switch identity to go post your new story on that indescribably kinky erotic fiction site, and all while presenting the image of perfect civility and chastity to the family. But this approach doesn't allow Facebook to rake the money in nearly so effectively.
It always comes down to the same problem: If one is trying to be tolerant, how much intolerance can one tolerate?
Name changes are just annoying to IT. New username, move user folder, new email address, update three different databases, update the address book, configure email alias... then wait about ten years until everyone stops emailing the old address.
A self-declared superior dickhead.
Few dickheads are honest enough to admit they are dickheads. They instead look for something to justify their actions. They may have an unusual code of conduct, or an attitude of hostility towards their targets. A lot of the anti-gay dickheads use religion as justification, because with the right choice of religious faction to follow their actions become not just justifiable, but morally mandated. In their mind, he isn't being a dickhead by trying to rid Facebook of drag queens: He is defending Faith, Family and Freedom from the filth of the Homosexual Agenda that threatens to bring down civilisation, rape babies and give everyone AIDS.
Lax attitude towards cheating, rather. I need more caffine.
Ideally the examination would involve a test of the student's ability to utilise their knowledge through some form of project. In practice this is impractical - coursework requires a substantial amount of examiner's time, and that means expense. Simple exam papers can be marked almost automatically. They are also legally safe, because the standard can be set down in absolute terms: Do this, get a mark. A more subjective evaluation would be subject to all manner of appeals and a great many students suing the examination board claiming (rightly or wrongly) that they have been discriminated against for one reason or another.
Because otherwise schools would have an incentive to cheat, or to take a lax attitude towards teaching, in order to inflate their grades. Or to go with an examination board that has a reputation for really easy questions, so any idiot can score an A.
Their neural anatomy is also radically different from us vertebrates. That makes comparisons almost meaningless.
Their brain is a toroid. The esophagus goes through the hole in the middle. Mollusks are weird.
Conservatism is a gross oversimplification of conservatism. The partisanship of US politics has reduced both major factions to caricatures.
The task of public defenders is to make their boss look bad. Any who is too good and manages to actually get their clients found not-guilty will be quickly shunted to another department in favor of one more eager to talk them into plea bargains. They are also kept deliberately over-worked and under-funded.
Something of a trap was laid. The coins were siezed from silk road - but the accused's defense is that he is not actually DPR, but rather an innocent person who was caught up in the investigation. If he admits to possessing the coins, he effectively admits his guilt.
It's not that uncommon for the government to sieze and sell assets they can demonstrate to be proceeds of or used in committing crime, even when they can't actually secure a conviction. It's a procedure much loved by law enforcement agencies, as in many countries including the US it can be done through a civil case rather than criminal, which makes it a lot easier for them to win. Iowa has a particular reputation for using this on out-of-state drivers - pull them over, find a pretext to search the crime, and if they find anything that could be considered a crime they seize the car and anything carried in it. No criminal charges needed - though they'll be sure to file some if the driver dare contest.
Christians desperately claim some sort of moral superiority. Statistics do not back this up, unless you abuse them with very specific definitions of christian.
The ratio issue is so bad that there have been scandals in the industry relating to the use of fake profiles to try to give the impression or having more women than are actually using the site.
I find monogamy creepy.
If you love someone, why would you demand they restrict their social life to prove they love you too?
You're already starting from a poor population. The socially-skilled men don't need to go on dating sites - they hooked up with ease in the real world. There are exceptions here and there - men who didn't get into flirting because they were too busy - but in general the potential population for a dating site has a higher creep-ratio than the general population.
Even if the NSA had some way to break Tor, they'd have to use it sparingly - if they use it for every drug dealer, so many people would have to know it would be sure to leak. So I imagine it'd be reserved for the most vital of cases, like DPR and other such kingpins. Not your regular rogue doctor selling a few pills or teen looking to score some pot.
Soon to be nicknamed the 'Nudie-cam.'
Youtube tries very hard to avoid copyright infringement. They do so because they know perfectly well that even their best efforts aren't going to work.
PIPCU has a very flexible idea of jurisdiction. It extends at least as far as Canada.
For historical reasons, the CoL is semi-independant. It got a charter back when the country was still under the rule of kings, many centuries ago. It's unusual in being overtly governed by corporate interests, which has lead to some accusations that CoLP are a bit too close to those who pay their wages.
CoLP are responsible for regular stop-the-mugger policing in the area, but their main activities are in the type crime that comes from being a financial district. Fraud and financial crime. They also devote a great deal of effort to intellectual property crime, often working in conjunction with police forces elsewhere in the country to catch importers of counterfeit goods as well as their somewhat-infamous devotion to stopping copyright infringement.
Depends how much the US holes back. The refusal to inflict massive civilian casualties is the only thing keeping them from wiping out IS - as mentioned, there are nukes. But in the event that by some miracle IS actually realised their dream and became an existential threat to the US... if it comes down to 'them or me,' there wouldn't be such holding-back. The best IS could realistically hope to achieve is becoming a regional power.
I only gave that as an extreme example of what would happen in the highly unlikely event that ISIS actually succeded in their ambitions. They simply can't win: The more powerful they get, the more force becomes acceptable to use against them. Right now they are at the level where they aren't even worth the cost of a proper invasion. If they pulled off a major terrorist attack on the US or significent European power, they bump up to 'Invasion ready' level, just as Al Quida did after 9/11 - and you can see what happened to them.
I've had a near miss. I was standing nearby when there was a ground strike. I didn't see it though - I was facing the wrong way. I did see the sky flash white as the light was reflected from raindrops, and it was so loud it set off a couple of car alarms.
Exxon were initially fined $5B in damage - but this was reduce after appeal to only $500M. The spill was eventually attributed to a series of errors which could at best be described as gross incompetence and easily constitute criminal negligence, including operating the ship with a non-functional radar. Despite this no criminal charges were ever brought. It took ten years just go get the compensation from Exxon, as they appealed every decision made by the courts, including the unfavorable appeals.
You are quite right: One of the purposes of a corporation is to shield the individuals behind it from liability, both civil and criminal. But this also encourages illegality and recklessness. If they get caught, they are protected from any serious consequences. At worst their personal wealth may be reduced slightly.
And then you get sued by the polluter for libel.