Now all we need is for Wikipedia to include it, citing Slashdot, so a blog can reference Wikipedia and then Reddit can reference that blog as proof that their initial article was true.
No, read Year Zero by Rob Reid for the real story on Bill Gates. (Saying any more would be a spoiler.) Ok, Gates just makes a small cameo, but it's a hilarious book and Reid's take on Bill Gates makes total sense.
Except that, as klingens pointed out above ( http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029795&cid=40896133 ), they've done this before. At the very least, their automated "that's our copyrighted material" robots need tweaking. At the most, they are fraudulently trying to claim copyright on videos that aren't theirs. The longer they go without fixing their copyright-detection-robots, the more likely the latter explanation is.
While nobody can accurately predict the future, it's sometimes fun to try extrapolating where society will go based on our past/present and then see just how wrong we were.
And holographic billboards and self-drying clothes.
(I just introduced my 9 year old son to Back To The Future. He was bored all through the initial setup and wanted to stop watching. Once Marty went back in time, though, he was hooked. Now he can't wait to see the next 2 movies.)
Not to mention that (in the US at least... and yes I know the article is talking about Australia) the "moderate first before posting" system would open them up to *MORE* liability. If Facebook just posts a comment that someone makes, gives tools to report inappropriate comments, and responds to these reports in a timely fashion (say, 1 business day), then they can claim they aren't responsible for what people say and they do their best to keep the inappropriate stuff offline. If they moderate first, though, then if anything slips through (and something *WILL* slip through) they are the ones who approved that comment. Alternatively, they might kill perfectly valid comments "just in case" and be accused of censorship. (Perhaps not something with legal repercussions, but people don't tend to like being censored.)
As someone who has had his identity stolen, I'd recommend freezing your credit. Depending on your state, you might be able to do this for free. The credit agencies will push fraud alerts, but those are very ineffective. They may or may not alert you if someone opens a line of credit in your name, but they're completely voluntary. A credit freeze, though, will block anyone from opening any lines of credit unless you first thaw the credit. Yes, it means that you won't be able to sign up for that store credit card to get 10% off right then and there and you'll have to thaw your credit in advance if you decide to buy a car, but it also means whoever has your SSN can't use it (and any other info they have on you) to open loans/credit cards/etc in your name. I'd also recommend getting a credit report from each credit agency (you get one free one from each agency every year) and going over them with a fine tooth comb for anything out of the ordinary. That last item is good advice for everyone, not just identity theft victims.
I was a victim of Identity theft and can say from experience that there are two components to the crime. There's the bank fraud or tax fraud portion where someone uses your information to get money from a bank or file a tax report in your name. (In my case, it was a credit card in my name which - luckily - the thieves messed up on and had delivered to my house.) Before they can do this, though, they need to get your information. *THIS* is the portion that I'd call "Identity Theft." In my case, I'll never know how they got my information. (The credit card company was unhelpful and the police either didn't have a clue how to pursue it, didn't care about a crime that was caught before any monetary damages were done, or didn't want to spend resources looking into a crime when the jurisdiction might shift to another area.) All I know is that the thieves somehow stole my name, address, social security number, and date of birth. Some might quibble about my use of "stole" when I still had access to it, but considering that they attempted to leave my identity in worse shape than when they began (by running up a huge credit card debt) and considering how I had to freeze my credit to prevent future identity theft instances (after all, my information is now out there so who knows when they or someone else will use it again), I'd say my identity was definitely damaged by their use of it. I don't have it in the same way as before they stole it.
I've stopped using Google+, but when I last looked you could add a nickname but it would display with your real name. You had some choice of how it was displayed (e.g. John "TheNickName" Smith or John Smith (TheNickName) ), but your real name was still displayed with your nickname.
My current beef with Google is that they don't seem to update their search when it comes to user profiles. I removed my blog name from my profile months ago (as I don't want that pseudonym and my real name linked) and they have yet to update their index. Searching for my first name and my pseudonym brings up my Google+ profile with my real last name.
This is exactly *why* companies have been asking for passwords. First, they just checked people's Twitter/Facebook pages. Then, they realized that people can hide things. They can protect their account on Twitter or only show items on Facebook to "friends" so they began requiring employees to follow them so that they (the companies) could see more. Now, knowing that people can still hide things from The Company, they are demanding your password. This way, they can log into your account and make sure you aren't posting anything that the company frowns upon... even if it is done on your own time.
Them asking for your e-mail password is the perfect analogy. They want your password to gain access to things you've written that they don't have any other way of accessing. It's completely wrong of them to ask and it's against the TOS of most sites to share your password, but there may be no legal recourse for someone who wasn't hired (or was fired) simply because they didn't give up their passwords.
Yes, it would... If you had a huge loyal social media following. If you just have twenty friends on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ then those 20 friends will get outraged. Some of them might pass it on and some of those people might feel mildly upset about it. Perhaps one or two of them will pass it on, but it would peter out quickly. Yes, social media can amplify your audience. Your friends, by sharing your post, can get you a larger audience for your thoughts. It can't, however, get you a huge audience of people banging down your employer's door demanding that they reverse their policy unless 1) you have a huge audience to begin with, 2) you are close friends with someone who has a huge audience, or 3) you happen to get lucky and your post goes viral. Don't count on 3 happening every time... or at all. It may happen, but it is far more likely that it won't.
I agree. I caught part of the "husband's wife is having a baby so he consults an Apple Genius at home" ad and all I could think was: How stupid is this dad-to-be if his first thought when his wife went into labor was "I need to consult my local Apple Genius on making a multimedia presentation or something."
Then again, husbands and fathers are often portrayed on TV as being idiots who don't know anything and with whom the beautiful and intelligent wives/mothers have to put up with. One time I caught part of a sitcom where the dad was the smart one (having no income due to a strike, opted not to buy a new TV set) and the wife did the stupid move (bought the expensive new TV set after they agreed not to). I thought it was refreshing until a news program suddenly came on in the sitcom explaining that the strike was over and everyone had their job back. Suddenly, the wife was shown as the smart one (despite having made the wrong decision based on the information they had at the time) and the husband apologized to her. So even when the wives do stupid things and husbands do smart things in sitcoms, the wives are still right and the husbands are still wrong.
I've got to second the geeky tie, but would add a tie pin to it. Right now, I've got my Battleship tie pin on my Tazmanian Devil tie. I also have a USB plug tie pin. I'm planning on making a lego tie pin that I can stand minifigs on.
I got my tie pins here: http://www.etsy.com/shop/thelovelyteaspoon?section_id=5539827 But there are tons of other options on Etsy.
Threatening someone's life is serious business. Without looking into it, you can't tell the difference between some guy ranting on Twitter and some guy ranting on Twitter who actually means to carry out his threat. So each reported death threat needs to be looked into. This might not mean each one is prosecuted, but if someone says "I'm going to kill you" on Twitter and it is reported to the police, they would be negligent *NOT* to check it out.
Is is a waste of money? Perhaps, since most aren't meant to be real threats. However, try telling a grieving family that you didn't look into a reported death threat because you didn't want to waste money.
Given that the guy tweeted a death threat ("I'm going to find you and I'm going to drown you in the pool"), I see the police intervention as needed. Even if the threat wasn't meant seriously, I think every death threat *should* be taken seriously. Saying you're going to kill someone in a public forum is just idiotic whether or not you actually meant it. And even though he deleted the tweet, the threat was still made.
Let the police investigate and, if this guy was just being an idiot, give him a good scare. Maybe he won't harass people online anymore.
From what I've heard, it was the MPAA that really pushed SOPA. The RIAA didn't think it would help them much, but, of course, weren't going to say no if given SOPA-powers. (Yes, I notice that looks like "super-powers." Does this make the MPAA a "SOPA-villain?")
Don't think for a second that the RIAA has gone all cuddly and pro-sharing, however. With SOPA defeated, the RIAA is making themselves busy pushing laws that they think would benefit them at the expense of customers.
I'm pretty into social media and yet I don't have a Facebook account. This is for two big reasons. First of all, I'd have to use my real name on Facebook and I have a pseudonym I use on social media. I don't want that pseudonym tied back to my real name. (This is one reason why I quit using Google+.) Secondly, I have limited "social media" time. I have a day job and do freelance work at night (to say nothing of spending time with my family). I'd rather do one or two social media platforms well than spread myself over a bunch and struggle to keep up.
My oldest son is only 8. Still a little young to hang out on Slashdot. The way he's headed, though, he'll fit right in here. (I mean that it in a good way.)
If the user was guilty of some infraction that justified taking the phone/card, then destroying the card (or even just deleting photos) is destruction of evidence.
If the user wasn't guilty of any infraction that justifies taking the phone/card, then destroying the card (or even just deleting photos) is illegal seizure of property.
Either situation can result in Bad Things for the officer involved.
I second the Roku box recommendation. My father (who isn't the most technically inclined) was able to get his set up with little to no trouble. You can stream Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and more with it (so if you switch services you might still be able to use Roku). It's so simple, my five year old can operate it.
I'm sure they would love to do that. The problem is: The content owners don't want them to. Netflix sees "watch it a day later" (or even a week later) as a huge possibility for profit (for them and content owners). Content owners see it as lost ad revenue (from live airings), lost DVD sales revenue, etc. They want their content locked up so that only they can tell consumers when they can watch. This doesn't mesh well with Netflix's business model.
Death by terrorist ranks lower on my list of ways I could die than "slipping and falling in bathtub". Statistically
The solution is obvious: We need TSA officials in every bathroom in America making sure you pass by a security checkpoint before getting into the bathtub. Sure, they'll be completely ineffective, but what other choice do we have if we want to win the War On Bathtubs?
So this is a patent on hiding a functional scrollbar until the user starts scrolling through the list?
I just checked Google Drive on my Droid and it has this. I see a list of documents, but no scroll bar. When I touch and begin to scroll, a scrollbar appears along with an "up-down" box. If I press on the box and drag it up or down, the list of documents scrolls in that direction. (This is on Android 2.2 as Verizon Wireless apparently doesn't want me upgrading to the latest version of Android.)
Of course, Google Drive is a bit new, but I'm guessing that Drive was just taking advantage of functionality available in Android. At the very least, it shows that Apple's idea wasn't that novel that nobody else would have thought of it.
Here's the answer to pretty much every "Which is better" question:
- Option 1 is better in cases where option 1 provides more advantages and less disadvantages than Option 2.
- Option 2 is better in cases where option 2 provides more advantages and less disadvantages than Option 1.
- In cases where neither Option 1 nor Option 2 provide a clear advantage/disadvantage distinction, neither is better and either may be used depending on preference.
Rarely is the answer ever "X is better than Y in all possible cases."
If you come down with a highly communicable disease such as measles, your doctor will report the incident to the CDC so they can track disease outbreaks. Is this an invasion of privacy?
If you decided to experiment with explosives on your property with your neighbors just a couple dozen feet away on the other side of a fence, would it be a violation of your privacy rights for them to call the police?
In both cases, your actions bring serious risks to other people. You may have many rights, but the right to put other people's lives at risk isn't one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Now all we need is for Wikipedia to include it, citing Slashdot, so a blog can reference Wikipedia and then Reddit can reference that blog as proof that their initial article was true.
No, read Year Zero by Rob Reid for the real story on Bill Gates. (Saying any more would be a spoiler.) Ok, Gates just makes a small cameo, but it's a hilarious book and Reid's take on Bill Gates makes total sense.
Except that, as klingens pointed out above ( http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029795&cid=40896133 ), they've done this before. At the very least, their automated "that's our copyrighted material" robots need tweaking. At the most, they are fraudulently trying to claim copyright on videos that aren't theirs. The longer they go without fixing their copyright-detection-robots, the more likely the latter explanation is.
While nobody can accurately predict the future, it's sometimes fun to try extrapolating where society will go based on our past/present and then see just how wrong we were.
And holographic billboards and self-drying clothes.
(I just introduced my 9 year old son to Back To The Future. He was bored all through the initial setup and wanted to stop watching. Once Marty went back in time, though, he was hooked. Now he can't wait to see the next 2 movies.)
Not to mention that (in the US at least... and yes I know the article is talking about Australia) the "moderate first before posting" system would open them up to *MORE* liability. If Facebook just posts a comment that someone makes, gives tools to report inappropriate comments, and responds to these reports in a timely fashion (say, 1 business day), then they can claim they aren't responsible for what people say and they do their best to keep the inappropriate stuff offline. If they moderate first, though, then if anything slips through (and something *WILL* slip through) they are the ones who approved that comment. Alternatively, they might kill perfectly valid comments "just in case" and be accused of censorship. (Perhaps not something with legal repercussions, but people don't tend to like being censored.)
As someone who has had his identity stolen, I'd recommend freezing your credit. Depending on your state, you might be able to do this for free. The credit agencies will push fraud alerts, but those are very ineffective. They may or may not alert you if someone opens a line of credit in your name, but they're completely voluntary. A credit freeze, though, will block anyone from opening any lines of credit unless you first thaw the credit. Yes, it means that you won't be able to sign up for that store credit card to get 10% off right then and there and you'll have to thaw your credit in advance if you decide to buy a car, but it also means whoever has your SSN can't use it (and any other info they have on you) to open loans/credit cards/etc in your name. I'd also recommend getting a credit report from each credit agency (you get one free one from each agency every year) and going over them with a fine tooth comb for anything out of the ordinary. That last item is good advice for everyone, not just identity theft victims.
I was a victim of Identity theft and can say from experience that there are two components to the crime. There's the bank fraud or tax fraud portion where someone uses your information to get money from a bank or file a tax report in your name. (In my case, it was a credit card in my name which - luckily - the thieves messed up on and had delivered to my house.) Before they can do this, though, they need to get your information. *THIS* is the portion that I'd call "Identity Theft." In my case, I'll never know how they got my information. (The credit card company was unhelpful and the police either didn't have a clue how to pursue it, didn't care about a crime that was caught before any monetary damages were done, or didn't want to spend resources looking into a crime when the jurisdiction might shift to another area.) All I know is that the thieves somehow stole my name, address, social security number, and date of birth. Some might quibble about my use of "stole" when I still had access to it, but considering that they attempted to leave my identity in worse shape than when they began (by running up a huge credit card debt) and considering how I had to freeze my credit to prevent future identity theft instances (after all, my information is now out there so who knows when they or someone else will use it again), I'd say my identity was definitely damaged by their use of it. I don't have it in the same way as before they stole it.
I've stopped using Google+, but when I last looked you could add a nickname but it would display with your real name. You had some choice of how it was displayed (e.g. John "TheNickName" Smith or John Smith (TheNickName) ), but your real name was still displayed with your nickname.
My current beef with Google is that they don't seem to update their search when it comes to user profiles. I removed my blog name from my profile months ago (as I don't want that pseudonym and my real name linked) and they have yet to update their index. Searching for my first name and my pseudonym brings up my Google+ profile with my real last name.
This is exactly *why* companies have been asking for passwords. First, they just checked people's Twitter/Facebook pages. Then, they realized that people can hide things. They can protect their account on Twitter or only show items on Facebook to "friends" so they began requiring employees to follow them so that they (the companies) could see more. Now, knowing that people can still hide things from The Company, they are demanding your password. This way, they can log into your account and make sure you aren't posting anything that the company frowns upon... even if it is done on your own time.
Them asking for your e-mail password is the perfect analogy. They want your password to gain access to things you've written that they don't have any other way of accessing. It's completely wrong of them to ask and it's against the TOS of most sites to share your password, but there may be no legal recourse for someone who wasn't hired (or was fired) simply because they didn't give up their passwords.
Yes, it would... If you had a huge loyal social media following. If you just have twenty friends on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ then those 20 friends will get outraged. Some of them might pass it on and some of those people might feel mildly upset about it. Perhaps one or two of them will pass it on, but it would peter out quickly. Yes, social media can amplify your audience. Your friends, by sharing your post, can get you a larger audience for your thoughts. It can't, however, get you a huge audience of people banging down your employer's door demanding that they reverse their policy unless 1) you have a huge audience to begin with, 2) you are close friends with someone who has a huge audience, or 3) you happen to get lucky and your post goes viral. Don't count on 3 happening every time... or at all. It may happen, but it is far more likely that it won't.
I agree. I caught part of the "husband's wife is having a baby so he consults an Apple Genius at home" ad and all I could think was: How stupid is this dad-to-be if his first thought when his wife went into labor was "I need to consult my local Apple Genius on making a multimedia presentation or something."
Then again, husbands and fathers are often portrayed on TV as being idiots who don't know anything and with whom the beautiful and intelligent wives/mothers have to put up with. One time I caught part of a sitcom where the dad was the smart one (having no income due to a strike, opted not to buy a new TV set) and the wife did the stupid move (bought the expensive new TV set after they agreed not to). I thought it was refreshing until a news program suddenly came on in the sitcom explaining that the strike was over and everyone had their job back. Suddenly, the wife was shown as the smart one (despite having made the wrong decision based on the information they had at the time) and the husband apologized to her. So even when the wives do stupid things and husbands do smart things in sitcoms, the wives are still right and the husbands are still wrong.
I've got to second the geeky tie, but would add a tie pin to it. Right now, I've got my Battleship tie pin on my Tazmanian Devil tie. I also have a USB plug tie pin. I'm planning on making a lego tie pin that I can stand minifigs on.
I got my tie pins here: http://www.etsy.com/shop/thelovelyteaspoon?section_id=5539827 But there are tons of other options on Etsy.
Threatening someone's life is serious business. Without looking into it, you can't tell the difference between some guy ranting on Twitter and some guy ranting on Twitter who actually means to carry out his threat. So each reported death threat needs to be looked into. This might not mean each one is prosecuted, but if someone says "I'm going to kill you" on Twitter and it is reported to the police, they would be negligent *NOT* to check it out.
Is is a waste of money? Perhaps, since most aren't meant to be real threats. However, try telling a grieving family that you didn't look into a reported death threat because you didn't want to waste money.
Given that the guy tweeted a death threat ("I'm going to find you and I'm going to drown you in the pool"), I see the police intervention as needed. Even if the threat wasn't meant seriously, I think every death threat *should* be taken seriously. Saying you're going to kill someone in a public forum is just idiotic whether or not you actually meant it. And even though he deleted the tweet, the threat was still made.
Let the police investigate and, if this guy was just being an idiot, give him a good scare. Maybe he won't harass people online anymore.
From what I've heard, it was the MPAA that really pushed SOPA. The RIAA didn't think it would help them much, but, of course, weren't going to say no if given SOPA-powers. (Yes, I notice that looks like "super-powers." Does this make the MPAA a "SOPA-villain?")
Don't think for a second that the RIAA has gone all cuddly and pro-sharing, however. With SOPA defeated, the RIAA is making themselves busy pushing laws that they think would benefit them at the expense of customers.
I'm pretty into social media and yet I don't have a Facebook account. This is for two big reasons. First of all, I'd have to use my real name on Facebook and I have a pseudonym I use on social media. I don't want that pseudonym tied back to my real name. (This is one reason why I quit using Google+.) Secondly, I have limited "social media" time. I have a day job and do freelance work at night (to say nothing of spending time with my family). I'd rather do one or two social media platforms well than spread myself over a bunch and struggle to keep up.
My oldest son is only 8. Still a little young to hang out on Slashdot. The way he's headed, though, he'll fit right in here. (I mean that it in a good way.)
If the user was guilty of some infraction that justified taking the phone/card, then destroying the card (or even just deleting photos) is destruction of evidence.
If the user wasn't guilty of any infraction that justifies taking the phone/card, then destroying the card (or even just deleting photos) is illegal seizure of property.
Either situation can result in Bad Things for the officer involved.
I second the Roku box recommendation. My father (who isn't the most technically inclined) was able to get his set up with little to no trouble. You can stream Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and more with it (so if you switch services you might still be able to use Roku). It's so simple, my five year old can operate it.
I'm sure they would love to do that. The problem is: The content owners don't want them to. Netflix sees "watch it a day later" (or even a week later) as a huge possibility for profit (for them and content owners). Content owners see it as lost ad revenue (from live airings), lost DVD sales revenue, etc. They want their content locked up so that only they can tell consumers when they can watch. This doesn't mesh well with Netflix's business model.
The solution is obvious: We need TSA officials in every bathroom in America making sure you pass by a security checkpoint before getting into the bathtub. Sure, they'll be completely ineffective, but what other choice do we have if we want to win the War On Bathtubs?
So this is a patent on hiding a functional scrollbar until the user starts scrolling through the list?
I just checked Google Drive on my Droid and it has this. I see a list of documents, but no scroll bar. When I touch and begin to scroll, a scrollbar appears along with an "up-down" box. If I press on the box and drag it up or down, the list of documents scrolls in that direction. (This is on Android 2.2 as Verizon Wireless apparently doesn't want me upgrading to the latest version of Android.)
Of course, Google Drive is a bit new, but I'm guessing that Drive was just taking advantage of functionality available in Android. At the very least, it shows that Apple's idea wasn't that novel that nobody else would have thought of it.
Here's the answer to pretty much every "Which is better" question:
- Option 1 is better in cases where option 1 provides more advantages and less disadvantages than Option 2.
- Option 2 is better in cases where option 2 provides more advantages and less disadvantages than Option 1.
- In cases where neither Option 1 nor Option 2 provide a clear advantage/disadvantage distinction, neither is better and either may be used depending on preference.
Rarely is the answer ever "X is better than Y in all possible cases."
If you come down with a highly communicable disease such as measles, your doctor will report the incident to the CDC so they can track disease outbreaks. Is this an invasion of privacy?
If you decided to experiment with explosives on your property with your neighbors just a couple dozen feet away on the other side of a fence, would it be a violation of your privacy rights for them to call the police?
In both cases, your actions bring serious risks to other people. You may have many rights, but the right to put other people's lives at risk isn't one of them.