I'm not sure I am misinterpreting it, but then there's the layman interpretation and then there's the legal interpretation.
I'm certainly not a lawyer, but to me it seems that in terms of the whole 'looking through walls' part, the 'search' portion of 'search and seizure' applies.
So the question is whether or not such an activity would be considered a 'search'. Clearly, the courts have already ruled that even just using a FLIR to spot radiant heat from a house constitutes a search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
That decision was a 5-4 decision with mixed views from 'sides' of the political spectrum. Good arguments are made there against this ruling (especially poignant being the 'snow melting' example).
The portions that are applicable to what I stated are:
Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. [...] [the line drawn] would be defunct as soon as the surveillance technology used went into general public use, which was still undefined.
So if FLIR does get incorporated in everybody's cellphone*, the ruling itself loses one basis.
As it stands, you do indeed have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But this can change if society believes this is no longer reasonable.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.
Thus I can well-imagine this ruling being challenged in the future. Although despite some obvious caveats, I do believe that the majority of those in power to challenge it will agree with the view that anything and everything within or attached to the house bestows a defacto reasonable expectation of privacy and may even extend this to overrule any 'in plain view' aspects in particular circumstances.
Probably, I only vaguely remembered and it may have been somebody else.. though your username is memorable enough:)
Have you seen some of the positions people propose? Some of those may well qualify as being an encrypted form. We sure can't figure them out. We haven't tried a brute force approach yet, though...
Like you mean my 3mX3m glass sliding door onto my streetfacing patio - which gives a view right to the opposite side of my house, unless the curtain is drawn
You'd still have to be up against that curtain and further curtain wold have to be up against said glass sliding door for some time to heat it up enough to to be able to even make out a blurry silhouette. But yes, that would certainly do the trick. That's a far cry from looking through walls and seeing your outlines doing whatever it is your outlines are doing, though:)
The reality is that anybody making any effort to discern what happens in my house whatsoever without having previously established (and convinced a judge off) probable cause IS violating my rights.
But then shouldn't that also apply to that same sliding door when the curtains behind (or in front) are not closed? The effort is certainly a very low one; I need but glance in its direction. But I still have to make that effort. There's no good reason for me to be looking through your window when I'm just walking down the street.
But then why not argue in favor of 5:4? 4:3 is just an old TV aspect ratio that became popular for monitors for the same reasons as 16:9 is popular on LCDs now. 5:4 was actually quite nice for browsing the web, editing code, etc.
I think you may have watched one too many early episode of CSI. Thermal imaging would not show such a silhouette - unless, of course, the wall were very thin and you and/or your fiance were pressed against that wall. Thermal imaging can only show radiant heat. The reason they can detect grow rooms, thus, is because those rooms tend to be rather warm right on through to the brickwork. They wouldn't be able to see the exact location of a lamp (but if close to the roof they might see a localized heat bloom), or how many plants are there and what size, etc.
The closest you're going to get with seeing through walls is either via an xray device (good luck fitting one over your house, unless your house is a container and they can just run you through one at the nearest major naval port) or via radar - which is still a bulky set-up, in practice needs to be pressed up against the wall (so that the other side may function as the emitter), and the resolution at this time is barely good enough for potential military use where they care more about whether there's anything moving inside than their exact location and whether that movement is the missionary position or something else.
Additional problems arise from reasonable expectation and just how reasonable that is. For example, you may believe you have a reasonable expectation that having a grow room is a private thing since it is inside your home. Except that this grow room is going to radiate heat outward, well beyond the boundaries of your private property. But you may still have a reasonable expectation that people cannot see this. On the other hand, FLIR devices are not outside the reach of consumers. I could pick a good one up now for a few thousand - budgetary wise not different from somebody buying a DSLR and a few quality lenses. Assume every cell phone from 2020 onward actually has this as a feature - then what reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the thermal emissions of walls on your house do you believe to have left?
To bring that a step further - say everybody and their dog (yeah, I went there) could, in fact, look through your walls and admire you and your fiance's silhouettes - do you still believe that 'curtains closed' would be a solid legal basis for indicting those who watch you through those walls and precluding authorities from doing so unless they had a warrant?
In another posting on wifi you suggested that open wifi is free for anybody to receive no matter how 'private' one believes it to be, and to encrypt wifi if they're not cool with that. This doesn't preclude reception, of course, and depending on the level of encryption may be entirely moot. But within the aforementioned context, would you then suggest couples to encrypt their coitus?
I have had the pleasure of doing foreign (Dutch) captioning/subtitles for an English movie - and a week for 1.5 hours is quite reasonable.
As you mention, the problem is not so much in just word-for-word translation (although that can be challenging as well - not all words translate well. A favorite of mine is 'siblings'. There's no such word in Dutch. We just say 'brothers and sisters'.
But now that sentence is a lot longer. Does it still fit the area available for captioning? If it doesn't, does it need to be re-timed to fit the video? Do we start it a fraction of a second sooner? Make a choice to cut some words elsewhere?
Titles are also challenging. The WHO (World Health Organization), for example, is not referenced as the WHO in Dutch. It's WGO. Nobody is going to tell you that, though - you're going to have to do the research and find out if the local language does indeed have a localized term.. and whether that is official or just in common use.
Jokes involving wordplay are also a good one. Good luck translating that. Odds are you'll just have to drop the joke because the language being translated to has no similar wordplay to fit the situation and trying to shoehorn it in will just make the reader think the subtitle was awkward.
Proper subtitling is hard. As much as I think it's great that the community add subtitles for 'pirated' movies where no official subtitle is available, the quality is often appalling. Not that official subtitles are always perfect, but when you get somebody subtitling who only barely understands English in the first place and fails to grasp context entirely, you get things like Data from Star Trek happily being translated to 'gegevens'.. until the translator realizes it's a proper name and then switches to Data, but leaving the earlier mistakes in place.
If they decide to stop copying the bad things about MS Office (cell selection navigation in Excel), and start copying the good things instead (dynamic charts), I'll happily give LibreOffice another shot. For now, I've moved back to OpenOffice.
Man, I can understand the 'flamebait' mod on just a bunch of statements of fact (I can provide citations, but people can just hit google, really - the cases I mentioned all hit international news as well) if you think that I was making a statement regarding sentencing of pedosexuals, etc.
Honestly, I don't know what the general opinion on that (statutory rape of a minor) is in NL as we don't really have the same kind of 'registered sex offender' type thing here, so that doesn't really hit the news, or even discussion sites, here. I think most people here would probably shrug that right off as a result. But, again, I wouldn't be able to say either way.
Personally - before mods go crazy again - I think the way the U.S. handles 'sex offender' things is batshit crazy, for the example cited by parent poster, and for the ramifications thereof.
Are people really nostalgic of the good old days of lynching etc.?
I'm not sure if that question was intended to be serious - but it very well should be.
Just looking at general reactions to convictions etc. here in NL, I would say that people are indeed nostalgic to it.
A pedosexual, for example, should quite literally be lynched as far as the vocal commenting-at-news-websites people appear to be concerned. No matter the sentence, it is never severe enough - but death penalty would be too easy. If in jail, it is hoped they get brutally killed there. If they get out, it is hoped they get brutally killed as soon as they step outside the gates. If they evade that, it is hoped that they will never be able to live anywhere, ever, again (one municipality already refused to assign housing to a convicted pedosexual, for example). There is no "they did the time, justice was served" feeling there.
That's an extreme. More mild, then... recently there was a 'Project X' type thing up north that got out of hand, with kids rioting, stealing stuff, etc. Of those who have appeared before judges so far, the vast majority got off with community work or maybe a small fine. The residents, shopkeepers, etc. screamed bloody murder and felt like the sentences should have been way higher, or that they had wished they had used that pipe to break their legs on the night in question after all. Some in a discussion panel even said that anybody who was there during the riots (instead of saying "I don't want to be anywhere near this" and leaving), should be part of a group of people who get fined by default - even if they didn't actually do anything themselves; guilt by association.
You can see some of it in comments at Slashdot as well when comparisons are made between pirating/hacking/etc. and vicious crimes. While principally a commentary on the ridiculous height of maximum penalties for the former activities, some explanation of the penalties for the latter activities tends to leave people's jaw firmly dropped to the floor as well, and wondering why on Earth people are let off so easily.
A lot of people do seem to feel that 'justice' is not being served. As such, it's not too surprising that many feel that vigilantism is an appropriate answer; short-term they get to deliver their own justice, and long-term it may force the government's hand to provide harsher sentencing options.
The person in that story might be a bit more on the verge of the defensible than those who would directly target a specific person - minor or otherwise - such as the one covered here.
Jimmy now has an alibi because attendance is determined via RFID (and he turned in his homework).
Then the police look into the alibi and determine that it's just a chip. They talk to the techs just to make sure their suspicions on the validity of chips for tracking is correct; they are not reliable enough to stand up in the court of law.
So they go to the school and ask the teacher and kids if they remember seeing Jimmy on the day of so-and-so. His girlfriend swears he was there, but they find her not to be a reliable witness - being his girlfriend and all. Others, however, only recall his badge sitting lonely at his desk.
The police then review the hallway security cameras, and put the feed next to the badge ID logs. Sure enough, when his girlfriend enters, two IDs are logged; hers, and Jimmy's. When she leaves again, two IDs are logged; hers and Jimmy's.
The police collect the information as evidence, take down formal testimonies, and write up a report as to Jimmy's claimed alibi.
Jimmy is found to have lied to the police, and the police find themselves armed with another argument in an eventual court case, and more leeway in the investigation. His girlfriend will be brought in for further questioning and may eventually be charged with aiding and abetting.
Whether or not Jimmy would be tried, let alone convicted, is another matter altogether. But his alibi would be shot down long before that.
Real life just doesn't always fit with people's idealistic views that all cops are stupid and/or lazy and/or corrupt.
I have a great mix of friends, too - and they certainly don't think and act as I do.
I think there may be a difference in definition of 'extreme views', though. The OP in a reply already changed it to 'views that differ' - but that's rather different from 'extreme views' that they'd disagree with.
Just to repeat what I said there... If one of my friends' 'differing' view were that anybody who doesn't believe in God will burn for eternity in Hell - oh well. If one of my 'friends' 'extreme' view were that non-Caucasians must be killed... well, I certainly couldn't see them as a 'friend'.. not on facebook, and not in real life.
Now obviously in your case there's at least the religious vs gay friends, and some of one may be intolerant of the other. I don't see this as 'extreme', though.
Should I have to know these tricks? Or should facebook just have a little notification that says, "join this group? Y/N"
Oh, don't get me wrong - I firmly believe that facebook is in the wrong here and should always require that individuals approve of any action. This includes others posting on your timeline, any apps sending spam, the group memberships mentioned here, etc. I do not believe that you should have known about these tricks (which may very well stop working and are a kludge in the first place).
I was merely pointing out that there are some 'solutions' available.
My question with regard to your friends was seated in the 'extreme views' context. As another poster suggested, I'm not saying that you should only have friends that think and do as you do. That would be horribly boring. But there's 'extreme views' you disagree with and then there's 'differing views' you disagree with.
If I had a friend whose 'differing view' was that they believed that anybody who doesn't believe in God will burn for eternity in hell and wanted to include me in a group that advocates as much, I'd probably just shake my head and remove myself from the group. If, on the other hand, I had a friend whose 'extreme view' turns out to be that they believe every non-Caucasian should be gassed/deported, I'd stare in disbelief and promptly 'un-friend' them.. not just on facebook, but in real life, too. I don't care how great of a person they would be, I simply can't accept a - in this case - racist as being a 'friend'. Perhaps that makes me intolerant of racists - so be it:)
I don't know what the differing and/or extreme views of your friends are, hence the suggestion that perhaps you should review their 'friend' status. If after that review you don't feel the strong urge to 'un-friend' them, then all you can do (aside from the aforementioned tricks) is ask them not to add you to (any further) groups. They may forget, and you may have to remove yourself from a group again. Them's the breaks until facebook decides to see the light.
Lol, you don't even know what the central point of the article is, but that doesn't stop you from blowing massive amounts of hot air. This isn't how it works - you don't have to "accept" these requests, in fact, you don't even get informed that you're being added to the group
If you're going to reply to me and quote me, at least take a moment to actually read what you're quoting.
I wasn't talking about accepting being added to the group. I was talking about accepting the 'friend' thing (either you friend somebody and they have to accept, or they friend you and you have to accept). Only 'friends' can add you to a group to begin with.
Thus as far as the GP's rant about "you shouldn't post" goes, that would be the only activity that would even remotely come close - after all, if they weren't 'friends' with the choir, then that choir couldn't have added them to the group.
Pay to read? What strange things are you encountering? I didn't see any paywall.
but I wonder why she added her father at all.
She helped him set up his facebook account.
You know how that goes.. you set it up for them.. get asked if you're on facebook, tell them that you are and log in to show it to them, and oh my gosh they never saw those pictures of the newborn/dog/car/whatever, how can they get them, well by adding as a friend of course they'll see them pop up in their facebook account automatically and hey presto. What? Would you be so heartless as to deny your parents photos of their grandchildren/your dog/car (okay, car's not a good example - deal with it)? Why would you not want to be facebook friends with your parents? The pressure can be overwhelming. ( Anecdotal - not personal, just seen it happen. Didn't have any trouble with it, but they did cut down on posting 'meme' pictures right after that. )
"you should never post". Get a clue - it may not be you doing the posting.
Here's the problem. They didn't post. They, in fact, used what little privacy controls they had to shield off any posts and activities that would let on their sexual orientation to friends and the public at large.
Who did post, was the then-president of a choir group called Queer Chorus. He added these two individuals to their facebook group. He did so while the group was set public (an 'open' group). facebook, in turn, notified all the 'friends' of these two individuals that they had joined the group, because that's just how facebook - in all its "privacy? what privacy?" ways - works.
The only time these two individuals ever did anything related to the chain of events was when they friended, or accepted a friend request, from this choir group in the first place. If you're saying that they shouldn't have done that unless they were 'ready and willing' to own, that's fine.
I suppose if they had never befriended the choir on facebook only dealt with them in person, and the then-president had merely mentioned them in passing in a wall post and somebody who knew them had stumbled on that, and posted about it publicly, then they should simply not have dealt with the choir in person.
Maybe you believe that if they weren't 'ready and willing' to own to being gay, they should just have kept up appearances of being straight through all aspects of life.
Rather dangerously close to an "if you have nothing to hide"-argument, I'd say.
Personally, while I agree that anything you post online should be considered a matter of public record, just like picking your nose from the sanctity of your home doesn't mean people won't talk about it the next day if they happened to look through your windows. But then, I have curtains, and I feel that I can reasonably expect that nobody is going to peer through a small slit in those curtains - just as I feel that I should be able to reasonably expect that if I set facebook settings to hide practically everything about me, that they then don't betray that effort by opening up another vector to third parties that is public by design. Naive in both cases, perhaps, but I certainly wouldn't say that it boils down to blaming the users. It's just not that simple.
I'm about to chew out one of the "don't post it if you don't want it known" commenters, hit refresh to see if somebody else already did, and got distracted by you post.
As much as I dislike facebook, you seem to be unaware of its workings (when they work and don't 'accidentally' break, etc.).
Only friends can add you to a group (unless school group, etc.). If you're being added to 'fairly extreme view' groups, then I guess you have 'fairly extreme view' facebook 'friends'. If you'd rather not be part of those groups, you may wish to review the status of that 'friendship'. If you value the 'friendship' but would prefer that you don't get added to any groups, there was (is?) a trick: join meaningless groups to hit the group limit, then ignore everything from those groups. When you want to join a group, drop one of those groups and join up. Down side: if one of those groups becomes meaningful, you may become associated with those.
For applications, you can actually ignore the application. Upper right corner of the application's post, hit ignore.
Alternatively, go to your account settings, privacy, edit settings, 'applications and websites', disable platform applications.
Until it 'accidentally' breaks. Or facebook makes another change for the benefit of their users, then waits to see if the criticism is bad enough to reverse the change (at which point the damage is already done), or take their losses from the vocal few leave the change intact because it's a net positive.
I'll be very surprised if the business model won't be similar to GrooveShark's - in which case you'd only get the 90% of 0.01 cents if you went into an agreement with with the service. Otherwise you'll be advised to talk to your legal team about drafting formal complaints about URLs leading to the infringed work. And then you get to do that over and over again as the work just gets re-uploaded by the users. So, you see, either you spend a lot of money on legal complaints, or you just let things be and get zilch, or you can contract up and get a pittance while being blazoned around has having a contract with the service. Oh, and the more artists sign, the less you actually get (unless you over-proportionally get more plays).
Time travel and alternate universes are exceptionally difficult to pull off, that's for sure.
I still recommend watching it. If you don't want to spend the money on it, I say go ahead and download it when it becomes available at your favorite downloads site. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
However, it is more of an action movie than Moon (which is practically anything but). I'm not even sure what to classify Moon as, to be honest. Multiplicity in space except all of them seem on the verge of saying 'hi Steve'? An existentialist piece that got out of hand? A coming home/sacrifice drama? I thoroughly enjoyed it, mind you, but it's not for everyone. But as I enjoyed both, perhaps you would, too.
Yeah, that's a bit of a problem with a lot of titles. Moon, for example, is a completely different form of Sci-Fi than, say, Contact, which in turn is completely different from Sunshine, etc.
I excluded Avengers and such because I'd sooner put them in the Superhero Movie category.
Obviously, though, Cabin in the Woods is also not quite Sci-Fi. But it's also not expressly a Horror movie, or a Fantasy movie. It has hints of Shaun of the Dead (itself labeled a 'zomedie' because zombie movie / comedy blend), but also of a myriad of 'puppeteer' type movies such as Mindhunters.
There's some sci-fi elements to both Avengers and Cabin in the Woods... but an arbitrary and rather squiggly line has to be drawn somewhere.
I understand your conspiracy post and, who knows, perhaps that's even the case.
However, intentionally derailing DNT is good for users regardless.
Even the most vehement defenders of DNT who lambast IE10's default in comments here suggest that it 'advertisers might' respect it, that it's based on an 'honor' system, and that its entire premise is based on 'not too many people enabling it'. Advertisers might. Honor. Not too many people. That should sound like "never going to work" to even the most clueless of people.
Better it get derailed now and exposed for what it is so that users don't falsely assume that just because they have DNT set that advertisers are going to respect it, than that it gets ingrained in common use and with parties left and right ignoring it because at some point 'too many' people have it set while still suggesting to privacy groups, government, etc. that DNT works wonderfully and no new legislation would be required.
If certain parties are sufficiently concerned about tracking, then perhaps making browsers not leak so much information would be a good first step. Offer a proxy/VPN service as a second step. After that, you're at the mercy of sites respecting what info you willfully send them, and last I checked there tends to be laws governing that already (despite loopholes abound making those laws mostly pointless).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I am misinterpreting it, but then there's the layman interpretation and then there's the legal interpretation.
I'm certainly not a lawyer, but to me it seems that in terms of the whole 'looking through walls' part, the 'search' portion of 'search and seizure' applies.
So the question is whether or not such an activity would be considered a 'search'. Clearly, the courts have already ruled that even just using a FLIR to spot radiant heat from a house constitutes a search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
That decision was a 5-4 decision with mixed views from 'sides' of the political spectrum. Good arguments are made there against this ruling (especially poignant being the 'snow melting' example).
The portions that are applicable to what I stated are:
So if FLIR does get incorporated in everybody's
cellphone*, the ruling itself loses one basis.
As it stands, you do indeed have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But this can change if society believes this is no longer reasonable.
Thus I can well-imagine this ruling being challenged in the future. Although despite some obvious caveats, I do believe that the majority of those in power to challenge it will agree with the view that anything and everything within or attached to the house bestows a defacto reasonable expectation of privacy and may even extend this to overrule any 'in plain view' aspects in particular circumstances.
Probably, I only vaguely remembered and it may have been somebody else.. though your username is memorable enough :)
Have you seen some of the positions people propose? Some of those may well qualify as being an encrypted form. We sure can't figure them out. We haven't tried a brute force approach yet, though...
You'd still have to be up against that curtain and further curtain wold have to be up against said glass sliding door for some time to heat it up enough to to be able to even make out a blurry silhouette. But yes, that would certainly do the trick. That's a far cry from looking through walls and seeing your outlines doing whatever it is your outlines are doing, though :)
But then shouldn't that also apply to that same sliding door when the curtains behind (or in front) are not closed?
The effort is certainly a very low one; I need but glance in its direction. But I still have to make that effort. There's no good reason for me to be looking through your window when I'm just walking down the street.
But then why not argue in favor of 5:4? 4:3 is just an old TV aspect ratio that became popular for monitors for the same reasons as 16:9 is popular on LCDs now. 5:4 was actually quite nice for browsing the web, editing code, etc.
If you want to strike a compromise between 4:3 (12:9) and 16:9, why not argue for 14:9?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14:9
I think you may have watched one too many early episode of CSI. Thermal imaging would not show such a silhouette - unless, of course, the wall were very thin and you and/or your fiance were pressed against that wall. Thermal imaging can only show radiant heat. The reason they can detect grow rooms, thus, is because those rooms tend to be rather warm right on through to the brickwork. They wouldn't be able to see the exact location of a lamp (but if close to the roof they might see a localized heat bloom), or how many plants are there and what size, etc.
The closest you're going to get with seeing through walls is either via an xray device (good luck fitting one over your house, unless your house is a container and they can just run you through one at the nearest major naval port) or via radar - which is still a bulky set-up, in practice needs to be pressed up against the wall (so that the other side may function as the emitter), and the resolution at this time is barely good enough for potential military use where they care more about whether there's anything moving inside than their exact location and whether that movement is the missionary position or something else.
Additional problems arise from reasonable expectation and just how reasonable that is. For example, you may believe you have a reasonable expectation that having a grow room is a private thing since it is inside your home. Except that this grow room is going to radiate heat outward, well beyond the boundaries of your private property. But you may still have a reasonable expectation that people cannot see this. On the other hand, FLIR devices are not outside the reach of consumers. I could pick a good one up now for a few thousand - budgetary wise not different from somebody buying a DSLR and a few quality lenses. Assume every cell phone from 2020 onward actually has this as a feature - then what reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the thermal emissions of walls on your house do you believe to have left?
To bring that a step further - say everybody and their dog (yeah, I went there) could, in fact, look through your walls and admire you and your fiance's silhouettes - do you still believe that 'curtains closed' would be a solid legal basis for indicting those who watch you through those walls and precluding authorities from doing so unless they had a warrant?
In another posting on wifi you suggested that open wifi is free for anybody to receive no matter how 'private' one believes it to be, and to encrypt wifi if they're not cool with that. This doesn't preclude reception, of course, and depending on the level of encryption may be entirely moot. But within the aforementioned context, would you then suggest couples to encrypt their coitus?
I have had the pleasure of doing foreign (Dutch) captioning/subtitles for an English movie - and a week for 1.5 hours is quite reasonable.
As you mention, the problem is not so much in just word-for-word translation (although that can be challenging as well - not all words translate well. A favorite of mine is 'siblings'. There's no such word in Dutch. We just say 'brothers and sisters'.
But now that sentence is a lot longer. Does it still fit the area available for captioning? If it doesn't, does it need to be re-timed to fit the video? Do we start it a fraction of a second sooner? Make a choice to cut some words elsewhere?
Titles are also challenging. The WHO (World Health Organization), for example, is not referenced as the WHO in Dutch. It's WGO. Nobody is going to tell you that, though - you're going to have to do the research and find out if the local language does indeed have a localized term.. and whether that is official or just in common use.
Jokes involving wordplay are also a good one. Good luck translating that. Odds are you'll just have to drop the joke because the language being translated to has no similar wordplay to fit the situation and trying to shoehorn it in will just make the reader think the subtitle was awkward.
Proper subtitling is hard. As much as I think it's great that the community add subtitles for 'pirated' movies where no official subtitle is available, the quality is often appalling. Not that official subtitles are always perfect, but when you get somebody subtitling who only barely understands English in the first place and fails to grasp context entirely, you get things like Data from Star Trek happily being translated to 'gegevens'.. until the translator realizes it's a proper name and then switches to Data, but leaving the earlier mistakes in place.
No, not all of 'us'.
If they decide to stop copying the bad things about MS Office (cell selection navigation in Excel), and start copying the good things instead (dynamic charts), I'll happily give LibreOffice another shot. For now, I've moved back to OpenOffice.
Man, I can understand the 'flamebait' mod on just a bunch of statements of fact (I can provide citations, but people can just hit google, really - the cases I mentioned all hit international news as well) if you think that I was making a statement regarding sentencing of pedosexuals, etc.
Honestly, I don't know what the general opinion on that (statutory rape of a minor) is in NL as we don't really have the same kind of 'registered sex offender' type thing here, so that doesn't really hit the news, or even discussion sites, here.
I think most people here would probably shrug that right off as a result. But, again, I wouldn't be able to say either way.
Personally - before mods go crazy again - I think the way the U.S. handles 'sex offender' things is batshit crazy, for the example cited by parent poster, and for the ramifications thereof.
I'm not sure if that question was intended to be serious - but it very well should be.
Just looking at general reactions to convictions etc. here in NL, I would say that people are indeed nostalgic to it.
A pedosexual, for example, should quite literally be lynched as far as the vocal commenting-at-news-websites people appear to be concerned. No matter the sentence, it is never severe enough - but death penalty would be too easy. If in jail, it is hoped they get brutally killed there. If they get out, it is hoped they get brutally killed as soon as they step outside the gates. If they evade that, it is hoped that they will never be able to live anywhere, ever, again (one municipality already refused to assign housing to a convicted pedosexual, for example). There is no "they did the time, justice was served" feeling there.
That's an extreme. More mild, then... recently there was a 'Project X' type thing up north that got out of hand, with kids rioting, stealing stuff, etc. Of those who have appeared before judges so far, the vast majority got off with community work or maybe a small fine. The residents, shopkeepers, etc. screamed bloody murder and felt like the sentences should have been way higher, or that they had wished they had used that pipe to break their legs on the night in question after all. Some in a discussion panel even said that anybody who was there during the riots (instead of saying "I don't want to be anywhere near this" and leaving), should be part of a group of people who get fined by default - even if they didn't actually do anything themselves; guilt by association.
You can see some of it in comments at Slashdot as well when comparisons are made between pirating/hacking/etc. and vicious crimes. While principally a commentary on the ridiculous height of maximum penalties for the former activities, some explanation of the penalties for the latter activities tends to leave people's jaw firmly dropped to the floor as well, and wondering why on Earth people are let off so easily.
A lot of people do seem to feel that 'justice' is not being served. As such, it's not too surprising that many feel that vigilantism is an appropriate answer; short-term they get to deliver their own justice, and long-term it may force the government's hand to provide harsher sentencing options.
A parallel story, not related to the case in question, but another instance of somebody being outed for their (in)actions:
http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web
The person in that story might be a bit more on the verge of the defensible than those who would directly target a specific person - minor or otherwise - such as the one covered here.
Then the police look into the alibi and determine that it's just a chip. They talk to the techs just to make sure their suspicions on the validity of chips for tracking is correct; they are not reliable enough to stand up in the court of law.
So they go to the school and ask the teacher and kids if they remember seeing Jimmy on the day of so-and-so. His girlfriend swears he was there, but they find her not to be a reliable witness - being his girlfriend and all. Others, however, only recall his badge sitting lonely at his desk.
The police then review the hallway security cameras, and put the feed next to the badge ID logs. Sure enough, when his girlfriend enters, two IDs are logged; hers, and Jimmy's. When she leaves again, two IDs are logged; hers and Jimmy's.
The police collect the information as evidence, take down formal testimonies, and write up a report as to Jimmy's claimed alibi.
Jimmy is found to have lied to the police, and the police find themselves armed with another argument in an eventual court case, and more leeway in the investigation. His girlfriend will be brought in for further questioning and may eventually be charged with aiding and abetting.
Whether or not Jimmy would be tried, let alone convicted, is another matter altogether. But his alibi would be shot down long before that.
Real life just doesn't always fit with people's idealistic views that all cops are stupid and/or lazy and/or corrupt.
I have a great mix of friends, too - and they certainly don't think and act as I do.
I think there may be a difference in definition of 'extreme views', though. The OP in a reply already changed it to 'views that differ' - but that's rather different from 'extreme views' that they'd disagree with.
Just to repeat what I said there...
If one of my friends' 'differing' view were that anybody who doesn't believe in God will burn for eternity in Hell - oh well.
If one of my 'friends' 'extreme' view were that non-Caucasians must be killed... well, I certainly couldn't see them as a 'friend'.. not on facebook, and not in real life.
Now obviously in your case there's at least the religious vs gay friends, and some of one may be intolerant of the other. I don't see this as 'extreme', though.
Oh, don't get me wrong - I firmly believe that facebook is in the wrong here and should always require that individuals approve of any action. This includes others posting on your timeline, any apps sending spam, the group memberships mentioned here, etc. I do not believe that you should have known about these tricks (which may very well stop working and are a kludge in the first place).
I was merely pointing out that there are some 'solutions' available.
My question with regard to your friends was seated in the 'extreme views' context. As another poster suggested, I'm not saying that you should only have friends that think and do as you do. That would be horribly boring. But there's 'extreme views' you disagree with and then there's 'differing views' you disagree with.
If I had a friend whose 'differing view' was that they believed that anybody who doesn't believe in God will burn for eternity in hell and wanted to include me in a group that advocates as much, I'd probably just shake my head and remove myself from the group. :)
If, on the other hand, I had a friend whose 'extreme view' turns out to be that they believe every non-Caucasian should be gassed/deported, I'd stare in disbelief and promptly 'un-friend' them.. not just on facebook, but in real life, too. I don't care how great of a person they would be, I simply can't accept a - in this case - racist as being a 'friend'.
Perhaps that makes me intolerant of racists - so be it
I don't know what the differing and/or extreme views of your friends are, hence the suggestion that perhaps you should review their 'friend' status. If after that review you don't feel the strong urge to 'un-friend' them, then all you can do (aside from the aforementioned tricks) is ask them not to add you to (any further) groups. They may forget, and you may have to remove yourself from a group again. Them's the breaks until facebook decides to see the light.
There is a separate group handling for schools.
https://www.facebook.com/about/groups/schools
http://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=162550990475119
It's basically intended to let people join a school group without explicitly having to become 'friends' with the group controller.
I don't know if that applies to the case you're referring to, though.
If you're going to reply to me and quote me, at least take a moment to actually read what you're quoting.
I wasn't talking about accepting being added to the group. I was talking about accepting the 'friend' thing (either you friend somebody and they have to accept, or they friend you and you have to accept). Only 'friends' can add you to a group to begin with.
Thus as far as the GP's rant about "you shouldn't post" goes, that would be the only activity that would even remotely come close - after all, if they weren't 'friends' with the choir, then that choir couldn't have added them to the group.
That's strange.. I'm from NL, didn't get it. Maybe AdBlock Plus is having an additional beneficial side-effect there..
Pay to read? What strange things are you encountering? I didn't see any paywall.
She helped him set up his facebook account.
You know how that goes.. you set it up for them.. get asked if you're on facebook, tell them that you are and log in to show it to them, and oh my gosh they never saw those pictures of the newborn/dog/car/whatever, how can they get them, well by adding as a friend of course they'll see them pop up in their facebook account automatically and hey presto.
What? Would you be so heartless as to deny your parents photos of their grandchildren/your dog/car (okay, car's not a good example - deal with it)? Why would you not want to be facebook friends with your parents?
The pressure can be overwhelming.
( Anecdotal - not personal, just seen it happen. Didn't have any trouble with it, but they did cut down on posting 'meme' pictures right after that. )
"you should never post". Get a clue - it may not be you doing the posting.
Here's the problem. They didn't post. They, in fact, used what little privacy controls they had to shield off any posts and activities that would let on their sexual orientation to friends and the public at large.
Who did post, was the then-president of a choir group called Queer Chorus. He added these two individuals to their facebook group. He did so while the group was set public (an 'open' group).
facebook, in turn, notified all the 'friends' of these two individuals that they had joined the group, because that's just how facebook - in all its "privacy? what privacy?" ways - works.
The only time these two individuals ever did anything related to the chain of events was when they friended, or accepted a friend request, from this choir group in the first place. If you're saying that they shouldn't have done that unless they were 'ready and willing' to own, that's fine.
I suppose if they had never befriended the choir on facebook only dealt with them in person, and the then-president had merely mentioned them in passing in a wall post and somebody who knew them had stumbled on that, and posted about it publicly, then they should simply not have dealt with the choir in person.
Maybe you believe that if they weren't 'ready and willing' to own to being gay, they should just have kept up appearances of being straight through all aspects of life.
Rather dangerously close to an "if you have nothing to hide"-argument, I'd say.
Personally, while I agree that anything you post online should be considered a matter of public record, just like picking your nose from the sanctity of your home doesn't mean people won't talk about it the next day if they happened to look through your windows. But then, I have curtains, and I feel that I can reasonably expect that nobody is going to peer through a small slit in those curtains - just as I feel that I should be able to reasonably expect that if I set facebook settings to hide practically everything about me, that they then don't betray that effort by opening up another vector to third parties that is public by design. Naive in both cases, perhaps, but I certainly wouldn't say that it boils down to blaming the users. It's just not that simple.
I'm about to chew out one of the "don't post it if you don't want it known" commenters, hit refresh to see if somebody else already did, and got distracted by you post.
As much as I dislike facebook, you seem to be unaware of its workings (when they work and don't 'accidentally' break, etc.).
Only friends can add you to a group (unless school group, etc.). If you're being added to 'fairly extreme view' groups, then I guess you have 'fairly extreme view' facebook 'friends'. If you'd rather not be part of those groups, you may wish to review the status of that 'friendship'. If you value the 'friendship' but would prefer that you don't get added to any groups, there was (is?) a trick: join meaningless groups to hit the group limit, then ignore everything from those groups. When you want to join a group, drop one of those groups and join up. Down side: if one of those groups becomes meaningful, you may become associated with those.
For applications, you can actually ignore the application. Upper right corner of the application's post, hit ignore.
Alternatively, go to your account settings, privacy, edit settings, 'applications and websites', disable platform applications.
Until it 'accidentally' breaks. Or facebook makes another change for the benefit of their users, then waits to see if the criticism is bad enough to reverse the change (at which point the damage is already done), or take their losses from the vocal few leave the change intact because it's a net positive.
I'll be very surprised if the business model won't be similar to GrooveShark's - in which case you'd only get the 90% of 0.01 cents if you went into an agreement with with the service. Otherwise you'll be advised to talk to your legal team about drafting formal complaints about URLs leading to the infringed work. And then you get to do that over and over again as the work just gets re-uploaded by the users. So, you see, either you spend a lot of money on legal complaints, or you just let things be and get zilch, or you can contract up and get a pittance while being blazoned around has having a contract with the service. Oh, and the more artists sign, the less you actually get (unless you over-proportionally get more plays).
If you'd love to have that - why not just get food-grade colorant/dye from a chemist and have at it?
For red, you can probably just use beet juice - hit up the internets on how to get a concentrate of that.
Time travel and alternate universes are exceptionally difficult to pull off, that's for sure.
I still recommend watching it. If you don't want to spend the money on it, I say go ahead and download it when it becomes available at your favorite downloads site. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
However, it is more of an action movie than Moon (which is practically anything but). I'm not even sure what to classify Moon as, to be honest. Multiplicity in space except all of them seem on the verge of saying 'hi Steve'? An existentialist piece that got out of hand? A coming home/sacrifice drama?
I thoroughly enjoyed it, mind you, but it's not for everyone. But as I enjoyed both, perhaps you would, too.
Yeah, that's a bit of a problem with a lot of titles. Moon, for example, is a completely different form of Sci-Fi than, say, Contact, which in turn is completely different from Sunshine, etc.
I excluded Avengers and such because I'd sooner put them in the Superhero Movie category.
Obviously, though, Cabin in the Woods is also not quite Sci-Fi. But it's also not expressly a Horror movie, or a Fantasy movie. It has hints of Shaun of the Dead (itself labeled a 'zomedie' because zombie movie / comedy blend), but also of a myriad of 'puppeteer' type movies such as Mindhunters.
There's some sci-fi elements to both Avengers and Cabin in the Woods... but an arbitrary and rather squiggly line has to be drawn somewhere.
Whoa - where do you live that District 9 only came out this year? ;)
But yes - good movie. Was hoping for a sequel to coincide with the alien's suggestion for return in N years. Alas.
Then again, I hoped that for StarGate:Universe... what can I say, I'm a dreamer.
I understand your conspiracy post and, who knows, perhaps that's even the case.
However, intentionally derailing DNT is good for users regardless.
Even the most vehement defenders of DNT who lambast IE10's default in comments here suggest that it 'advertisers might' respect it, that it's based on an 'honor' system, and that its entire premise is based on 'not too many people enabling it'.
Advertisers might. Honor. Not too many people.
That should sound like "never going to work" to even the most clueless of people.
Better it get derailed now and exposed for what it is so that users don't falsely assume that just because they have DNT set that advertisers are going to respect it, than that it gets ingrained in common use and with parties left and right ignoring it because at some point 'too many' people have it set while still suggesting to privacy groups, government, etc. that DNT works wonderfully and no new legislation would be required.
If certain parties are sufficiently concerned about tracking, then perhaps making browsers not leak so much information would be a good first step. Offer a proxy/VPN service as a second step. After that, you're at the mercy of sites respecting what info you willfully send them, and last I checked there tends to be laws governing that already (despite loopholes abound making those laws mostly pointless).