Perhaps if you knew anything about space exploration and orbital mechanics you might have an inkling of how much harder it would be to do what you're suggesting.
If you could demonstrate an ability to at least read at an 12 year old level
The problem is that you're not demonstrating an ability to write at the level of a 12-year-old.
Because they want to see what else in his Facebook account, not just any messages he sent to her. And yes, she might well have deleted them. He might have told her to.
But who knows what else he might have in there - photos that place him in certain places at certain times, messages to other potential victims, and so on.
It's called "gathering evidence" and you don't just look in the most obvious places.
It'd be the equivalent of that Stormtrooper who goes "This door's locked; move on to the next one" when the droids they're looking for are right behind said door. He's an Imperial Stormtrooper! He could just bust the door down!
* They are a bunch of children who think they have the moral right to be the thought police. What gives them the right to decide what is acceptable or not?
No, they are a bunch of adults who run their own website and can choose what can and can't be put on there.
So owning Facebook is what gives them the right.
... does that mean they are infringing upon the rights of others when they block OTHER free speech rights?
No, because they're not blocking others' free speech rights, any more than I would be blocking your free speech rights by making you leave my house if you started pontificating on the finer points of Kirk vs. Picard.
Is communication on FaceBook's platform considered to be on "private property"?
Yes.
Is Facebook a "common carrier" or not when they have become a de facto Common / Town Square?
No.
If they acted like adults, why can't they allow the link but ALSO put up a banner saying "We believe this link to be irresponsible".. and then let the user decide if the link is worth clicking or not?
Because they don't want to, and there is no onus on them to do otherwise. Someone else can do that if they want to.
The fact that they are censoring communication that they (politically) disagree with just proves that they are immature and scared and operating under the modus operandi of "CYA".
Would you say the same about the makers of Roblox kicking people off for what they class as indecent behaviour?
Slashdot Mirror
Because of course it's completely impossible for someone who is paralysed to have not been paralysed in the past...
I have no idea what point you're trying to make with that comment.
he complains that because of people like me, the law doesn't allow him to marry very young girls.
What's people like you?
Should've got off your bike before typing that.
Perhaps if you knew anything about space exploration and orbital mechanics you might have an inkling of how much harder it would be to do what you're suggesting.
If you could demonstrate an ability to at least read at an 12 year old level
The problem is that you're not demonstrating an ability to write at the level of a 12-year-old.
...what? Have you woken up yet, or are you still drunk?
starts running backwards from our perspective.
would manifest strictly locally
Aren't those mutually exclusive? Assuming you meant our perspective as being from outside the black hole.
He didn't "pass away". He *died* due to negligence
How do you know what he died of?
According to Wikipedia, he hit by a train in an accident.
It's a bit old-fashioned but still in use.
How about calling it "MSN Messenger"?
Seriously the photo sharing in that was perfect.
she can['t] be forced to testify against him.
In most circumstances yes, she can. And in any case, demanding the password, which she knows, is unlikely to count as testifying against him.
Because they want to see what else in his Facebook account, not just any messages he sent to her. And yes, she might well have deleted them. He might have told her to.
But who knows what else he might have in there - photos that place him in certain places at certain times, messages to other potential victims, and so on.
It's called "gathering evidence" and you don't just look in the most obvious places.
It'd be the equivalent of that Stormtrooper who goes "This door's locked; move on to the next one" when the droids they're looking for are right behind said door. He's an Imperial Stormtrooper! He could just bust the door down!
I assume you're being sarcastic, but what makes you think it wouldn't work well in zero G?
Maybe it's because for most people, watching a movie costs extra money. Watcing a new TV show usually doesn't.
Oh no you di'n't!
Well now I don't know what to believe. It says right there in the condescending headline that YOU spend more than 5 hours checking emails.
Wait, is that you meaning you or you meaning me?
There's nothing more condescending - and in this case, completeley wrong - than a headline that tells you what YOU do.
Some of us aren't so vacuous as to be unable to be interested in anything unless it directly affects ourselves personally.
No it aren't.
I'm pretty sure it aren't.
Cortana, what would Alexa say if I asked her which was the safe door?
20W LED uses as much power as a 100W incandescent used to.
Do you want to think about that statement for a second?
* They are a bunch of children who think they have the moral right to be the thought police. What gives them the right to decide what is acceptable or not?
No, they are a bunch of adults who run their own website and can choose what can and can't be put on there.
So owning Facebook is what gives them the right.
No, because they're not blocking others' free speech rights, any more than I would be blocking your free speech rights by making you leave my house if you started pontificating on the finer points of Kirk vs. Picard.
Is communication on FaceBook's platform considered to be on "private property"?
Yes.
Is Facebook a "common carrier" or not when they have become a de facto Common / Town Square?
No.
If they acted like adults, why can't they allow the link but ALSO put up a banner saying "We believe this link to be irresponsible" .. and then let the user decide if the link is worth clicking or not?
Because they don't want to, and there is no onus on them to do otherwise. Someone else can do that if they want to.
The fact that they are censoring communication that they (politically) disagree with just proves that they are immature and scared and operating under the modus operandi of "CYA".
Would you say the same about the makers of Roblox kicking people off for what they class as indecent behaviour?
Where does it say that?
My posts are of a high quality,
Oh yeah? How about you link to some?
Moderation is censorship. It needs to stop.
No it isn't. Grow up you whiny little shit.
Hey, everybody's gotta eat.
'cept the robots.