Given that the entire point of the site is to share information about yourself, I have a bit of a problem with people complaining that it shares information about them. I think most people might be ok with sharing information with those friends they have so long as THEY control what information gets released and to whom.
I have a big problem with just anyone who is on Facebook gets to view my information. If I could limit who knows what about me and didn't have to worry about micro-managing the changing details about me that get spewed out of every orifice of Facebook every week then I could see signing up. This includes advertisers and the government. I don't want them to know any of these details unless by a court order. All these features would easily be worth paying for.
The only problem with this kind of social network is I don't know how viable it would be and if people would be willing to pay for it.
Very insightful post. And despite the fact that it is Offtopic, it should still be modded Insightful.
We often times forget that it's the people under the leaders that give them their power. If people were more willing to stand up to injustices when confronted with them there would have been a lot less evil in this world. We likely wouldn't have had Concentration Camps in Germany or Gulags in the USSR or torture by the CIA.
While it can often be commendable for people to follow their leaders to the ends of the Earth, it often times leads to many injustices as they will not ask themselves "Is this right? Can I live with myself if I do this?"
While I think your ideas on statutory rape are a step in the right direction I would like to see more progress as I outlined in my previous post that I linked to.
I agree that this inebriation is another problem. I think a few things that would help in this regard would be to repeal some of the shield laws that go too far.
For example, there are several laws that say that a person's previous sexual history and rape claims cannot be entered into evidence for the juries to consider. While I understand the origin of these laws they don't give juries the proper disclosure about the victims past which maybe relevant to the current case. So if someone is bi-polar, or otherwise mentally unstable, and they have a history of rape cases that get dismissed or found to have been complete fabrications then that should have a bearing on how believable the victims claims are relevant to the current case.
This leads into the most controversial suggestion, we should have a law on the books that says if it can be proven (hard but not impossible) that the person made up the rape charge (there was a case just a few days ago where she was trying to save her marriage) then they get a jail sentence equal to what the rape perpetrator would have gotten. Right now they only get a small slap on the wrist for filing a false police report which really doesn't fit the scope of their crime.
The last thing I'd like to see, and this applies well beyond the rape laws, is to have mandatory protection from the media reporting the identity of either the supposed victim or perpetrator of a major crime, in this case rape, until the case has been closed, or at least until the jury renders their verdict. We try our criminals in the press. This leads to a lynch mob mentality in the citizens, where someone is tried before they even go to trial.
Ultimately, I'm not sure that we'll ever have a good legal solution to the false rape claims problem. The only thing I think we can hope for is a good social change.
I don't have time to respond to all your point at the moment but I would like to touch on a few things.
You seem to be taking a very conservative view of what we can do to fix things in this country. Basically, any big changes sounds bad to you. If you take this road of "staying the course" that we're currently on then I think this country is in for ruin in the next 2 - 20 years. Our dollar is taking a nose dive, most countries around the world now hate us to varying degrees, we're spending money like a drunk sailor with an unlimited credit card and there is almost no end in sight, and our civil liberties are being flushed down the nearest toilet (I could go on for hours but you get the point).
Now, if there isn't someone who is willing to come in and say "STOP!" and start reversing the direction then we are headed for a fate equal to the Romans or something similar to what happened here 231 years ago. I believe some like Ron Paul is needed to steer us back on course before we go over the precipice.
Do I think all his ideas are great? Hell no! I think some of his ideas are terrible. However, do I think any of the other candidates (with the exception of possibly Cusinich (sp?)) have a snow balls chance in hell of steering us back on course? Absolutely not!
So taking what's available out there today, I'd much rather take my chances with Paul. At least he's a straight shooter and will tell us what we NEED to hear and not what we WANT to hear.
BTW, I think that the balance of the three branches of government, if they are functioning properly, can keep him in check so he doesn't do too many "wacky things".
In general, I don't have a problem with individual companies collecting information on me*. But the big disconnect is that most/all sell or share this information with unknown third parties. These third parties may then sell that information to others and before you know it everyone who wants that information that was originally collected is now available upon request. There is no getting around this issue in our society unless you're willing to extricate yourself from society (live up in the mountains, 10 miles away from anyone else). This is not viable option for 99.9% of society and therefore a moot point.
*Exceptions do directly relate to this article, so they are fair game. I have no problem with Google recording what you searched but do have a problem with them tying it to my IP address. General aggregate data on your customers is reasonable to know how they are using you're service but it crosses the line when it ties it to you specifically.
What you're talking about it quite a bit different than a lot of the problems that exist in the marketplace today. My biggest issue is with companies that buy and aggregate data about you and you have no choice as to what information they have on you and you can't get off their lists.
Also, the government buys information from these companies as an affront to the supremely important legal barriers that are put in place to protect peoples privacy (Fourth Amendment). They can just simply say here's 100 bucks, now give me all the details on "Joe Blow". These are the kinds of issues that the founders were concerned about in their days. They certainly didn't foresee everything we would be able to do in their times but they expected that if they put broad language detailing what kinds rights the government wasn't to infringe upon, expect upon probable cause of wrong doing, that the people would be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (Privacy). If we simply had the Judicial system enforcing the letter and spirit of the supreme law of the land then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
While I like the idea in theory. I'm not sure how well it would work in practice. While this sort of evaluation might be able to be done by a professional psychologist given a few weeks. How is the average person on the street going to evaluate someone in the short time they may have between meeting them and going home with them.
For example, if you go to a party where there is drinking and everyone is supposed to be 21 but there is one girl there who is 17. You talk to her for an hour or two while getting inebriated and she seems nice and competent (but for the sake of argument we'll say she doesn't pass your evaluation for court). Are you supposed to reasonably going to know that before you go to your bedroom?
We need guidelines that are easy to follow for the average person but give some leeway provided the person couldn't have reasonably known the person was mentally incapable of agreeing to a sexual encounter or within their age group (other high schoolers for example). See my post above for some ideas http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=385671&cid=21660111
The "18 years old" age line is when people are generally considered an adult. They are considered to be mentally able to make the choices that adults need to make. There is nothing special for someone who is 3 months away from being 18 or 3 months past their 18th birthday. There are certainly people who are 16 and could easily have the mental capacity for being an adult, likewise, there are people who are 21+ and don't seem to have that capacity. It's an arbitrary age that we as a society have decided that most people are ready to take on adult responsibilities.
I think 18 is generally a good age for adulthood but when it comes to "adult relationships" (read sex mainly) that we need to put some much needed exceptions into the law. I think there should be a "Romeo and Juliet" clause that says the following: 1. If one or both persons are under 18 then they must be within 5 years age of each other (This allows for a high school freshman to date a senior and also covers people in college going out with high schools are that about to leave high school) 2. If they take pictures/videos of each other while they are under 18 (obviously they shouldn't but it's happening all the time) for their own or their partner's self gratification then it's not considered CP so long as they don't send it to adults, not including their parents. 3. I also think that since most people do end up having sex by 14 or 15 that we should consider the age of consent laws to actually be lowered to 16, like most other countries (granted in some States it is 16 or 17 but it's not uniform, which makes things hard on adults.
The "Think of the Children" crowd (politicians and overprotective parents) need to be fired. Out of a cannon. Into a wall. The quicker we get rid of these reactionary, non-rational people the sooner we can have reasonable laws in this country again.
That's how I see it as well. Unless an ad is flashing or moving to get my attention, I almost never notice it. When I do come across one of those ads I navigate away from the page as fast as I can.
I've probably only clicked on a handful of ads in the last 7+ years and at least half of them I clicked on because I was actively looking for a product and a website to sell it to me.
If you think that's geeky you should read more posts. There are some that come out near incomprehensible, even to people familiar with a certain field (but not experts).
Most of the time, unless we are talking about some esoteric computer topic, a lot of people realize that their area of expertise may not be everyone else's and they try to either keep buzzwords out altogether or they will provide links (usually to Wikipedia) to help explain their posts.
I saw a program several months ago detailing NewEgg's process for managing a warehouse. They were featured because they were doing several things that hadn't been done in warehouses and shipping.
They are very efficient as you say and do get most orders out the same day. The $2.99 guarantee's that it will go out the same day. The way they ensure this is by having a separate conveyor belt for picking and packaging their express orders. This means that it will be ready to send out within about 15 minutes instead of several hours.
I think the GP may have already known that because he said "what little common carrier protections [they] have". They do have several things that are common carrier like but which aren't specifically defined as "common carrier". A common carrier status would essentially be Net Neutrality.
Here is what they have under the law (from Wikipedia):
Internet networks are in many respects already treated like common carriers. ISPs are largely immune from liability for third party content. The Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act established immunity from liability for third party content on grounds of libel or slander. The DMCA established that ISPs which comply with DMCA would not be liable for the copyright violations of third parties on their network.
This is exactly what happens in the movie business. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if they (MPAA) really understand this. Or they just haven't asked why piracy happens. They just assume that it's because people don't want to pay for their entertainment but will do so if they are forced to.
Interesting. I didn't know that. I got it from another Slashdot user. It's one of my favorites. I've got a few others in my profile. There are so many apt ones that I could use lately (especially relating to politics these days).
Pretty much unless they can show that you are monitoring your connection or you have a copy of the images on your machine they would fail to prove that you could have known. However, that does nothing to prevent them from doing a Show Trial where your name is dragged through the mud. Maybe that is the intention of this law.
After reading it, I still think it's a bad bill but it's not nearly as bad as TFS made it seem. You have to know that someone is downloading CP using your WiFi connection and not report it.
There is one piece of the legislation that doesn't make sense. It's early in the morning and I might be reading it wrong but as I read it they are indemnifying anyone in the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children from intentional misconduct while making it sound like these are reasons that they can be brought to court under civil or criminal statutes:
(b) Intentional, Reckless, or Other Misconduct- Subsection (a) shall not apply to a claim or charge if the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or a director, officer, employee, or agent of such center--
(1) engaged in intentional misconduct; or
(2) acted, or failed to act--
(A) with actual malice;
(B) with reckless disregard to a substantial risk of causing injury without legal justification; or
(C) for a purpose unrelated to the performance of any responsibility or function under this section, section 2258A or 2258C of this title, or section 404 of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5773). Lastly, we don't need a law like this. I've seen no evidence that what they are railing against in this legislation is even a minor problem. It seems to be just another "think of the children law" for an election year.
Our values are tested not when times are easy, for that is something that anyone or nation can do. They are tested when times are hard, when you have to stand your ground despite the short term consequences. Those who would give up their values when times are tough never really ascribed to them in the first place. Those people don't deserve their rights that have been fought for; for they would give it away so easily that the values themselves are meaningless. Oh! How contemptible those people are.
I may not like everything you said (as in cognitive dissonance) but sadly it's true.
I try to support those groups that I think helps protect us from the Government stomping on our rights like the EFF and to a degree the ACLU. You're right that they aren't perfect and they don't always address everything that I would like them to but I can't imagine if we didn't have them (or some organization like them) in our country.
I would love to find a better motive than profit for media companies but I'm not sure what it could be...(as you've pointed out, it needs to be separate from the government or it breeds corruption).
Slashdot Mirror
I have a big problem with just anyone who is on Facebook gets to view my information. If I could limit who knows what about me and didn't have to worry about micro-managing the changing details about me that get spewed out of every orifice of Facebook every week then I could see signing up. This includes advertisers and the government. I don't want them to know any of these details unless by a court order. All these features would easily be worth paying for.
The only problem with this kind of social network is I don't know how viable it would be and if people would be willing to pay for it.
Very insightful post. And despite the fact that it is Offtopic, it should still be modded Insightful.
We often times forget that it's the people under the leaders that give them their power. If people were more willing to stand up to injustices when confronted with them there would have been a lot less evil in this world. We likely wouldn't have had Concentration Camps in Germany or Gulags in the USSR or torture by the CIA.
While it can often be commendable for people to follow their leaders to the ends of the Earth, it often times leads to many injustices as they will not ask themselves "Is this right? Can I live with myself if I do this?"
Thank you again for your great post DaedalusHKX.
They just announced that they are closing all their stores.
Here is a link to a news article on it: http://www.dailypress.com/business/dp-now-compusaclos.1212,0,7791948.story
Here is the discussion from a few days ago: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/08/076226
Mod parent up as Informative.
Thanks for the insight into who this guy was/is.
While I think your ideas on statutory rape are a step in the right direction I would like to see more progress as I outlined in my previous post that I linked to.
I agree that this inebriation is another problem. I think a few things that would help in this regard would be to repeal some of the shield laws that go too far.
For example, there are several laws that say that a person's previous sexual history and rape claims cannot be entered into evidence for the juries to consider. While I understand the origin of these laws they don't give juries the proper disclosure about the victims past which maybe relevant to the current case. So if someone is bi-polar, or otherwise mentally unstable, and they have a history of rape cases that get dismissed or found to have been complete fabrications then that should have a bearing on how believable the victims claims are relevant to the current case.
This leads into the most controversial suggestion, we should have a law on the books that says if it can be proven (hard but not impossible) that the person made up the rape charge (there was a case just a few days ago where she was trying to save her marriage) then they get a jail sentence equal to what the rape perpetrator would have gotten. Right now they only get a small slap on the wrist for filing a false police report which really doesn't fit the scope of their crime.
The last thing I'd like to see, and this applies well beyond the rape laws, is to have mandatory protection from the media reporting the identity of either the supposed victim or perpetrator of a major crime, in this case rape, until the case has been closed, or at least until the jury renders their verdict. We try our criminals in the press. This leads to a lynch mob mentality in the citizens, where someone is tried before they even go to trial.
Ultimately, I'm not sure that we'll ever have a good legal solution to the false rape claims problem. The only thing I think we can hope for is a good social change.
I don't have time to respond to all your point at the moment but I would like to touch on a few things.
You seem to be taking a very conservative view of what we can do to fix things in this country. Basically, any big changes sounds bad to you. If you take this road of "staying the course" that we're currently on then I think this country is in for ruin in the next 2 - 20 years. Our dollar is taking a nose dive, most countries around the world now hate us to varying degrees, we're spending money like a drunk sailor with an unlimited credit card and there is almost no end in sight, and our civil liberties are being flushed down the nearest toilet (I could go on for hours but you get the point).
Now, if there isn't someone who is willing to come in and say "STOP!" and start reversing the direction then we are headed for a fate equal to the Romans or something similar to what happened here 231 years ago. I believe some like Ron Paul is needed to steer us back on course before we go over the precipice.
Do I think all his ideas are great? Hell no! I think some of his ideas are terrible. However, do I think any of the other candidates (with the exception of possibly Cusinich (sp?)) have a snow balls chance in hell of steering us back on course? Absolutely not!
So taking what's available out there today, I'd much rather take my chances with Paul. At least he's a straight shooter and will tell us what we NEED to hear and not what we WANT to hear.
BTW, I think that the balance of the three branches of government, if they are functioning properly, can keep him in check so he doesn't do too many "wacky things".
In general, I don't have a problem with individual companies collecting information on me*. But the big disconnect is that most/all sell or share this information with unknown third parties. These third parties may then sell that information to others and before you know it everyone who wants that information that was originally collected is now available upon request. There is no getting around this issue in our society unless you're willing to extricate yourself from society (live up in the mountains, 10 miles away from anyone else). This is not viable option for 99.9% of society and therefore a moot point.
*Exceptions do directly relate to this article, so they are fair game. I have no problem with Google recording what you searched but do have a problem with them tying it to my IP address. General aggregate data on your customers is reasonable to know how they are using you're service but it crosses the line when it ties it to you specifically.
What you're talking about it quite a bit different than a lot of the problems that exist in the marketplace today. My biggest issue is with companies that buy and aggregate data about you and you have no choice as to what information they have on you and you can't get off their lists.
Also, the government buys information from these companies as an affront to the supremely important legal barriers that are put in place to protect peoples privacy (Fourth Amendment). They can just simply say here's 100 bucks, now give me all the details on "Joe Blow". These are the kinds of issues that the founders were concerned about in their days. They certainly didn't foresee everything we would be able to do in their times but they expected that if they put broad language detailing what kinds rights the government wasn't to infringe upon, expect upon probable cause of wrong doing, that the people would be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (Privacy). If we simply had the Judicial system enforcing the letter and spirit of the supreme law of the land then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
While I like the idea in theory. I'm not sure how well it would work in practice. While this sort of evaluation might be able to be done by a professional psychologist given a few weeks. How is the average person on the street going to evaluate someone in the short time they may have between meeting them and going home with them.
For example, if you go to a party where there is drinking and everyone is supposed to be 21 but there is one girl there who is 17. You talk to her for an hour or two while getting inebriated and she seems nice and competent (but for the sake of argument we'll say she doesn't pass your evaluation for court). Are you supposed to reasonably going to know that before you go to your bedroom?
We need guidelines that are easy to follow for the average person but give some leeway provided the person couldn't have reasonably known the person was mentally incapable of agreeing to a sexual encounter or within their age group (other high schoolers for example). See my post above for some ideas http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=385671&cid=21660111
The "18 years old" age line is when people are generally considered an adult. They are considered to be mentally able to make the choices that adults need to make. There is nothing special for someone who is 3 months away from being 18 or 3 months past their 18th birthday. There are certainly people who are 16 and could easily have the mental capacity for being an adult, likewise, there are people who are 21+ and don't seem to have that capacity. It's an arbitrary age that we as a society have decided that most people are ready to take on adult responsibilities.
I think 18 is generally a good age for adulthood but when it comes to "adult relationships" (read sex mainly) that we need to put some much needed exceptions into the law. I think there should be a "Romeo and Juliet" clause that says the following:
1. If one or both persons are under 18 then they must be within 5 years age of each other (This allows for a high school freshman to date a senior and also covers people in college going out with high schools are that about to leave high school)
2. If they take pictures/videos of each other while they are under 18 (obviously they shouldn't but it's happening all the time) for their own or their partner's self gratification then it's not considered CP so long as they don't send it to adults, not including their parents.
3. I also think that since most people do end up having sex by 14 or 15 that we should consider the age of consent laws to actually be lowered to 16, like most other countries (granted in some States it is 16 or 17 but it's not uniform, which makes things hard on adults.
The "Think of the Children" crowd (politicians and overprotective parents) need to be fired. Out of a cannon. Into a wall. The quicker we get rid of these reactionary, non-rational people the sooner we can have reasonable laws in this country again.
That's how I see it as well. Unless an ad is flashing or moving to get my attention, I almost never notice it. When I do come across one of those ads I navigate away from the page as fast as I can.
I've probably only clicked on a handful of ads in the last 7+ years and at least half of them I clicked on because I was actively looking for a product and a website to sell it to me.
If you think that's geeky you should read more posts. There are some that come out near incomprehensible, even to people familiar with a certain field (but not experts).
Most of the time, unless we are talking about some esoteric computer topic, a lot of people realize that their area of expertise may not be everyone else's and they try to either keep buzzwords out altogether or they will provide links (usually to Wikipedia) to help explain their posts.
I saw a program several months ago detailing NewEgg's process for managing a warehouse. They were featured because they were doing several things that hadn't been done in warehouses and shipping.
They are very efficient as you say and do get most orders out the same day. The $2.99 guarantee's that it will go out the same day. The way they ensure this is by having a separate conveyor belt for picking and packaging their express orders. This means that it will be ready to send out within about 15 minutes instead of several hours.
What reasoning did she use to come to that conclusion?
Does she think that being around another kid that is immunized will pass it on???
It seems obvious to me, and probably to you too, that in this case its very likely genetic.
Is there a news story reference for this person?
Heh! I resembl...I mean resent that remark! Babylon 5 is a great...err...what's Babylon 5?
I would still describe what you outlined as corruption. It's just more subtle. Like what lobbyists often do in Washington.
I wish there were a mod point for "+10 Should Be Repeated on all the News Outlets Ad-nauseum"
Here is what they have under the law (from Wikipedia): Internet networks are in many respects already treated like common carriers. ISPs are largely immune from liability for third party content. The Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act established immunity from liability for third party content on grounds of libel or slander. The DMCA established that ISPs which comply with DMCA would not be liable for the copyright violations of third parties on their network.
This is exactly what happens in the movie business. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if they (MPAA) really understand this. Or they just haven't asked why piracy happens. They just assume that it's because people don't want to pay for their entertainment but will do so if they are forced to.
Interesting. I didn't know that. I got it from another Slashdot user. It's one of my favorites. I've got a few others in my profile. There are so many apt ones that I could use lately (especially relating to politics these days).
Pretty much unless they can show that you are monitoring your connection or you have a copy of the images on your machine they would fail to prove that you could have known. However, that does nothing to prevent them from doing a Show Trial where your name is dragged through the mud. Maybe that is the intention of this law.
After reading it, I still think it's a bad bill but it's not nearly as bad as TFS made it seem. You have to know that someone is downloading CP using your WiFi connection and not report it.
There is one piece of the legislation that doesn't make sense. It's early in the morning and I might be reading it wrong but as I read it they are indemnifying anyone in the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children from intentional misconduct while making it sound like these are reasons that they can be brought to court under civil or criminal statutes: (b) Intentional, Reckless, or Other Misconduct- Subsection (a) shall not apply to a claim or charge if the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or a director, officer, employee, or agent of such center--
(1) engaged in intentional misconduct; or
(2) acted, or failed to act--
(A) with actual malice;
(B) with reckless disregard to a substantial risk of causing injury without legal justification; or
(C) for a purpose unrelated to the performance of any responsibility or function under this section, section 2258A or 2258C of this title, or section 404 of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5773). Lastly, we don't need a law like this. I've seen no evidence that what they are railing against in this legislation is even a minor problem. It seems to be just another "think of the children law" for an election year.
Our values are tested not when times are easy, for that is something that anyone or nation can do.
They are tested when times are hard, when you have to stand your ground despite the short term consequences.
Those who would give up their values when times are tough never really ascribed to them in the first place.
Those people don't deserve their rights that have been fought for;
for they would give it away so easily that the values themselves are meaningless.
Oh! How contemptible those people are.
Wow! Excellent post. I wish you were logged in so that I could friend you.
Thanks for the insightful post.
I may not like everything you said (as in cognitive dissonance) but sadly it's true.
I try to support those groups that I think helps protect us from the Government stomping on our rights like the EFF and to a degree the ACLU. You're right that they aren't perfect and they don't always address everything that I would like them to but I can't imagine if we didn't have them (or some organization like them) in our country.
I would love to find a better motive than profit for media companies but I'm not sure what it could be...(as you've pointed out, it needs to be separate from the government or it breeds corruption).
Thanks for the insight. Friended.