I agree. I was not referring to the burden of evidence for Microsoft. I was referring to the burden of evidence for me to take real interest, believe something was up, and want to lend support.
I'm talking about the burden of evidence for a reader's critical evaluation of a blog. I suggest we take the rules of criminal evidence as a starting point - it must be more than hearsay.
There's too much credulity on the Internet, and it gets sites the click-thrus, and I think we need to wise up to that. Five years ago we needed to wise up to that.
We get the Internet we deserve. It is the people's medium.
In my opinion, there is only one way to do this properly in the US. We hold a Constitutional Convention, and we reevaluate the first amendment in a modern context.
Any attempt to do this legislatively should be jealously struck down by the Supreme Court.
Oh, and Rush Limbaugh just launched his political action committee. He's going to try to bring down President Obama. So consider carefully whether you want the "protections" this law affords.
Honestly, I think we need to limit the speech rights of legal entities, to level the playing field with the humble individual. We need to state that a conglomerate of any kind, be it a union or a corporation, does not have the same rights as an individual, in order to strengthen individual rights.
The problem here is not free speech. It is that individual rights have been diluted by poor choices, and "common sense" has been diluted by collective organizations that have more rights than a person because they have more money. We need to reevaluate those choices, and stop looking at this as a zero sum game.
That's the first thing I thought too. Did President George H. W. Bush write this summary? It's the economy... (you know the rest).
Unless we're claiming that RIAA lawsuits were the cause of that, too. If that's the case, Federal agents should be kicking their doors in right... about...;^)
Yup. You're right. In fact they're all like me. If you prick me, I bleed.
Walkingshark, I'm sorry we lost touch in this discussion. I got testy with you, and that's because for me, "people like you," is one step away from "you people," which was a nice way to say "nigger" in a bygone day. I am white, so don't feel bad about it.
I reacted with the force of that pain, and everyone who's ever hit me for hitting on them, and it was more than you deserved. As I said before, I am bi-sexual, and if that is a problem, it is mine.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that everything she said happened, Spun.
The reason I want evidence - Part of the TOS, a cease and desist letter, any objective evidence - is that it showed up here, on Slashdot, as a news item. Discrimination is serious business, and if Slashdot can't live up to the demands those grave charges imply, then they should leave the crap reporting to Drudge. If they keep it up, they will be sued out of existence for something like this. You can't hide behind "it's not our blog" when you print a headline.
You have provided evidence of a context in which her actions on XBL were, to my mind, justified, but if it's contravened by the TOS, then Microsoft is being negligent to allow such an environment. Her beef should be with the community Microsoft has provided. She needs to say that she was being made to feel uncomfortable by other gamers, probably the reason she identified (to not have to play with people who say "gay" as if it's a synonym for "doofus").
She may well win her case.
And when the police force then comes to XBox Live, perhaps even Big Brother total monitoring, remember that we used to just try to get along. Any Constitutional demand is an appeal of last resort. It's not something to be bandied about lightly. I hope she isn't.
My beef is with this community, which is. This was a shitty news item. She could be a victim and she could be a nutter, she's probably a little of both, and there's not enough indication of which to put it on the front page. This is a Con-law issue. We should treat it that way.
I don't even like Microsoft, but to quote Paine
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
This is not about "piracy." Nintendo is lobbying governments. That's the boring headline.
All mass-market corporations lobby governments to have the playing field tilted in their direction. The only way to justify the cost of the lawyers and bribes it takes to get that playing field tilted is real gain. Piracy is only one aspect of that effort.
And all of them have been doing it for decades now so it be pretty darn lucrative.
Wait? What now? The Dow's in the 7000's? The Soviet Union collapsed? So did the global economy?
Strike that. Replace "lucrative" with "ludicrous." Government is a lousy way to run a business.
Quietly standing by while people are subject to discrimintation based on traits they were born with is not morally acceptable to me.
Good point.
But assuming that that is the case, open and shut, on the basis of hearsay, in a situation where the complainant should have primary evidence (in the form of correspondence), if not the relevant portion of the Live TOS that is discriminatory, and a decent argument why it is such, is morally reprehensible.
I'm just guessing, but I suspect that Microsoft has a general TOS against sexual content on the service, because most game services have TOS's against stuff like that. It isn't necessary to list one's preference, because it's not a matchmaking service. No matter what bigoted jerks on X-Box said about it, and I'm pretty sure some of the users said some terrible things, that doesn't mean that such abuse is Microsoft's official position.
This is why there's an ESRB warning that "online content is not rated." Indemnity.
That does not excuse their responsibility to enforce the entire TOS. I imagine she caught hell from the community itself, and every single one of them should be put on warning, or similarly banned, if they made a public fuss on the service. If they were mean, I would not "quietly stand by." I would have defended the woman, and corroborated abuse reports to Microsoft. Hard to tell from the blog, though.
If hers is the only account that was banned, and not also people who abused her on Live for her gay pride, then there is clear-cut discrimination going on, and Microsoft should be sued. I am sure such abuse is against the TOS.
I know that would be at least half the patrons' response. I used to drink with them. That's no troll, that was "insightful." Mod that sucker up.
Such people, even when it was said once, were not welcome.
The point is that XBox live is not a pick-up anything, and so any open discussion of sexual preference or sexuality might be unwelcome in that context.
Literally, it doesn't matter whether you're straight, gay or bi on X-Box Live, and there may be a safe harbor policy in place, "for the children," and since it is a private service, that is MS's prerogative.
We can argue about the extent of that prerogative all day. You either believe in private communities, or you believe that anti-discrimination laws have a wider scope. The legal reality is blurry, save in the matter of religion, and there was no first-hand evidence of anything. Just hearsay and analysis of hearsay. At that point, you don't have "news," IMHO, you have an unsubstantiated rumor.
Maybe this person really did get discriminated against. If so, I think that's deplorable, and I hope the ACLU, or some other defense fund, tears MS a new one over it. I just highly doubt it because there is no clear evidence provided in TFA. That was the second, less controversial part of my response. Lack of evidence is my real problem with the article.
Sure. But only if it's true. That's a leap. I need some evidence in Microsoft's own words, not the words of some blogger looking to, gasp, smear a large corporation for being 'evil.'
YASC - Yet Another Smear Campaign
Until the day I see some evidence, at which point I immediately say that Microsoft should go to hell. Citation please, ya' know?;^)
So here's how it really works. There are no "people like me." There is also no such thing as monsters.
You are prejudiced, childish, and your unwillingness to try to read my comment, or understand that the analogy was about context, rather than severity, is why you fail.
So who am I, sir? Do you have any idea? Or are you merely calling out raca in an attempt to plug your own ears and mind.
I will give you a spot. I am proudly bi-sexual, and support same sex unions. Have fun with the rest.
Big and dangerous? You think that is because of your nunchaku skills? Or because you are a insecure rough neck?
LOL.
You are making assumptions. I am a complete wuss, and I know it. I said I "look" dangerous, and I know this because people have told me so, and I've also noticed people who don't know me often become intimidated. It's a bit of a joke with my friends. I have an unusually loud voice and I just seem to hold myself a certain way, but I couldn't hurt a person because I don't know how and I don't want to.
I know some basic immobilizing moves for self-defense of course, but I'm more likely to carry pepper spray than think I'm a bad ass. Those things are for desperation, which I avoid at all costs.
But thanks for the complement about the rest of what I said.
Why should announcing your sexual orientation start a fight? The bad behavior is on the part of people who feel that it is ok to persecute someone for talking about their sexual orientation.
Okay. I'm going to go down to the local lesbian bar (I used to drink there with some friends) and say, loudly but not unreasonably so, "I like to screw chicks!" Repeatedly.
Let's see how long it takes before the police show up. I'd be lucky if someone politely asked me to cut it out, because I'm a big guy, and I look dangerous.
It's all about context, dude. Look past your prejudices.
Furthermore, the article says "Teresa says that she was harassed by other players and later suspended..." What this is known as, in rules of evidence, is hearsay.
She is supposing, perhaps assuming, that Microsoft has banned her for that reason. Well guess what? I've had people say I hit them, in a crowd, when I didn't even touch them. There's no quoted email from Microsoft saying, "HI. WE ARE THE MICROSOFT AND WE BANNED U 4 THE GAY." There needs to be some evidence for this to be more than just Internet flotsam.
I'm sorry, but in the age of blogs and Internet truthiness, all of you gullible types are going to have to bone up on what is admissible evidence, because it's generally equal to what counts as credible evidence.
This sounds, barring actual evidence, very much like someone who has a chip on her shoulder about being a lesbian, assuming and projecting her own pathologies onto a corporation because they are unlikely to challenge her. Anyone who had any evidence at all could provide some kind of official correspondence, or at the very least, anyone with a clue could fake it.
This is just someone trolling. And you bit. So did Slashdot. Nuff said. Look past your prejudices.
Change or die. You are irrelevant, and that's why you're seeing less money from licensing deals. Y'all should get down on your knees and thank God that industry publishers can still make money off of properties like "Welcome to the Jungle" and "Talk Dirty To Me."
It did say in TFA that jailbreaking for interoperability has been determined as "fair use."
Sure. It's "fair use" if you do it in a lab, for educational or security purposes.
It is something else entirely if you then try to distribute the results, in whole or in part, as a derivative work. Those investigators can't rightfully "fork" Apple's code base.
The EFF is not a straight-shooter in this case, because they are engaged in a legal action.
Famously, on the "Colbert Report" the other night, Steven asked his brother about a legal matter, "So, who's right?"
His brother replied, "Who's paying me?"
That's what you're dealing with when you get "information" from EFF's site. They are as biased as you can get toward whatever they think best promotes their views.
I don't think it unethical, and often agree with them, but you should know where they stand. They are not a news organization.
Ho there, dude. Running software, any lawfully gotten software you like, on your personal device is your right, because it is your personal property. The law is pretty clear on that.
"Fair use" only comes into play when reproducing a copyrighted work, and it almost never applies if you reproduce the work entirely, as someone with an iPhone would technically be doing when they modify the operating software to open it up to an unlicensed version.
That's a "derivative work," under copyright law, and Apple has the rights.
I would guess they're saying you have to copy the software to break it, and therefore the whole action is illegal. "Fair use" generally does not apply to full copies of a work.
This is why free software is such a good idea and why nobody should buy Apple. There's no "good will" for their customers, which they treat as sheep.
This is also why we need new law for protecting software, because copyright and patent laws often are applied to software in ridiculous and unforeseen ways. Neither branch of law is adequate to protect, and promote, software development.
Well that's never going to work. In a down economy, nobody's going to buy a new computer on "faith" that the new Windows 7 upgrade will fix it.
Of course, Vista works now on new computers, but that's the problem they have to overcome. Loss of faith in Microsoft. A free upgrade to the next Microsoft OS isn't going to repair that damage. Neither did paying Jerry Seinfeld to "stand around" with Bill Gates.
Promises and image management are no longer going to work here. The PR battle has already been lost. Only a shipping product can begin to repair the damage.
Slashdot Mirror
If you started wheezing every time you ran around the playlot with your friends, what would you sit around doing all day?
This is not "correlationisnotcausation," this is "thankyoucaptainobvious."
--
Toro
What's the tag-line on that company anyway: "Elections are the problem, Premier is the solution?"
--
Toro
Heh, I brought up T-cells to my 6-year-old today. She knew what I was talking about.
She told me: "A T-cell eats the virus."
I said: "No. A T-cell give the virus a great big hug, and no virus can withstand being hugged."
She liked my version. Oh, and dude you have been friended. Another reasonable person found.
--
Toro
I agree. I was not referring to the burden of evidence for Microsoft. I was referring to the burden of evidence for me to take real interest, believe something was up, and want to lend support.
I'm talking about the burden of evidence for a reader's critical evaluation of a blog. I suggest we take the rules of criminal evidence as a starting point - it must be more than hearsay.
There's too much credulity on the Internet, and it gets sites the click-thrus, and I think we need to wise up to that. Five years ago we needed to wise up to that.
We get the Internet we deserve. It is the people's medium.
--
Toro
In my opinion, there is only one way to do this properly in the US. We hold a Constitutional Convention, and we reevaluate the first amendment in a modern context.
Any attempt to do this legislatively should be jealously struck down by the Supreme Court.
Oh, and Rush Limbaugh just launched his political action committee. He's going to try to bring down President Obama. So consider carefully whether you want the "protections" this law affords.
Honestly, I think we need to limit the speech rights of legal entities, to level the playing field with the humble individual. We need to state that a conglomerate of any kind, be it a union or a corporation, does not have the same rights as an individual, in order to strengthen individual rights.
The problem here is not free speech. It is that individual rights have been diluted by poor choices, and "common sense" has been diluted by collective organizations that have more rights than a person because they have more money. We need to reevaluate those choices, and stop looking at this as a zero sum game.
--
Toro
That's the first thing I thought too. Did President George H. W. Bush write this summary? It's the economy... (you know the rest).
Unless we're claiming that RIAA lawsuits were the cause of that, too. If that's the case, Federal agents should be kicking their doors in right... about... ;^)
One can always hope.
There are plenty of people like you.
Yup. You're right. In fact they're all like me. If you prick me, I bleed.
Walkingshark, I'm sorry we lost touch in this discussion. I got testy with you, and that's because for me, "people like you," is one step away from "you people," which was a nice way to say "nigger" in a bygone day. I am white, so don't feel bad about it.
I reacted with the force of that pain, and everyone who's ever hit me for hitting on them, and it was more than you deserved. As I said before, I am bi-sexual, and if that is a problem, it is mine.
Have a blessed day.
--
Toro
Ding. We just came to an absolute accord in one exchange. I hope the alleged victim is well, but I also hope she doesn't need to sue.
Thanks for checking up on me.
--
Toro
I'm perfectly willing to believe that everything she said happened, Spun.
The reason I want evidence - Part of the TOS, a cease and desist letter, any objective evidence - is that it showed up here, on Slashdot, as a news item. Discrimination is serious business, and if Slashdot can't live up to the demands those grave charges imply, then they should leave the crap reporting to Drudge. If they keep it up, they will be sued out of existence for something like this. You can't hide behind "it's not our blog" when you print a headline.
You have provided evidence of a context in which her actions on XBL were, to my mind, justified, but if it's contravened by the TOS, then Microsoft is being negligent to allow such an environment. Her beef should be with the community Microsoft has provided. She needs to say that she was being made to feel uncomfortable by other gamers, probably the reason she identified (to not have to play with people who say "gay" as if it's a synonym for "doofus").
She may well win her case.
And when the police force then comes to XBox Live, perhaps even Big Brother total monitoring, remember that we used to just try to get along. Any Constitutional demand is an appeal of last resort. It's not something to be bandied about lightly. I hope she isn't.
My beef is with this community, which is. This was a shitty news item. She could be a victim and she could be a nutter, she's probably a little of both, and there's not enough indication of which to put it on the front page. This is a Con-law issue. We should treat it that way.
I don't even like Microsoft, but to quote Paine
He that would make his own liberty secure
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself.
--
Toro
This is not about "piracy." Nintendo is lobbying governments. That's the boring headline.
All mass-market corporations lobby governments to have the playing field tilted in their direction. The only way to justify the cost of the lawyers and bribes it takes to get that playing field tilted is real gain. Piracy is only one aspect of that effort.
And all of them have been doing it for decades now so it be pretty darn lucrative.
Wait? What now? The Dow's in the 7000's? The Soviet Union collapsed? So did the global economy?
Strike that. Replace "lucrative" with "ludicrous." Government is a lousy way to run a business.
-- ;^)
Toro
Quietly standing by while people are subject to discrimintation based on traits they were born with is not morally acceptable to me.
Good point.
But assuming that that is the case, open and shut, on the basis of hearsay, in a situation where the complainant should have primary evidence (in the form of correspondence), if not the relevant portion of the Live TOS that is discriminatory, and a decent argument why it is such, is morally reprehensible.
I'm just guessing, but I suspect that Microsoft has a general TOS against sexual content on the service, because most game services have TOS's against stuff like that. It isn't necessary to list one's preference, because it's not a matchmaking service. No matter what bigoted jerks on X-Box said about it, and I'm pretty sure some of the users said some terrible things, that doesn't mean that such abuse is Microsoft's official position.
This is why there's an ESRB warning that "online content is not rated." Indemnity.
That does not excuse their responsibility to enforce the entire TOS. I imagine she caught hell from the community itself, and every single one of them should be put on warning, or similarly banned, if they made a public fuss on the service. If they were mean, I would not "quietly stand by." I would have defended the woman, and corroborated abuse reports to Microsoft. Hard to tell from the blog, though.
If hers is the only account that was banned, and not also people who abused her on Live for her gay pride, then there is clear-cut discrimination going on, and Microsoft should be sued. I am sure such abuse is against the TOS.
but why?
Because!
Okayfinemister.
I know that would be at least half the patrons' response. I used to drink with them. That's no troll, that was "insightful." Mod that sucker up.
Such people, even when it was said once, were not welcome.
The point is that XBox live is not a pick-up anything, and so any open discussion of sexual preference or sexuality might be unwelcome in that context.
Literally, it doesn't matter whether you're straight, gay or bi on X-Box Live, and there may be a safe harbor policy in place, "for the children," and since it is a private service, that is MS's prerogative.
We can argue about the extent of that prerogative all day. You either believe in private communities, or you believe that anti-discrimination laws have a wider scope. The legal reality is blurry, save in the matter of religion, and there was no first-hand evidence of anything. Just hearsay and analysis of hearsay. At that point, you don't have "news," IMHO, you have an unsubstantiated rumor.
Maybe this person really did get discriminated against. If so, I think that's deplorable, and I hope the ACLU, or some other defense fund, tears MS a new one over it. I just highly doubt it because there is no clear evidence provided in TFA. That was the second, less controversial part of my response. Lack of evidence is my real problem with the article.
Sure. But only if it's true. That's a leap. I need some evidence in Microsoft's own words, not the words of some blogger looking to, gasp, smear a large corporation for being 'evil.'
YASC - Yet Another Smear Campaign
Until the day I see some evidence, at which point I immediately say that Microsoft should go to hell. Citation please, ya' know? ;^)
So here's how it really works. There are no "people like me." There is also no such thing as monsters.
You are prejudiced, childish, and your unwillingness to try to read my comment, or understand that the analogy was about context, rather than severity, is why you fail.
So who am I, sir? Do you have any idea? Or are you merely calling out raca in an attempt to plug your own ears and mind.
I will give you a spot. I am proudly bi-sexual, and support same sex unions. Have fun with the rest.
Big and dangerous? You think that is because of your nunchaku skills? Or because you are a insecure rough neck?
LOL.
You are making assumptions. I am a complete wuss, and I know it. I said I "look" dangerous, and I know this because people have told me so, and I've also noticed people who don't know me often become intimidated. It's a bit of a joke with my friends. I have an unusually loud voice and I just seem to hold myself a certain way, but I couldn't hurt a person because I don't know how and I don't want to.
I know some basic immobilizing moves for self-defense of course, but I'm more likely to carry pepper spray than think I'm a bad ass. Those things are for desperation, which I avoid at all costs.
But thanks for the complement about the rest of what I said.
Why should announcing your sexual orientation start a fight? The bad behavior is on the part of people who feel that it is ok to persecute someone for talking about their sexual orientation.
Okay. I'm going to go down to the local lesbian bar (I used to drink there with some friends) and say, loudly but not unreasonably so, "I like to screw chicks!" Repeatedly.
Let's see how long it takes before the police show up. I'd be lucky if someone politely asked me to cut it out, because I'm a big guy, and I look dangerous.
It's all about context, dude. Look past your prejudices.
Furthermore, the article says "Teresa says that she was harassed by other players and later suspended..." What this is known as, in rules of evidence, is hearsay.
She is supposing, perhaps assuming, that Microsoft has banned her for that reason. Well guess what? I've had people say I hit them, in a crowd, when I didn't even touch them. There's no quoted email from Microsoft saying, "HI. WE ARE THE MICROSOFT AND WE BANNED U 4 THE GAY." There needs to be some evidence for this to be more than just Internet flotsam.
I'm sorry, but in the age of blogs and Internet truthiness, all of you gullible types are going to have to bone up on what is admissible evidence, because it's generally equal to what counts as credible evidence.
This sounds, barring actual evidence, very much like someone who has a chip on her shoulder about being a lesbian, assuming and projecting her own pathologies onto a corporation because they are unlikely to challenge her. Anyone who had any evidence at all could provide some kind of official correspondence, or at the very least, anyone with a clue could fake it.
This is just someone trolling. And you bit. So did Slashdot. Nuff said. Look past your prejudices.
--
Toro
me == doofus
Guilty as charged.
I choose to believe him whenever it doesn't matter. It's part of the joke.
If I could mod this thread, Chicago-style, I'd give you a '+5 funny' for that one.
LOL!
That's nothing like the selective memories of those from my country, which "never" lost a war...
Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie - The War of 1812
--
Toro
Dear Time-Warner:
1985 called. It wants its business model back.
Change or die. You are irrelevant, and that's why you're seeing less money from licensing deals. Y'all should get down on your knees and thank God that industry publishers can still make money off of properties like "Welcome to the Jungle" and "Talk Dirty To Me."
Embrace it, or wither and die.
--
Toro
It did say in TFA that jailbreaking for interoperability has been determined as "fair use."
Sure. It's "fair use" if you do it in a lab, for educational or security purposes.
It is something else entirely if you then try to distribute the results, in whole or in part, as a derivative work. Those investigators can't rightfully "fork" Apple's code base.
The EFF is not a straight-shooter in this case, because they are engaged in a legal action.
Famously, on the "Colbert Report" the other night, Steven asked his brother about a legal matter, "So, who's right?"
His brother replied, "Who's paying me?"
That's what you're dealing with when you get "information" from EFF's site. They are as biased as you can get toward whatever they think best promotes their views.
I don't think it unethical, and often agree with them, but you should know where they stand. They are not a news organization.
--
Toro
Ho there, dude. Running software, any lawfully gotten software you like, on your personal device is your right, because it is your personal property. The law is pretty clear on that.
"Fair use" only comes into play when reproducing a copyrighted work, and it almost never applies if you reproduce the work entirely, as someone with an iPhone would technically be doing when they modify the operating software to open it up to an unlicensed version.
That's a "derivative work," under copyright law, and Apple has the rights.
I would guess they're saying you have to copy the software to break it, and therefore the whole action is illegal. "Fair use" generally does not apply to full copies of a work.
This is why free software is such a good idea and why nobody should buy Apple. There's no "good will" for their customers, which they treat as sheep.
This is also why we need new law for protecting software, because copyright and patent laws often are applied to software in ridiculous and unforeseen ways. Neither branch of law is adequate to protect, and promote, software development.
IANAL.
--
Toro
"Want to get sued? There's an app for that."
--
Toro }B^>
Well that's never going to work. In a down economy, nobody's going to buy a new computer on "faith" that the new Windows 7 upgrade will fix it.
Of course, Vista works now on new computers, but that's the problem they have to overcome. Loss of faith in Microsoft. A free upgrade to the next Microsoft OS isn't going to repair that damage. Neither did paying Jerry Seinfeld to "stand around" with Bill Gates.
Promises and image management are no longer going to work here. The PR battle has already been lost. Only a shipping product can begin to repair the damage.
--
Toro