Do people even know what they want from a partner?
Especially since they have typically been bombarded with propaganda as to what they should want since they were old enough to understand language in many societies... Most likely even when people did know what they wanted they would be reluctant to say so if it went against some expected "norm".
People talk and talk about wanting this trait and that trait but they often seem to date people that are nothing like they claim they want. I'm honestly convinced people in general have no idea what they want,
Maybe they do but arn't too good at saying what they want. If they will do better or worst on some kind of questionnaire (or to someone they don't know at all) may depend very much on their personality.
That's not to say the other sites manage to filter out 100% of the crazies but personal experience has shown a connection between 'Cheap' and 'Crazy,' thus a free site is going to have a higher proportion of 'riff-raff.'
This might be especially an issue for any sites which have sexist charging policies...
But if I said I didn't have an incentive to to make beneficial or creative works without a
copyright monopoly, then all of a sudden people just take it on faith, they don't even question
it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. In my humble opinion, this is
intellectually dishonest, especially considering that the entire Renaissance happened without
copyrights.
Copyright is very recent concept. Whereas creative works have been going on as long as there have been humans. All we know about people from tens of thousands of years ago from their artifacts and artwork.
One thing that came up in my classes was data showing that most copyrights are nearly worthless within a few years.
In some cases considerably less than that.
For instance, right now there's probably a sudden rush of books about Michael Jackson, but in ten years those new books will probably be forgotten. Why bother protecting them for 60+ years beyond that?
Because the industry is interested in milking the exceptions, which include Mr Jackson's music, for as long as possible. They can still make money, even though copyright is utterly useless for the task of encouraging him to produce more music.
I've seen some research to suggest that the optimal term for this monopoly is around 12-14 years. Any longer than that and the monopoly's benefit decreases until eventually it even prevents the natural flow of progress.
There's a point at which "too much" worst than none at all as well as a point where the damage is more or less total. An analogy would be that copyright works like a nutrient, a dificency is bad, an excess is toxic, more than a lethal overdose can't make anything any more dead.
Left in the hands of the copyright lobby, we know their motive, and they make it quite clear: money.
Money for them, which may or may not be good for the entire economy. They may not even be right themselves. Considering that in the past technologies which were going to "kill the industry" have instead made them lots of money.
All drugs should be legalised. Then they can spend our money on actually locking up REAL criminals for twenty to fifty years, that would bring crime down by a huge amount.
Might need both an election and a police recruitment campaign afterwards though:)
A 'sound system' could be anything from a boom box to a full on pa system, hell it could have been some speakers attached to an amp for just a cd player, to play any sort of music.
Or even a car with the doors open, which usefully dosn't need a separate generator.
just go read the stories about the use of kettling tactics by the Met at the recent London protests, and take a look at the videos that show police officers in full riot gear assaulting completely non-violent people, in some cases those who were just passing through the wrong place at the wrong time on their way home from work and didn't even have anything to do with the protests. One such person died, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission received hundreds of complaints and are actively investigating several cases of alleged police brutality where the video evidence captured by others present seems pretty hard to see any other way.
However if similar allegations were made against members of the public (especially if the alleged victims were police officers) they would undoubtedly have been arrested and their names and pictures splashed all over the media. Ditto for gangsters who gunned someone down in a tube train.
I HATE the "I have nothing to hide" crowd. They act as if the law is fair and abuses of power do not exist. They act as if the law does not make mistakes!
As well as assuming that police and politicians are never dishonest, corrupt or incompetent. (The fact that positions of power will always attract exactly the sort of people who will abuse any power they can lay their hands on is probably beyond their comprehension.)
Its amazing how easy it is for some people to just give up what many have fought and died for because they dont think it concerns them.
It would be nice if there was some way for these fools to only give up their own freedoms!
The worrying thing is that the police haven't backed down and acknowledged it as a mistake - they still believe that anything advertised on the Internet as an "all-night party" should be illegal.
The only people who appear to have made this assumption are the police. Maybe they have been given the ability to "see" things which would otherwise be private. (Or more likely run some kind of bot, since even an idiot would have seen that 18 people hardly constitutes a "rave".)
What is this, a curfew? Telling us when bed time is? Talk about nanny-state - it's like the strict rules my college used to have about parties, where you needed permission, and parties had to be over by midnight.
In this case the police turned up mid afternoon...
I think an openly racist police officer should be fired. If not, you get crap like Rodney King on one extreme and OJ on the other. Things like this make it hard to support cops. The youtube videos of police brutality out there don't really help either. I still believe most are good, but I feel as a whole they are worse than the general public.
The issue here is more basic than one of "race" a police officer who assaults a member of the public should not simply be fired. He/she should belongs in a prison cell. People who's job is law enforcement need to be held to a higher standard than the general public when it comes to their upholding the law. All too often it appears that they are held to a much lower standard. At the same time things are considered more serious if the victim of a crime happens to be a police officer.
A lot of people misinterpret what "freedom of expression" means.
The thing is that it is necessary for unpopular, non-PC and even "offensive" points of view. Popular, PC and "inoffensive" things don't tend to be subject to censor.
There are laws for the workplace that take precedence over your rights. The law protects employees against being discriminated against or being harassed because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, disabilities, sexual orientation, and gender.
At least in theory. It isn't easy to such draft laws in such a way that makes it difficult to abuse them for discrimination and/or harassment. e.g. having a false complaint attract at least as strong a sentence as a conviction.
We pander because those same groups have a habit of hiring lawyers and having laws passed to "protect" them.
Whilst ignoring that this sends out the message that if people actually need such "protection" they are somehow inferior.
My girlfriend is black, I'm not... and we both feel precisely the way you do. Granted, she wasn't born here, she's African by birth. In spite of that (or, more likely, because of that, she grew up in some damn tough environments) she believes that a lot of people in this country just need to deal with the fact that life can be harsh.
Assuming that "this country" is the US she probably dosn't think much of the term "African-American" either.
Sure, if they were not suing the city then I agree - where this case looses all credibility for me is that they're not suing the individuals but the city.
This appears to happen all too often in cases involving the police. Instead of suing (or prosecuting) misbehaving police officers the police force itself is sued. Which is likely to be counter productive long term even if the police/city loses. (Either taxes will be raised to pay for this or the number of front line police are likely to be cut.) The only unusual thing here is that the people complaining are themselves police officers.
As someone else stated - if I'm at work and I view something offensive to a co-worker, I'm the one at fault, not my employer.
Or maybe they are, e.g. they have a grudge against you are are looking for an excuse. Maybe you both are at fault...
If a man goes to a private website like say, Playboy in private and then discusses it in front of female co-workers, they may be charged with harassment.
If a woman was to go to somewhere like Playgirl then discussed it in front of male co-workers would she be equally likely to be charged with harassment? Aside from possible sexism, what if a sports fan were to discuss his/her sport in front of non fan co-workers...
Ya that's part of the rub with using Google things for a business. They hold all your data. What's more, Google is the ultimate data mining company. They have tools like no one else for looking through vast amounts of data to find what they want. As such, they could, if they wished, very easily dig in to our data for company secrets. Now, they say they won't, but all you have is their word on that.
Since it isn't Google's data "they" don't have much incentive to keep it secure nor are they likely to make sure that "they" don't employ someone with links to your competitors. Google storing data related to many businesses automatically makes them a target for spys, by they government, commercial or criminal...
Especially given that where passports are typically used it's important to ensure that you are reading the right passport and using RFIDs are vulnerable to a fairly simple denial of service attack.
The only "surprising" and novel bit about this story is that he apparently/supposedly didn't do it for the e-fame or e-gain, but for RMTing the scammed ISK because of real life troubles, which was the reason for his subsequent banning.
The basic problem is that he was able to convert the in game currency into a real world currency. Maybe they need to find out exactly how he did this.
Slashdot Mirror
Do people even know what they want from a partner?
Especially since they have typically been bombarded with propaganda as to what they should want since they were old enough to understand language in many societies...
Most likely even when people did know what they wanted they would be reluctant to say so if it went against some expected "norm".
People talk and talk about wanting this trait and that trait but they often seem to date people that are nothing like they claim they want. I'm honestly convinced people in general have no idea what they want,
Maybe they do but arn't too good at saying what they want. If they will do better or worst on some kind of questionnaire (or to someone they don't know at all) may depend very much on their personality.
That's not to say the other sites manage to filter out 100% of the crazies but personal experience has shown a connection between 'Cheap' and 'Crazy,' thus a free site is going to have a higher proportion of 'riff-raff.'
This might be especially an issue for any sites which have sexist charging policies...
But if I said I didn't have an incentive to to make beneficial or creative works without a copyright monopoly, then all of a sudden people just take it on faith, they don't even question it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. In my humble opinion, this is intellectually dishonest, especially considering that the entire Renaissance happened without copyrights.
Copyright is very recent concept. Whereas creative works have been going on as long as there have been humans. All we know about people from tens of thousands of years ago from their artifacts and artwork.
One thing that came up in my classes was data showing that most copyrights are nearly worthless within a few years.
In some cases considerably less than that.
For instance, right now there's probably a sudden rush of books about Michael Jackson, but in ten years those new books will probably be forgotten. Why bother protecting them for 60+ years beyond that?
Because the industry is interested in milking the exceptions, which include Mr Jackson's music, for as long as possible. They can still make money, even though copyright is utterly useless for the task of encouraging him to produce more music.
Copyleft (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/) is about using copyrights in the opposite direction than proprietary software distributors.
As well as in a way which appears to be much more "in tune" with the justification for copyright given in the US Constitution.
I've seen some research to suggest that the optimal term for this monopoly is around 12-14 years. Any longer than that and the monopoly's benefit decreases until eventually it even prevents the natural flow of progress.
There's a point at which "too much" worst than none at all as well as a point where the damage is more or less total.
An analogy would be that copyright works like a nutrient, a dificency is bad, an excess is toxic, more than a lethal overdose can't make anything any more dead.
Left in the hands of the copyright lobby, we know their motive, and they make it quite clear: money.
Money for them, which may or may not be good for the entire economy. They may not even be right themselves. Considering that in the past technologies which were going to "kill the industry" have instead made them lots of money.
All drugs should be legalised. Then they can spend our money on actually locking up REAL criminals for twenty to fifty years, that would bring crime down by a huge amount.
:)
Might need both an election and a police recruitment campaign afterwards though
A 'sound system' could be anything from a boom box to a full on pa system, hell it could have been some speakers attached to an amp for just a cd player, to play any sort of music.
Or even a car with the doors open, which usefully dosn't need a separate generator.
just go read the stories about the use of kettling tactics by the Met at the recent London protests, and take a look at the videos that show police officers in full riot gear assaulting completely non-violent people, in some cases those who were just passing through the wrong place at the wrong time on their way home from work and didn't even have anything to do with the protests. One such person died, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission received hundreds of complaints and are actively investigating several cases of alleged police brutality where the video evidence captured by others present seems pretty hard to see any other way.
However if similar allegations were made against members of the public (especially if the alleged victims were police officers) they would undoubtedly have been arrested and their names and pictures splashed all over the media. Ditto for gangsters who gunned someone down in a tube train.
I HATE the "I have nothing to hide" crowd. They act as if the law is fair and abuses of power do not exist.
They act as if the law does not make mistakes!
As well as assuming that police and politicians are never dishonest, corrupt or incompetent. (The fact that positions of power will always attract exactly the sort of people who will abuse any power they can lay their hands on is probably beyond their comprehension.)
Its amazing how easy it is for some people to just give up what many have fought and died for because they dont think it concerns them.
It would be nice if there was some way for these fools to only give up their own freedoms!
The worrying thing is that the police haven't backed down and acknowledged it as a mistake - they still believe that anything advertised on the Internet as an "all-night party" should be illegal.
The only people who appear to have made this assumption are the police. Maybe they have been given the ability to "see" things which would otherwise be private. (Or more likely run some kind of bot, since even an idiot would have seen that 18 people hardly constitutes a "rave".)
What is this, a curfew? Telling us when bed time is? Talk about nanny-state - it's like the strict rules my college used to have about parties, where you needed permission, and parties had to be over by midnight.
In this case the police turned up mid afternoon...
I, for one, will be tagging every Facebook event I list from now on as an all-night party in Sowton, Devon, UK. I encourage you to do the same.
:)
You could put down EX2 7HQ as the location. That should save them some jet fuel
You're allowed to hold any idiot opinion you want in the USA. You are not allowed to express it on the job.
:)
With the exception of elected officials where it appears to be a requirement
Don't like it? Go be a cop in Saudi, where I'm sure you're allowed to be as racist as you like.
So long as your ethnicity is acceptable in the Saudi police force and your form of racism is PC there. Ditto for Zimbabwe...
I think an openly racist police officer should be fired. If not, you get crap like Rodney King on one extreme and OJ on the other. Things like this make it hard to support cops. The youtube videos of police brutality out there don't really help either. I still believe most are good, but I feel as a whole they are worse than the general public.
The issue here is more basic than one of "race" a police officer who assaults a member of the public should not simply be fired. He/she should belongs in a prison cell.
People who's job is law enforcement need to be held to a higher standard than the general public when it comes to their upholding the law. All too often it appears that they are held to a much lower standard. At the same time things are considered more serious if the victim of a crime happens to be a police officer.
A lot of people misinterpret what "freedom of expression" means.
The thing is that it is necessary for unpopular, non-PC and even "offensive" points of view. Popular, PC and "inoffensive" things don't tend to be subject to censor.
There are laws for the workplace that take precedence over your rights. The law protects employees against being discriminated against or being harassed because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, disabilities, sexual orientation, and gender.
At least in theory. It isn't easy to such draft laws in such a way that makes it difficult to abuse them for discrimination and/or harassment. e.g. having a false complaint attract at least as strong a sentence as a conviction.
We pander because those same groups have a habit of hiring lawyers and having laws passed to "protect" them.
... and we both feel precisely the way you do. Granted, she wasn't born here, she's African by birth. In spite of that (or, more likely, because of that, she grew up in some damn tough environments) she believes that a lot of people in this country just need to deal with the fact that life can be harsh.
Whilst ignoring that this sends out the message that if people actually need such "protection" they are somehow inferior.
My girlfriend is black, I'm not
Assuming that "this country" is the US she probably dosn't think much of the term "African-American" either.
Sure, if they were not suing the city then I agree - where this case looses all credibility for me is that they're not suing the individuals but the city.
This appears to happen all too often in cases involving the police. Instead of suing (or prosecuting) misbehaving police officers the police force itself is sued. Which is likely to be counter productive long term even if the police/city loses. (Either taxes will be raised to pay for this or the number of front line police are likely to be cut.) The only unusual thing here is that the people complaining are themselves police officers.
As someone else stated - if I'm at work and I view something offensive to a co-worker, I'm the one at fault, not my employer.
Or maybe they are, e.g. they have a grudge against you are are looking for an excuse. Maybe you both are at fault...
If a man goes to a private website like say, Playboy in private and then discusses it in front of female co-workers, they may be charged with harassment.
If a woman was to go to somewhere like Playgirl then discussed it in front of male co-workers would she be equally likely to be charged with harassment? Aside from possible sexism, what if a sports fan were to discuss his/her sport in front of non fan co-workers...
The cost savings of Google Apps would be in not having to host servers.
Against this would be the cost of bandwidth and redundancy in your connection to Google.
Ya that's part of the rub with using Google things for a business. They hold all your data. What's more, Google is the ultimate data mining company. They have tools like no one else for looking through vast amounts of data to find what they want. As such, they could, if they wished, very easily dig in to our data for company secrets. Now, they say they won't, but all you have is their word on that.
Since it isn't Google's data "they" don't have much incentive to keep it secure nor are they likely to make sure that "they" don't employ someone with links to your competitors.
Google storing data related to many businesses automatically makes them a target for spys, by they government, commercial or criminal...
Or how about just not using RFID at all?
Especially given that where passports are typically used it's important to ensure that you are reading the right passport and using RFIDs are vulnerable to a fairly simple denial of service attack.
That's its name these days. Nobody, not even themselves, call it "British Telecom".
At one time people were jokingly calling them Bombay Telecom. At least until India changed the name of the city.
It's a game about betraying, conning, etc. Only the RMT part was an issue at all, Eve is all about ripping others off ingame.
But they don't appear interested in having real world laws used against the guy.
The only "surprising" and novel bit about this story is that he apparently/supposedly didn't do it for the e-fame or e-gain, but for RMTing the scammed ISK because of real life troubles, which was the reason for his subsequent banning.
The basic problem is that he was able to convert the in game currency into a real world currency. Maybe they need to find out exactly how he did this.