"Now, tell me, Goldspider, if your neighbor found your name on this list and began to warn your other neighbors...are you going to be nice and not care about what they think of you?"
If my name ended up on some state or federal sex-offender list, what exactly would that have to do with MySpace?
"If a myspace profile is suddenly gone and people know MySpace is removing known sex offenders, it is entirely possible they will assume she is a sex offender"
There are plenty of reasons why MySpace will remove a porfile. It's not MySpace's fault if people makes incorrect presumptions as to why a particular profile was deleted. But let's suppose MySpace IS in fact in the wrong here...
"Just this morning I was talking to someone whose co-worker has a hard time getting jobs because if you do a Google search for his name, the first things that come up are articles about him being accused of being a rapist."
Does that mean that Google is in the wrong as well? Should they pre-emptively strike content that may prove damaging to someone down the road?
"If being purchased by Fox news was not enough reason..."
Ahh, now we know the angle you're taking on this. Not that News Corp. (let alone their subsidiary Fox News) has anything to do with this, but I suppose nothing fetches karma like bashing Slashdot's favorite pariahs.
I read that sentiment here all the time, and it's always bunk.
Are you suggesting that whenever a child makes a poor decision, it's because his/her parent(s) were irresponsible or negligent? Were you a perfect child? Did you always do the right thing? If not, does that mean you were raised by lousy perents?
Newsflash: Sometimes kids still make poor decisions despite their parents' best efforts.
Kids need to be supervised so that bad behavior/lapses in judgement can be corrected. Sure, if a child is raised right, he or she will be less inclined to make bad decisions. That doesn't mean there's a set amount of "good parenting" after which point a child can be left to their own devices and counted upon to always be responsible.
When I have kids, they can have all the privacy they want... when they move out and get their own place. Until then, they'll live by my rules and with as much privacy as I determine they've earned.
I don't see how giving kids free reign teaches them about responsibility and consequences. In fact, I believe that doing so teaches them the exact opposite.
"a 14 year old is physically capable both in their brain and the rest of their body of assuming a position as a young, but real, adult in modern society"
You might be ready to let a 14 year old drive a car, but I sure as hell am not. In fact I'd support raising the minimum age to get a lisence to 18, considering how many accidents are caused by young, irresponsible drivers.
Yes, people in this age group are no longer merely children. That doesn't make them adults though. That comes with responsibility and experience that most people simply don't have at that age.
...parents have every right, responsibility even, to monitor their children's actions/behavior. That's not to say that it should be 24/7, but the summary's implicit suggestion that "spying" on children is inappropriate displays a vast ignorance of/indifference to responsible parenting.
As Ronald Reagan said, "trust, but verify". There is nothing wrong with knowing what your child is doing on a home computer. There is nothing wrong with knowing where your child is. A child doesn't have the right to conceal their activities/whereabouts from his/her parents.
Again, I think legislative efforts like this have it all wrong. I just object to the summary's use of "spying" as applied to what I call "responsible parenting."
An example of how I've portrayed myself as a Christian on my site. Please.
And try to do it without equating my defense of Christians' rights to personally identifying with their beliefs. Indeed, defending free speech and opposing censorship is sooo neocon.
I'm curious how you've come to these conclusions of yours.
Wow, when did I bring my religious views into this? Are you simply painting everyone you perceive as "conservatives" with a very broad brush, and with paint made of assumptions and personal prejudices?
If you think you've offended me, you give yourself too much credit. I laugh at the fact that your supposed insight into me and my personal ideology is based on your own disdain and limited understanding of people with whom you disagree.
As for my site, that's just a hobby that I occasionally use to give words to my thoughts. I could care less if you disagree with me or not. And I bet that infuriates you too.
I don't think presenting creationism as an alternative theory to evolution is morally equivalent to denying the well-documented extermination of 6 million people.
Not saying creationism is valid science by any stretch, but the ethcical comparison simply does not exist.
CLEARLY anyone who would use a superior OS like Linux would NEVER stoop to such an inferior vendor like DELL! </nose in air>
I'm already seeing these comments. This attitude tells me that getting Dell to sell Linux boxes is more about pushing their OS onto the uneducated rubes and less about satisfying their own needs/wants.
...in 13 of 48 shots, lethal armor-piercing rounds either shattered the discs that make up the armor, or completely penetrated the vest.
...the armor failed to endure required temperatures shifts _ from minus 20 degrees to 120 above zero _ which weakened the adhesive holding the discs together.
"But the owner had it open so that people could actually use it."
Joe Citizen can't (or at least shouldn't, IMHO) assume the owner's intent by virtue of the open AP alone. An AP that was deliberately left open works the same as one left open through ignorance or laziness.
All this aside, they guy shouldn't be slapped with a felony on his record. I think a misdemeanor on scale with trespassing is appropriate.
Are you suggesting that the coffee store's network wasn't the private property of the store's owner?
Even if someone who enters my house doesn't steal or break anything, they are still trespassing. The same applies to my yard, regardless of whether or not there is a gated fence around it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Unless you're actually planning to break the law by sharing the songs, I don't see what the problem is."
+1 Defending Apple
-1 Contradicting Prevailing Slashdot Groupthink
What's a mod to do??
"Now, tell me, Goldspider, if your neighbor found your name on this list and began to warn your other neighbors...are you going to be nice and not care about what they think of you?"
If my name ended up on some state or federal sex-offender list, what exactly would that have to do with MySpace?
So you're going to go sue based on what some people may or not think about you? Best of luck to you!
"If a myspace profile is suddenly gone and people know MySpace is removing known sex offenders, it is entirely possible they will assume she is a sex offender"
There are plenty of reasons why MySpace will remove a porfile. It's not MySpace's fault if people makes incorrect presumptions as to why a particular profile was deleted. But let's suppose MySpace IS in fact in the wrong here...
"Just this morning I was talking to someone whose co-worker has a hard time getting jobs because if you do a Google search for his name, the first things that come up are articles about him being accused of being a rapist."
Does that mean that Google is in the wrong as well? Should they pre-emptively strike content that may prove damaging to someone down the road?
"If being purchased by Fox news was not enough reason..."
Ahh, now we know the angle you're taking on this. Not that News Corp. (let alone their subsidiary Fox News) has anything to do with this, but I suppose nothing fetches karma like bashing Slashdot's favorite pariahs.
How is this slander/libel? Did MySpace release this woman's credentials to a public outlet of some sort, identifying her as a sex offender?
If not, then no slander or libel.
"So your logic is that responsibility should not bestowed upon 14-year olds because.... they don't have that responsibility?"
No. Because 14 year olds' minds aren't mature enough to understand the responsibilities that come with the privilege of driving.
I read that sentiment here all the time, and it's always bunk.
Are you suggesting that whenever a child makes a poor decision, it's because his/her parent(s) were irresponsible or negligent? Were you a perfect child? Did you always do the right thing? If not, does that mean you were raised by lousy perents?
Newsflash: Sometimes kids still make poor decisions despite their parents' best efforts.
Kids need to be supervised so that bad behavior/lapses in judgement can be corrected. Sure, if a child is raised right, he or she will be less inclined to make bad decisions. That doesn't mean there's a set amount of "good parenting" after which point a child can be left to their own devices and counted upon to always be responsible.
When I have kids, they can have all the privacy they want... when they move out and get their own place. Until then, they'll live by my rules and with as much privacy as I determine they've earned.
I don't see how giving kids free reign teaches them about responsibility and consequences. In fact, I believe that doing so teaches them the exact opposite.
"a 14 year old is physically capable both in their brain and the rest of their body of assuming a position as a young, but real, adult in modern society"
You might be ready to let a 14 year old drive a car, but I sure as hell am not. In fact I'd support raising the minimum age to get a lisence to 18, considering how many accidents are caused by young, irresponsible drivers.
Yes, people in this age group are no longer merely children. That doesn't make them adults though. That comes with responsibility and experience that most people simply don't have at that age.
...parents have every right, responsibility even, to monitor their children's actions/behavior. That's not to say that it should be 24/7, but the summary's implicit suggestion that "spying" on children is inappropriate displays a vast ignorance of/indifference to responsible parenting.
As Ronald Reagan said, "trust, but verify". There is nothing wrong with knowing what your child is doing on a home computer. There is nothing wrong with knowing where your child is. A child doesn't have the right to conceal their activities/whereabouts from his/her parents.
Again, I think legislative efforts like this have it all wrong. I just object to the summary's use of "spying" as applied to what I call "responsible parenting."
An example of how I've portrayed myself as a Christian on my site. Please.
And try to do it without equating my defense of Christians' rights to personally identifying with their beliefs. Indeed, defending free speech and opposing censorship is sooo neocon.
I'm curious how you've come to these conclusions of yours.
Wow, when did I bring my religious views into this? Are you simply painting everyone you perceive as "conservatives" with a very broad brush, and with paint made of assumptions and personal prejudices?
If you think you've offended me, you give yourself too much credit. I laugh at the fact that your supposed insight into me and my personal ideology is based on your own disdain and limited understanding of people with whom you disagree.
As for my site, that's just a hobby that I occasionally use to give words to my thoughts. I could care less if you disagree with me or not. And I bet that infuriates you too.
"Do you profit from supporting the status quo?"
You really aught to put that in your sig. You add that snide personal attack to everything you post, it seems.
2) ensuring the "current" level of taxes imposed by states; 3) thus reducing property taxes
2 has never ensured 3. Ever.
"What's so bad about traffic?"
Welcome to Slashdot!
"How much of a need is there to make copies if you aren't going to give it to your friend?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly the kind of thing that the MPAA wants to prevent you from doing?
I don't think presenting creationism as an alternative theory to evolution is morally equivalent to denying the well-documented extermination of 6 million people.
Not saying creationism is valid science by any stretch, but the ethcical comparison simply does not exist.
CLEARLY anyone who would use a superior OS like Linux would NEVER stoop to such an inferior vendor like DELL!
</nose in air>
I'm already seeing these comments. This attitude tells me that getting Dell to sell Linux boxes is more about pushing their OS onto the uneducated rubes and less about satisfying their own needs/wants.
Test results show that the Army's "Interceptor" armor was both lighter and more effective than Dragon Skin.
Previous post on the subject
Read the whole article.
Exerpts:
That's controlled by Windows, not the AP. You cannot set an AP to compel all laptops within range to connect to it.
I think your "servant" is more analogous to my house number located next to my door, or perhaps the mailbox with my last name on it.
The difference between my scenario and yours is that mine actually happens (the door part, not the trespassers) and yours is absurd.
"But the owner had it open so that people could actually use it."
Joe Citizen can't (or at least shouldn't, IMHO) assume the owner's intent by virtue of the open AP alone. An AP that was deliberately left open works the same as one left open through ignorance or laziness.
All this aside, they guy shouldn't be slapped with a felony on his record. I think a misdemeanor on scale with trespassing is appropriate.
Are you suggesting that the coffee store's network wasn't the private property of the store's owner?
Even if someone who enters my house doesn't steal or break anything, they are still trespassing. The same applies to my yard, regardless of whether or not there is a gated fence around it.