All you're doing by spreading this kind of panicky attitude is asking for silly legislation which outlaws a perceived danger.
I would oppose any kind of silly legislation intended to "protect" people for their own good.
But I'd say it's unlikely to happen - sports is one of those things that's protected, no matter how harmful. Yet many other things in society are banned, even for adults, based on claims that they might be harmful. So I think next time someone proposes silly legislation for something else, it's worth waving this story at them, and asking if they plan to ban all sports too.
In high school, I resented the attention that the jocks and the athletic department got at our school. But then I got to college and went into engineering... and saw dozens of young men who couldn't run a mile, who were obese and unattractive and unable to be self-sufficient when it came to anything physical.
I'd argue that these are part of the same problem. Because PE often doesn't teach you personal fitness, and instead focuses on team sports and having a ball kicked at your head. People who lack the coordination typically do badly, and typically will dislike the whole thing (especially do to the team nature, where being bad at it may make you unpopular). I'd say current PE teaching probably does more to put such people off of any kind of personal fitness.
And as for unattractive - I'm curious what school you went to where they taught beauty tips. Certainly, running around a field in mud is not my idea of it.
As for safety - we ban all sorts of "unpopular" things for children (or in some mad cases, even for adults), based on unproven claims that they might be harmful, "just in case". Yet forcing children to bash their heads with a ball is considered perfectly acceptable. I just think there's a slight double-standard here.
Of course it's in part because no one in the world owns a teleporter, a flying car, or a holographic display; they don't exist. In fact, not even computers exist.
Well, it's easy if you can just make things up:
In Universe 1, patents don't exist, and everyone lives happily ever after, and money grows on trees.
In Universe 2, patents exist, and everyone has been enslaved to work 24 hours a day.
As I recall Leibniz was to Calculus what Newton was to Calculus. Newton got most of the fame for publishing first and Leibniz notation became the most commonly used notation.
Yes, it's such a shame that Leibniz didn't patent his notation, so that no one else could then use it, and instead we had to adopt the less preferable notation.
If Apple didn't patent their work, Microsoft would and claim they invented it first [citing the patent] and screw everyone over.
Actually, I'd say Apple are far more likely to misleadingly claim firsts: first GUI, first 64-bit computer, and now some people act as if they made the first mobile phone.
I don't recall having seen anything like the iPhone until the iPhone came out; all the companies since are just jumping on the bandwagon
What bandwagon? Mobile phones, including doing what the Iphone does, have been around for years. Imagine if those things had been patented? You wouldn't have seen the Iphone at all.
and generally doing so pretty poorly.
In Your Opinion. This is nothing to do with whether patents are a good thing or not.
You're missing the point. It's not that this information should be published - indeed, it seems they already took that down.
The problem is that with the server seized "for evidence" of something that someone else did, they can no longer report on legitimate issues.
Put it another way - if they seized the BBC's servers, because someone posted this information on one of their blogs or forums (not all are pre-moderated), are you telling me that this wouldn't be seen as interfering with freedom of the press?
My understanding is that, in a search, police will typically take all sorts of electronic equipment you have. Are you allowed to take a copy of information on that equipment, before they take it away? (Not an unreasonable request, since the equipment may be confiscated for many months, and the information on it may sometimes be destroyed.)
(If you mean, take a copy in advance, this obviously doesn't help if they march off with all your computers/hard disks/thumbdrives.)
Which is that, especially on certain controversial topics, your reversions would themselves be immediately reverted...
Right, so let's discuss those examples, rather than misleadingly comparing it to vandalism cases that have nothing to do with this.
but in the case of articles that have certain "high-level posters", or even just campers, watching over their content, who want to enforce their version of that content.
And how will this system help when the "high-level poster" is the guy in charge of approving on that article? This will just be an extra layer onto this problem - the valid edit made by the person who isn't a "high-level poster" won't simply be revered - rather, it won't get seen in the first place.
Sure, it's bad if vandalism doesn't get spotted, but what does the Sara Tavares example have to do with "Admins, Mediators, Arbitrators, Checkusers, Oversighters, Bureaucrats, Stewards"? What "nefarious back-room manoeuvrings" are you referring to? That might apply if an admin reinstated the vandalism, but the vandalism has been removed, and no one is contesting it AFAICS.
Why bother with WikipediaReview - why not just revert the vandalism?
I don't see how flagged revisions would help either, for cases where people miss the vandalism. Or to put it another way - it was over a month until someone came along to check this article and remove the vandalism, but over a month delay on good edits getting in is going to be a huge backlog. And like it or not, Wikipedia's appeal is being able to edit without waiting weeks to see if your edits are approved - I'd say that's what made it so popular.
I don't think flagged revisions are bad - but this kind of delay is.
Talking about a "good OS" is all very well, but did classic MacOS on the Macintosh 128k do these things?
(And indeed, although I know that modern OSs do do this, I'd be curious to see them tested in practice - how well does OS X, or any other OS come to that, run if you never ever close anything down?)
The only reason people today don't understand it is that they've gotten used to the Windows way, where a window is perceived as the application.
I've used a variety of OSs, so I don't think this is the issue. It's fundamental UI problem - there's no visual indication that the application is still running, so one assumes it isn't. This doesn't have to be a window - e.g., on AmigaOS you could close windows, but still leave a screen open for it.
Talking about a "good OS" is all very well, but did classic MacOS on the Macintosh 128k do these things?
(And indeed, although I know that modern OSs do do this, I'd be curious to see them tested in practice - how well does OS X, or any other OS come to that, run if you never ever close anything down?)
She'll care when it's "Why does my computer keep running slow?" or even that she doesn't have enough memory to open applications. Especially 25 years ago, when OSs didn't swap out RAM, and RAM was very limited.
Are you actually saying that users never closing applications was intended behaviour?
Pioneers get the arrows, settlers get the land, is the operating phrase of most major technology companies.... And they did not invent the GUI but they settled it.
As did many other companies. Like it or not though, 95% or so of that land is "settled" by one particular other company... I'm not sure this is a good analogy:)
Immoral orders? By whose morality? The victor's. If the Germans had won, a completely different measure of morality would have been applied.
I think the debate about relative morality is a red herring. Sure, if you want to construct a moral code where killing and working to death millions of people is ethical, then sure, it's okay by that standard - that's true whether you're the guard, or Hitler himself.
But the point being made is that given we agree that an act such as torture, or killing concentration camp victims, is unethical, then the argument "But I was just following orders" isn't an excuse.
Reference is to Encyclopædia what library is to "some guys at a bus stop".
Fixed that for you. All encyclopedias are pointers to other references: primary or secondary sources where you can verify the information if you want (and they typically, including Wikipedia, do a better job than random guys at a bus stop, who could very rarely quote which book in a libary they got the info from).
I also fixed this for you:
Basically, don't take everything you read as gospel
it encourages misuse of that information and encourages scope creep to monitoring a wider population than you might originally have required.
I agree. And on that note, Jim Gamble (head of the CEOP, who is quoted in the article) supports the law on "extreme" adult images - even with consenting adults - that comes into force this Monday. (He was interviewed on this matter on a rather one-sided "Woman's Hour" on BBC Radio 4.)
From a practical point of view, it's not like it makes any different - this isn't "child abuse investigators versus profiteering ISPs", it's taxpayers (who fund the CEOP) versus ISP customers (the cost will undoubtably passed on) - i.e., we pay for it either way. So anything that helps minimise fishing expeditions is a good thing, in this climate.
Let's also not forget the Government plans to criminalise non-realistic images (cartoons etc) that have some appearance of an under-18 "child" (also note the age of consent is 16 in the UK - so a cartoon of a legal act will be illegal to possess); the bill was recently published. I don't know off hand what Jim Gamble's view on this is, although I wouldn't be surpsied to find that he supports it...
"effectively giving MySpace the power to dictate criminal law." is a load of rubbish, people need to read TFA before making statements like that.
You mean TFA that says:
Unable to find a good way to approach the issue, prosecutors charged Drew under MySpace's End User License Agreement, effectively giving MySpace the power to dictate criminal law.
?
(I thought it was pretty obvious that TFS was quoting from TFA...)
But what crime was she charged for, specifically? The other reply claims it was "exceeding authorized access to a computer to get information", as opposed to using a fake account to harrass someone? (I could understand if impersonating a minor for the purpose of harrassment could be considered illegal - but the point is, that would be true whether or not it was in the TOS, and whether or not it was online if fact - it's got nothing to do with computers, just as harrassing someone over the phone shouldn't result you in being charged with hacking into the phone system...)
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't the government, it was the IWF (www.iwf.org.uk) who are actually an independant charity.
Except it was the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre who are a Government agency headed by a senior police officer.
This is correct - if there's kinky sex happening, and you want to be able to legally possess the pics, it is your legal duty to take part.
It's not even legal for the photographer to own - he has to get involved too!
(Good article on The Register about this, btw: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/26/extreme_rude/ )
All you're doing by spreading this kind of panicky attitude is asking for silly legislation which outlaws a perceived danger.
I would oppose any kind of silly legislation intended to "protect" people for their own good.
But I'd say it's unlikely to happen - sports is one of those things that's protected, no matter how harmful. Yet many other things in society are banned, even for adults, based on claims that they might be harmful. So I think next time someone proposes silly legislation for something else, it's worth waving this story at them, and asking if they plan to ban all sports too.
In high school, I resented the attention that the jocks and the athletic department got at our school. But then I got to college and went into engineering... and saw dozens of young men who couldn't run a mile, who were obese and unattractive and unable to be self-sufficient when it came to anything physical.
I'd argue that these are part of the same problem. Because PE often doesn't teach you personal fitness, and instead focuses on team sports and having a ball kicked at your head. People who lack the coordination typically do badly, and typically will dislike the whole thing (especially do to the team nature, where being bad at it may make you unpopular). I'd say current PE teaching probably does more to put such people off of any kind of personal fitness.
And as for unattractive - I'm curious what school you went to where they taught beauty tips. Certainly, running around a field in mud is not my idea of it.
As for safety - we ban all sorts of "unpopular" things for children (or in some mad cases, even for adults), based on unproven claims that they might be harmful, "just in case". Yet forcing children to bash their heads with a ball is considered perfectly acceptable. I just think there's a slight double-standard here.
Our children are becoming obese. We need them to get exercise for them to be healthy.
Unfortunately, the problem is that PE is often not about teaching personal health and exercise, but almost entirely focused on team sports.
Surely that makes it seem even more redundant...
Of course it's in part because no one in the world owns a teleporter, a flying car, or a holographic display; they don't exist. In fact, not even computers exist.
Well, it's easy if you can just make things up:
In Universe 1, patents don't exist, and everyone lives happily ever after, and money grows on trees.
In Universe 2, patents exist, and everyone has been enslaved to work 24 hours a day.
Your call!
As I recall Leibniz was to Calculus what Newton was to Calculus. Newton got most of the fame for publishing first and Leibniz notation became the most commonly used notation.
Yes, it's such a shame that Leibniz didn't patent his notation, so that no one else could then use it, and instead we had to adopt the less preferable notation.
If Apple didn't patent their work, Microsoft would and claim they invented it first [citing the patent] and screw everyone over.
Actually, I'd say Apple are far more likely to misleadingly claim firsts: first GUI, first 64-bit computer, and now some people act as if they made the first mobile phone.
I don't recall having seen anything like the iPhone until the iPhone came out; all the companies since are just jumping on the bandwagon
What bandwagon? Mobile phones, including doing what the Iphone does, have been around for years. Imagine if those things had been patented? You wouldn't have seen the Iphone at all.
and generally doing so pretty poorly.
In Your Opinion. This is nothing to do with whether patents are a good thing or not.
Where does it say they didn't cooperate? And what if a media corporation honestly didn't have the details that the police demanded?
You're missing the point. It's not that this information should be published - indeed, it seems they already took that down.
The problem is that with the server seized "for evidence" of something that someone else did, they can no longer report on legitimate issues.
Put it another way - if they seized the BBC's servers, because someone posted this information on one of their blogs or forums (not all are pre-moderated), are you telling me that this wouldn't be seen as interfering with freedom of the press?
Feel free to take a copy first.
Are we, though?
My understanding is that, in a search, police will typically take all sorts of electronic equipment you have. Are you allowed to take a copy of information on that equipment, before they take it away? (Not an unreasonable request, since the equipment may be confiscated for many months, and the information on it may sometimes be destroyed.)
(If you mean, take a copy in advance, this obviously doesn't help if they march off with all your computers/hard disks/thumbdrives.)
Which is that, especially on certain controversial topics, your reversions would themselves be immediately reverted...
Right, so let's discuss those examples, rather than misleadingly comparing it to vandalism cases that have nothing to do with this.
but in the case of articles that have certain "high-level posters", or even just campers, watching over their content, who want to enforce their version of that content.
And how will this system help when the "high-level poster" is the guy in charge of approving on that article? This will just be an extra layer onto this problem - the valid edit made by the person who isn't a "high-level poster" won't simply be revered - rather, it won't get seen in the first place.
Sure, it's bad if vandalism doesn't get spotted, but what does the Sara Tavares example have to do with "Admins, Mediators, Arbitrators, Checkusers, Oversighters, Bureaucrats, Stewards"? What "nefarious back-room manoeuvrings" are you referring to? That might apply if an admin reinstated the vandalism, but the vandalism has been removed, and no one is contesting it AFAICS.
Why bother with WikipediaReview - why not just revert the vandalism?
I don't see how flagged revisions would help either, for cases where people miss the vandalism. Or to put it another way - it was over a month until someone came along to check this article and remove the vandalism, but over a month delay on good edits getting in is going to be a huge backlog. And like it or not, Wikipedia's appeal is being able to edit without waiting weeks to see if your edits are approved - I'd say that's what made it so popular.
I don't think flagged revisions are bad - but this kind of delay is.
Yes, because obviously DOS was the only alternative.
DOS was even shittier, and if you can only compare it to that, it's hardly a ringing endorsement...
Talking about a "good OS" is all very well, but did classic MacOS on the Macintosh 128k do these things?
(And indeed, although I know that modern OSs do do this, I'd be curious to see them tested in practice - how well does OS X, or any other OS come to that, run if you never ever close anything down?)
---
Talking about Macs on a Mac article is off-topic?
The only reason people today don't understand it is that they've gotten used to the Windows way, where a window is perceived as the application.
I've used a variety of OSs, so I don't think this is the issue. It's fundamental UI problem - there's no visual indication that the application is still running, so one assumes it isn't. This doesn't have to be a window - e.g., on AmigaOS you could close windows, but still leave a screen open for it.
Talking about a "good OS" is all very well, but did classic MacOS on the Macintosh 128k do these things?
(And indeed, although I know that modern OSs do do this, I'd be curious to see them tested in practice - how well does OS X, or any other OS come to that, run if you never ever close anything down?)
She'll care when it's "Why does my computer keep running slow?" or even that she doesn't have enough memory to open applications. Especially 25 years ago, when OSs didn't swap out RAM, and RAM was very limited.
Are you actually saying that users never closing applications was intended behaviour?
Pioneers get the arrows, settlers get the land, is the operating phrase of most major technology companies. ... And they did not invent the GUI but they settled it.
As did many other companies. Like it or not though, 95% or so of that land is "settled" by one particular other company... I'm not sure this is a good analogy :)
The CEOP are not the police, as best as I can make out they are a private company
A private company with a .gov.uk address? I don't think so.
they do however have a few embedded police officers working in their teams.
By "embedded" and "working in their teams", you mean senior police officer Chief Executive Jim Gamble?
Immoral orders? By whose morality? The victor's. If the Germans had won, a completely different measure of morality would have been applied.
I think the debate about relative morality is a red herring. Sure, if you want to construct a moral code where killing and working to death millions of people is ethical, then sure, it's okay by that standard - that's true whether you're the guard, or Hitler himself.
But the point being made is that given we agree that an act such as torture, or killing concentration camp victims, is unethical, then the argument "But I was just following orders" isn't an excuse.
Reference is to Encyclopædia what library is to "some guys at a bus stop".
Fixed that for you. All encyclopedias are pointers to other references: primary or secondary sources where you can verify the information if you want (and they typically, including Wikipedia, do a better job than random guys at a bus stop, who could very rarely quote which book in a libary they got the info from).
I also fixed this for you:
Basically, don't take everything you read as gospel
it encourages misuse of that information and encourages scope creep to monitoring a wider population than you might originally have required.
I agree. And on that note, Jim Gamble (head of the CEOP, who is quoted in the article) supports the law on "extreme" adult images - even with consenting adults - that comes into force this Monday. (He was interviewed on this matter on a rather one-sided "Woman's Hour" on BBC Radio 4.)
From a practical point of view, it's not like it makes any different - this isn't "child abuse investigators versus profiteering ISPs", it's taxpayers (who fund the CEOP) versus ISP customers (the cost will undoubtably passed on) - i.e., we pay for it either way. So anything that helps minimise fishing expeditions is a good thing, in this climate.
Let's also not forget the Government plans to criminalise non-realistic images (cartoons etc) that have some appearance of an under-18 "child" (also note the age of consent is 16 in the UK - so a cartoon of a legal act will be illegal to possess); the bill was recently published. I don't know off hand what Jim Gamble's view on this is, although I wouldn't be surpsied to find that he supports it...
"effectively giving MySpace the power to dictate criminal law." is a load of rubbish, people need to read TFA before making statements like that.
You mean TFA that says:
Unable to find a good way to approach the issue, prosecutors charged Drew under MySpace's End User License Agreement, effectively giving MySpace the power to dictate criminal law.
?
(I thought it was pretty obvious that TFS was quoting from TFA...)
But what crime was she charged for, specifically? The other reply claims it was "exceeding authorized access to a computer to get information", as opposed to using a fake account to harrass someone? (I could understand if impersonating a minor for the purpose of harrassment could be considered illegal - but the point is, that would be true whether or not it was in the TOS, and whether or not it was online if fact - it's got nothing to do with computers, just as harrassing someone over the phone shouldn't result you in being charged with hacking into the phone system...)