It was the Slashdot title that abbreviated, not them. A quick glance at their website suggests that they name themselves as "Open Source Initiative", and only then use the abbreviation when the context is clear. There must be countless organisations that have abbreviations in common with other things.
Any confusion here is due to the Slashdot article title, but is it asking too much to expect people to RTFS? Would you complain at Slashdot articles on PCs, asking why they're talking about political correctness?
To put this in perspective, 3p/day/customer is £1.80 a month per customer. I think at the time our basic cable - including Sky One - was £2.77/month
90p a month. And I'm paying £11/month for my bill. I wasn't say VM were necessarily at fault - by all means, blame Sky.
But I don't see that my bill has come down since they cut off the channels, nor do I see the money going towards anything else. So the customer has still lost out.
Whether or not it was a right decision, my point was the customer has still lost, and the customer has no choice to get it elsewhere legally unless they completely change their TV provider. A customer who still has to pay the same amount gets labelled a "pirate" and blamed for billions of pounds in losses if they download the TV they used to be able to watch - no one blames the media companies who continue to pocket their customer's money (VM), or refuse to allow their channels on other TV networks (Sky). Isn't it also a problem if some programmes are exclusively made available to Sky, so VM can't even have them on its own channel? It's a ridiculous situation if you can only watch some programmes with one company, and some with the other - with such an unfree market, of course people will continue to download, and this can't contibute towards damaging the market when they have no ability to buy the programmes.
No: the licence fee (not a tax) is for ownership of the TV receiving *equipment* it does not matter if you never tun it on, or only hook it up to a computer, or Sky etc, you still have to pay the fee.
I'm pretty sure that it was ruled that owning a TV solely for computer/console use or videos was legal without a licence (though if you watch TV online, you then would need one).
Watching Sky is a different matter - there you are watching TV, so you need a licence.
And even if that were not true you would only have paid the right to view the program, not save it !!
Well indeed, I realise why it is not considered legal - but it does challenge the idea that it costs the industry billions, and it is reasonable to ask if someone deserves disconnection simply for downloading a BBC produced programme. And certainly, I think licence fee payers have a right to say how they think their money should be used.
Plus of course, for years people have routinely taped material off the TV to save. Even if this was technically illegal, there was no need for Government intervention, nor did it destroy the TV industry.
Indeed this is a problem - my own personal experience was with the consultation for criminalising possession of extreme adult porn. Although the majority of people opposed the plans, and pointed out many problems and objections, the Government is pushing full steam ahead with it (currently it's being debated in the House of Lords), ignoring all criticisms, and one Home Office Minister even lied and claimed a majority or respondants supported it (see here).
But still, I still prefer that people respond than not. Firstly not all consultations are necessarily the same - some appear to have more sensible people in charge of them. Secondly, it makes campaigning and opposing easier if you can at least say that people oppose the plans. Otherwise it's even easier for the Government to say "Well no one objected, why didn't you complain back then?" (Consider, even if you think voting is pointless, it's still better to vote than not - if you don't even vote in the election, few people take you seriously if you later complain about what the Government does.)
Here in the UK, we are forced to pay a tax to the BBC if we watch any TV. Will we be disconnected for downloading content we've already paid for?
(Yes, the BBC is doing fairly well at introducing content online, but AFAIK that's still got DRM, only available for a certain period etc, and it's a hassle to install new software.)
Another problem is that the TV market is not anywhere near as a free market as say music, in that consumers are restricted by what their TV/cable/satellite company offers. For example, Virgin Media and Sky had a petty squabble, so VM suddenly cancelled the Sky channels on its service (3p a day per customer was too expensive for VM to pay to Sky). I'm sure people would gladly pay the 3p a day themselves if they could, but the only options are to not watch, or download.
If this really was costing billions, wouldn't they have worked out their petty squabbles?
Not to mention, it would help if UK shows weren't shown months after the US - even if it's going to be legally available on your TV, people don't want to watch it months after everyone else, risk being spoilered and so on. Imagine if music CDs were released months later in some countries?
Apple has to walk a fine line with the recording industry, and cannot do anything too blatant to piss off the record labels.
Having my friend walk over with his 160GB iPod and give me his entire music collection, facilitated by Apple themselves? Yeah, I can see some issues with that.
We can debate the rights and wrongs of it, but let's be honest here: if it was any other company (especially that Micro-something company), people would be slamming it for working with the RIAA, for introducing mechanisms to prevent you from copying your own data. I've never heard anyone, for example, say "Well they have to introduce DRM and Trusted Computing, because they have to walk a fine line with the recording industry", let alone be modded up for it...
(This reminds me of a thread a few years ago where people saying copyright infringement was theft got modded up, and people pointing out it wasn't got modded down. Unthinkable on Slashdot you might think? Well, it was Apple software that was being talked about.)
According to TFAs, a consultation paper will be published (BBC says "shortly", Times says "within months"). (These are Government papers to seek out opinions, which anyone can respond to.)
Perhaps if a few thousand people respond to that as well as complaining on the Internet, it may help stop such laws (not that the Government is obliged to listen to consultation responses, but it's one possible way of opposing new laws, and makes it harder for the Government to claim there is public support).
Indeed - the cunning thing here is that it seems to be a legal requirement for the ISP, and not a law against the individual.
If it was, then there'd be a whole load of issues, such as whether this would still be a civil issue or a criminal one (downloading is not yet a criminal offence), what level of proof would be required, and being taken to court.
Instead they simply say "ISPs must disconnect users who download". The users have no rights (since ISPs can terminate a contract). Even if copyright infringement had to be proven for the ISPs to be liable, they would still likely be extra cautious to avoid risk of prosecution.
If my reading of this is correct, then the answer to the question in TFS would be that users aren't automatically prevented from using the Internet again - that would surely require court action and that they are found guilty of copyright infringement.
We'll know more when the consultation paper is released.
Obviously I can't speak for the organisers so I don't know what intent they had in mind, but I imagine a main intent was "Raise awareness about criticisms of the CoS". Given the coverage in the media, I'd say it's a job well done, even if the messages being chanted may have made no sense to someone there at the time. (Although the banners I saw from photos on the whole conveyed reasonable messages, even if the chanting didn't.)
You reach far more people through mainstream media, than random passersby - it's not like you could easily condense criticisms of the CoS into a simple chant.
Protests don't always have to be a single issue - for example, sometimes people oppose a new law (even though different people may oppose different parts of the law, or for different reasons); in this case it was opposition to the CoS.
I'm not saying it couldn't have been done better - maybe it could, I don't know - but I don't think it was that bad, or that the message was lost (and I should point out I speak not as someone involved or attending, but as an outsider who's been reading about it in the media).
Rather er, interestingly, that photo was on the front page of news.com.au, but they had to censor out the word "CULT", apparentely on the advice of their lawyers... (Of course, I don't blame them, considering the CoS's past behaviour.) I can't find the image in any of the stories now, but it's still on their servers.
Get WHAT word out? That Scientology is a dangerous cult? No shit Sherlock.
It's still news to much of the general public. And evidently, given the defence some people seem to be giving to Scientology, it seems to be news to some people here...
These "protests" were not about "getting the word out".. they were about hate.
Evidence?
Elsewhere someone was criticising them for shouting Internet memes, which doesn't strike me as "hate". The coverage in the mainstream media suggests that "getting the word out" was done rather well, whilst there's no sign of "hate" at all.
I'm genuinely curious what your actual point here? Do you criticise every protest that happens in the world if you don't think the cause worthy or important enough, or is the issue something else...?
Marching around in masks and yelling nonsensical internet memes at people who have no idea what you are talking about does not a protest make.
If you are going to try and send a message, at least make it vaguely coherent... right?
Funny, the mainstream media seems to have picked up on it and knows what it's about. Getting international news coverage I'd say is a pretty successful protest.
I'm surprised that there are people on Slashdot of all places that don't know what it's about, but that's beside the point.
It's an interesting idea. I wonder if the retailers would go for it? All it means for them is fewer people comming into their stores...sounds like that would hurt sales.
You might as well the same thing about the Web though - why would all these companies go to the trouble of having websites, especially if it means fewer people in their stores?
Because it means more sales. And sales with fewer people in the stores is a good thing - less costs.
Don't worry, I was taken in by it too and almost replied. Reading it again, I _think_ it's a parody, but what with the long list of supposed Apple "firsts" that people often claim (first, except for anyone who did it before them, who don't count for whatever reason), it's very hard to distinguish it from a genuine post.
Plus I'm not sure that 3G constitutes news in any useful sense, especially for nerds - my dirt cheap phone bought years ago does it. Having said that, I guess it is newsworthy in that it is notable that it didn't have 3G (interestingly, it seems to be a cunning Apple tactic to generate free advertising by not including important features, e.g., the Imac and no floppy - they get coverage when it's released, then coverage when they say "Okay, here's one that does it after all").
I will look forward to the "iPhone that does MMS on the Way?" story...
Of course they do - e.g.: "Hold off from buying that competitor's phone with 3G - it doesn't matter the iphone doesn't do it, because if you wait there'll be a better version which does".
It's an advert. The OP is not a troll - once again, moderation on Apple stories is broken (I always have to view at -1; on every other type of story, mod points are usually used properly). If people want to see it fine, but I do wonder why we don't have stories for all the other phones (especially the ones that do support 3G).
Hitler was not a professed/practicing atheist, but also demonstrated no application of religious belief in his political theories or actions.
Just because someone does not apply religious belief to his political theories or actions does not mean they are an atheist! There are plenty of politicians who believe in God but keep it out of politics (it's only in the US they find this difficult...).
We have no evidence that he didn't believe in God, and there are plenty of sources suggesting some religious beliefs (see the Wikipedia link).
I think you're making my point for me in a way... Stalin was an atheist, but didn't kill in the name of atheism. Similarly Hitler might have been minimally Christian or Pol Pot minimally Buddhist, but they didn't kill in the name of Christianity or Buddhism.
Oh sure, it would equally be wrong to say that Hitler was a Christian with the implication that there was a connection. But I haven't seen anyone claim that? What we are talking about are things like suicide bombings, the inquisition, or the crusades. I agree that the crusades is less clear, but the first two were definitely done in the name of their beliefs.
I agree though that we shouldn't make it a competition between Christians or Muslims, nor do I think this means that all religious belief is bad. But it is a valid criticism of fundamentalist religious belief in terms of what it can lead to
Good advice, but in this case I did actually check each one of them out. Einstein was reported to be a vague theist, in that he was sure the universe had a creator. That was sufficient because the OP was arguing for full-fledged atheism, which arguably is incompatible with Einstein's beliefs. I'd be a bit surprised if he was afraid to admit atheism - it wasn't rare in academic circles at the time afaik.
His views seem closest to some form of pantheism AFAICT. He explicitly stated he didn't believe in a personal God.
Einstein, like pantheists that I've come across, don't identify as atheists, but when you look at what they do and don't believe, it seems they have far more in common with each other, than they do with theists.
It's common with scientists to use "God" as a personification of the Universe, in the same way you might refer to "mother nature". This doesn't mean their views have anything in common with the billions of theists on the planet who believe in a personal God, anymore than referring to "mother nature" means you think that there exists an intelligent interventionist being called "Mother Nature".
The all time winners of body count would be secular atheists or agnostics of course. Hitler and Stalin easily surpass any religiously oriented genocidal campaign.
I'm surprised it took so long to bring up this old myth. Hitler was not an atheist.
His religious views are unclear, but he certainly wasn't an atheist or agnostic.
Stalin was an atheist, but that is beside the point. The point is he didn't murder in the name of atheism. You might as well mark him by the colour of his hair, it's just as relevant as a lack of belief in one particular supernatural entity.
If you gave the social networking site as much money as you do your bank, maybe you could.
Actually, I've given more money to my social networking site, than I have to my credit card company (since I always pay before getting charged interest). In no way would that justify my credit card company leaking out personal details.
Facebook is designed to network whatever you put on there, unlike a bank. I dont think you should have any expectation of privacy on a social networking site.
Except some networking sites (including Facebook) allow you to restrict who can see it - so if it turns out they're letting other people have access to it, then that's a security flaw.
The OP claimed that anything on the Internet is public information, even secure or private applications.
Then again, I really dont understand the need to be in the spotlight or see the usefulness of knowing what some person I went to highschool with is having for dinner.
Some people have these things called "friends", not just people you went to highschool with.
Where im from, (the 80s) you dont use your real name online... EVER. That sort of conditioning is whats missing from todays myfaces and reality tubes.
That's a problem specific to Facebook, not MySpace or anywhere else. And I don't think it's an age thing - on the contrary, younger people are growing up in a world where using pseudonyms/screennames is common, whilst older people automatically use their real full name.
Slashdot Mirror
Get a different acronym or don't abreviate
It was the Slashdot title that abbreviated, not them. A quick glance at their website suggests that they name themselves as "Open Source Initiative", and only then use the abbreviation when the context is clear. There must be countless organisations that have abbreviations in common with other things.
Any confusion here is due to the Slashdot article title, but is it asking too much to expect people to RTFS? Would you complain at Slashdot articles on PCs, asking why they're talking about political correctness?
To put this in perspective, 3p/day/customer is £1.80 a month per customer. I think at the time our basic cable - including Sky One - was £2.77/month
90p a month. And I'm paying £11/month for my bill. I wasn't say VM were necessarily at fault - by all means, blame Sky.
But I don't see that my bill has come down since they cut off the channels, nor do I see the money going towards anything else. So the customer has still lost out.
Whether or not it was a right decision, my point was the customer has still lost, and the customer has no choice to get it elsewhere legally unless they completely change their TV provider. A customer who still has to pay the same amount gets labelled a "pirate" and blamed for billions of pounds in losses if they download the TV they used to be able to watch - no one blames the media companies who continue to pocket their customer's money (VM), or refuse to allow their channels on other TV networks (Sky). Isn't it also a problem if some programmes are exclusively made available to Sky, so VM can't even have them on its own channel? It's a ridiculous situation if you can only watch some programmes with one company, and some with the other - with such an unfree market, of course people will continue to download, and this can't contibute towards damaging the market when they have no ability to buy the programmes.
No: the licence fee (not a tax) is for ownership of the TV receiving *equipment* it does not matter if you never tun it on, or only hook it up to a computer, or Sky etc, you still have to pay the fee.
I'm pretty sure that it was ruled that owning a TV solely for computer/console use or videos was legal without a licence (though if you watch TV online, you then would need one).
Watching Sky is a different matter - there you are watching TV, so you need a licence.
And even if that were not true you would only have paid the right to view the program, not save it !!
Well indeed, I realise why it is not considered legal - but it does challenge the idea that it costs the industry billions, and it is reasonable to ask if someone deserves disconnection simply for downloading a BBC produced programme. And certainly, I think licence fee payers have a right to say how they think their money should be used.
Plus of course, for years people have routinely taped material off the TV to save. Even if this was technically illegal, there was no need for Government intervention, nor did it destroy the TV industry.
Indeed this is a problem - my own personal experience was with the consultation for criminalising possession of extreme adult porn. Although the majority of people opposed the plans, and pointed out many problems and objections, the Government is pushing full steam ahead with it (currently it's being debated in the House of Lords), ignoring all criticisms, and one Home Office Minister even lied and claimed a majority or respondants supported it (see here).
But still, I still prefer that people respond than not. Firstly not all consultations are necessarily the same - some appear to have more sensible people in charge of them. Secondly, it makes campaigning and opposing easier if you can at least say that people oppose the plans. Otherwise it's even easier for the Government to say "Well no one objected, why didn't you complain back then?" (Consider, even if you think voting is pointless, it's still better to vote than not - if you don't even vote in the election, few people take you seriously if you later complain about what the Government does.)
Here in the UK, we are forced to pay a tax to the BBC if we watch any TV. Will we be disconnected for downloading content we've already paid for?
(Yes, the BBC is doing fairly well at introducing content online, but AFAIK that's still got DRM, only available for a certain period etc, and it's a hassle to install new software.)
Another problem is that the TV market is not anywhere near as a free market as say music, in that consumers are restricted by what their TV/cable/satellite company offers. For example, Virgin Media and Sky had a petty squabble, so VM suddenly cancelled the Sky channels on its service (3p a day per customer was too expensive for VM to pay to Sky). I'm sure people would gladly pay the 3p a day themselves if they could, but the only options are to not watch, or download.
If this really was costing billions, wouldn't they have worked out their petty squabbles?
Not to mention, it would help if UK shows weren't shown months after the US - even if it's going to be legally available on your TV, people don't want to watch it months after everyone else, risk being spoilered and so on. Imagine if music CDs were released months later in some countries?
Humour aside, MacOS never got pre-emptive multitasking (that's only in OS X).
Apple has to walk a fine line with the recording industry, and cannot do anything too blatant to piss off the record labels.
Having my friend walk over with his 160GB iPod and give me his entire music collection, facilitated by Apple themselves? Yeah, I can see some issues with that.
We can debate the rights and wrongs of it, but let's be honest here: if it was any other company (especially that Micro-something company), people would be slamming it for working with the RIAA, for introducing mechanisms to prevent you from copying your own data. I've never heard anyone, for example, say "Well they have to introduce DRM and Trusted Computing, because they have to walk a fine line with the recording industry", let alone be modded up for it...
(This reminds me of a thread a few years ago where people saying copyright infringement was theft got modded up, and people pointing out it wasn't got modded down. Unthinkable on Slashdot you might think? Well, it was Apple software that was being talked about.)
According to TFAs, a consultation paper will be published (BBC says "shortly", Times says "within months"). (These are Government papers to seek out opinions, which anyone can respond to.)
Perhaps if a few thousand people respond to that as well as complaining on the Internet, it may help stop such laws (not that the Government is obliged to listen to consultation responses, but it's one possible way of opposing new laws, and makes it harder for the Government to claim there is public support).
Indeed - the cunning thing here is that it seems to be a legal requirement for the ISP, and not a law against the individual.
If it was, then there'd be a whole load of issues, such as whether this would still be a civil issue or a criminal one (downloading is not yet a criminal offence), what level of proof would be required, and being taken to court.
Instead they simply say "ISPs must disconnect users who download". The users have no rights (since ISPs can terminate a contract). Even if copyright infringement had to be proven for the ISPs to be liable, they would still likely be extra cautious to avoid risk of prosecution.
If my reading of this is correct, then the answer to the question in TFS would be that users aren't automatically prevented from using the Internet again - that would surely require court action and that they are found guilty of copyright infringement.
We'll know more when the consultation paper is released.
Obviously I can't speak for the organisers so I don't know what intent they had in mind, but I imagine a main intent was "Raise awareness about criticisms of the CoS". Given the coverage in the media, I'd say it's a job well done, even if the messages being chanted may have made no sense to someone there at the time. (Although the banners I saw from photos on the whole conveyed reasonable messages, even if the chanting didn't.)
You reach far more people through mainstream media, than random passersby - it's not like you could easily condense criticisms of the CoS into a simple chant.
Protests don't always have to be a single issue - for example, sometimes people oppose a new law (even though different people may oppose different parts of the law, or for different reasons); in this case it was opposition to the CoS.
I'm not saying it couldn't have been done better - maybe it could, I don't know - but I don't think it was that bad, or that the message was lost (and I should point out I speak not as someone involved or attending, but as an outsider who's been reading about it in the media).
Wow - not only do we not hear about them, but any mention of them is modded down.
If the Iphone is so good, can't it handle competition via a random comment? Apparentely not.
Hello Kitty shirts, Gas masks
Rather er, interestingly, that photo was on the front page of news.com.au, but they had to censor out the word "CULT", apparentely on the advice of their lawyers... (Of course, I don't blame them, considering the CoS's past behaviour.) I can't find the image in any of the stories now, but it's still on their servers.
Get WHAT word out? That Scientology is a dangerous cult? No shit Sherlock.
It's still news to much of the general public. And evidently, given the defence some people seem to be giving to Scientology, it seems to be news to some people here...
These "protests" were not about "getting the word out".. they were about hate.
Evidence?
Elsewhere someone was criticising them for shouting Internet memes, which doesn't strike me as "hate". The coverage in the mainstream media suggests that "getting the word out" was done rather well, whilst there's no sign of "hate" at all.
I'm genuinely curious what your actual point here? Do you criticise every protest that happens in the world if you don't think the cause worthy or important enough, or is the issue something else...?
How is it "protesting"? Does that word even have any meaning in the USA anymore?
Marching around in masks and yelling things does not a protest make.
Okay I'll bite - what is required for a protest? (And the protests weren't just held in the USA, btw.)
Marching around in masks and yelling nonsensical internet memes at people who have no idea what you are talking about does not a protest make.
If you are going to try and send a message, at least make it vaguely coherent... right?
Funny, the mainstream media seems to have picked up on it and knows what it's about. Getting international news coverage I'd say is a pretty successful protest.
I'm surprised that there are people on Slashdot of all places that don't know what it's about, but that's beside the point.
It's an interesting idea. I wonder if the retailers would go for it? All it means for them is fewer people comming into their stores...sounds like that would hurt sales.
You might as well the same thing about the Web though - why would all these companies go to the trouble of having websites, especially if it means fewer people in their stores?
Because it means more sales. And sales with fewer people in the stores is a good thing - less costs.
Don't worry, I was taken in by it too and almost replied. Reading it again, I _think_ it's a parody, but what with the long list of supposed Apple "firsts" that people often claim (first, except for anyone who did it before them, who don't count for whatever reason), it's very hard to distinguish it from a genuine post.
Even better - buy a phone NOW that does 3G.
Of course, it's understandable that people might not know about them, since all we ever hear about is the iphone...
Doesn't that apply to SATA drives from Dell, too?
Plus I'm not sure that 3G constitutes news in any useful sense, especially for nerds - my dirt cheap phone bought years ago does it. Having said that, I guess it is newsworthy in that it is notable that it didn't have 3G (interestingly, it seems to be a cunning Apple tactic to generate free advertising by not including important features, e.g., the Imac and no floppy - they get coverage when it's released, then coverage when they say "Okay, here's one that does it after all").
I will look forward to the "iPhone that does MMS on the Way?" story...
Of course they do - e.g.: "Hold off from buying that competitor's phone with 3G - it doesn't matter the iphone doesn't do it, because if you wait there'll be a better version which does".
It's an advert. The OP is not a troll - once again, moderation on Apple stories is broken (I always have to view at -1; on every other type of story, mod points are usually used properly). If people want to see it fine, but I do wonder why we don't have stories for all the other phones (especially the ones that do support 3G).
Hitler was not a professed/practicing atheist, but also demonstrated no application of religious belief in his political theories or actions.
Just because someone does not apply religious belief to his political theories or actions does not mean they are an atheist! There are plenty of politicians who believe in God but keep it out of politics (it's only in the US they find this difficult...).
We have no evidence that he didn't believe in God, and there are plenty of sources suggesting some religious beliefs (see the Wikipedia link).
I think you're making my point for me in a way... Stalin was an atheist, but didn't kill in the name of atheism. Similarly Hitler might have been minimally Christian or Pol Pot minimally Buddhist, but they didn't kill in the name of Christianity or Buddhism.
Oh sure, it would equally be wrong to say that Hitler was a Christian with the implication that there was a connection. But I haven't seen anyone claim that? What we are talking about are things like suicide bombings, the inquisition, or the crusades. I agree that the crusades is less clear, but the first two were definitely done in the name of their beliefs.
I agree though that we shouldn't make it a competition between Christians or Muslims, nor do I think this means that all religious belief is bad. But it is a valid criticism of fundamentalist religious belief in terms of what it can lead to
Good advice, but in this case I did actually check each one of them out. Einstein was reported to be a vague theist, in that he was sure the universe had a creator. That was sufficient because the OP was arguing for full-fledged atheism, which arguably is incompatible with Einstein's beliefs. I'd be a bit surprised if he was afraid to admit atheism - it wasn't rare in academic circles at the time afaik.
His views seem closest to some form of pantheism AFAICT. He explicitly stated he didn't believe in a personal God.
Einstein, like pantheists that I've come across, don't identify as atheists, but when you look at what they do and don't believe, it seems they have far more in common with each other, than they do with theists.
It's common with scientists to use "God" as a personification of the Universe, in the same way you might refer to "mother nature". This doesn't mean their views have anything in common with the billions of theists on the planet who believe in a personal God, anymore than referring to "mother nature" means you think that there exists an intelligent interventionist being called "Mother Nature".
The all time winners of body count would be secular atheists or agnostics of course. Hitler and Stalin easily surpass any religiously oriented genocidal campaign.
I'm surprised it took so long to bring up this old myth. Hitler was not an atheist.
His religious views are unclear, but he certainly wasn't an atheist or agnostic.
Stalin was an atheist, but that is beside the point. The point is he didn't murder in the name of atheism. You might as well mark him by the colour of his hair, it's just as relevant as a lack of belief in one particular supernatural entity.
If you gave the social networking site as much money as you do your bank, maybe you could.
Actually, I've given more money to my social networking site, than I have to my credit card company (since I always pay before getting charged interest). In no way would that justify my credit card company leaking out personal details.
Facebook is designed to network whatever you put on there, unlike a bank. I dont think you should have any expectation of privacy on a social networking site.
Except some networking sites (including Facebook) allow you to restrict who can see it - so if it turns out they're letting other people have access to it, then that's a security flaw.
The OP claimed that anything on the Internet is public information, even secure or private applications.
Then again, I really dont understand the need to be in the spotlight or see the usefulness of knowing what some person I went to highschool with is having for dinner.
Some people have these things called "friends", not just people you went to highschool with.
Where im from, (the 80s) you dont use your real name online... EVER. That sort of conditioning is whats missing from todays myfaces and reality tubes.
That's a problem specific to Facebook, not MySpace or anywhere else. And I don't think it's an age thing - on the contrary, younger people are growing up in a world where using pseudonyms/screennames is common, whilst older people automatically use their real full name.