That would explain the ToS on their site referencing the trading of CDs. It was completely out of context with downloading/streaming music and inconsistent w/ the involvement of the major labels. Now it makes a little more sense... It's not the only weird part though -- something about syncing with approved devices and "eMasters", but nothing about downloading MP3s.
You are entitled to receive one CD from another la la user for every CD you successfully ship from your Have List. A shipment is deemed successful when the la la user requesting your CD notifies la la that the CD arrived within 20 days of your agreement to ship and in good condition. Without limiting other remedies, la la may elect not to credit your account for any CDs reported as lost, broken, incorrect or unplayable. In order to receive a CD from another la la user, la la must have a valid credit card on record for your account.
You may not illegally copy CDs or keep copies of CDs you trade. Your access to the Site or Services may be immediately terminated in the event you use the Site or Services for illegal purposes or make unlawful copies of CDs or unlawfully distribute CDs. You acknowledge and agree that you have valid title and ownership rights to any CDs that you make available on the Site or Services. You are aware that not all CDs are available on the Site or via the Services and that la la does not guarantee you will receive any CD nor that any CD you do receive will be in good condition.
la la will issue you a starter kit after you register and either (i) add 5 CDs to your Have List, or (ii) agree to ship your first CD. The starter kit will contain five (5) reusable CD sleeves and five (5) envelopes (collectively, the "Shipping Materials"). You agree to use the Shipping Materials solely for the purpose of shipping requested CDs. la la will automatically send additional envelopes to you as shipping occurs. You agree to reuse the CD sleeves you receive from other users when you ship. la la reserves the right to charge a fee for any additional CD sleeves la la sends to you, but la la will notify you by e-mail if it intends to do so.
Here's the problem though. The woman in question that harassed the kid is named in a police report and in that report she states that she instigated the account in question and used it over a period of time to gain the confidence of the girl before harassing her. Her actions are not in question here.
I agree with you that we don't know the exact events as they transpired. And I'd like to believe it was a widely distributed password so instead of an adult, some dumb kid made the final remark about "the world is better off without you" prior to the girl hanging herself. But the problem here is that, at a minimum, this mother in question facilitated that harassment and permitted it to take place. If that isn't criminal it's at least immoral and she should be publicly shamed for it and shunned from her community for the resulting tragedy that took place as a direct result of her actions and poor decision making.
If I had anything to do with making a child feel so bad they wanted to end their lives, not to mention actually doing so, I could not live with myself. I see no reason I, or anyone else, should just accept what this woman and her family did regardless of whether or not it rises to criminal action.
A crime is not required to be morally outraged at something. That's how a lot of changes in law come about. That said I'm shocked that they didn't at least pursue a "reckless endangerment" count against all involved. It doesn't require intent, only action that caused harm. Perhaps "negligent homicide" would be more fitting. I dunno. Though, to read the blogs (bad sources, I know), there's talk of the woman in question having local ties to the PD, DA, etc. Not surprising in a town of 7,000 but now that the light of justice is shining on their town I'm sure someone will look a little closer.
The thing is, though, that public opinion would not erupt like this just because someone was "wronged." The only reason this woman has anything to fear is because she pushed a depressed kid over a fracking cliff. On purpose. People tend to react strongly to that. Perhaps if you don't you should either RTFA or get a soul.
Generally I agree that posting this kind of info is nothing but harmful and the facts have to be sorted out. In this case however, he facts have been sorted out with the woman in question named in a police report and admitting to her activities. The officials involved chose not to pursue criminal action, so the family went to the press in frustration and the public outcry was so burning hot that it wasn't sufficient to petition for justice from the same a--holes that denied it initially and instead justice had to be found for itself. I have no doubt that even if this is never brought to trial justice will have been served as this woman is now known for what and who she is. People like this should not be able to count on peoples' discretion to protect their world. Shame has a place in society, and people have an obligation to exorcise it in a situation such as this where traditional judicial system has failed.
I can only hope that a civil suit will utterly destroy this woman and her family to the extent that she has destroyed her victim's family. It's called justice.
Fantastic take on this. I agree whole heartedly. Except that I'd throw her on the mercy of the fiery internet. Don't you hate how/. doesn't have an edit button?:- )
Regardless, whether she burns in this life or the next I have no doubt that she's a witch.
Guess what, chief... You can be acquitted of a crime and still be a slime ball that should be shamed from ever showing your face where good folks live and work. I wouldn't want to live next to OJ, would you? According to your logic, we should trust the courts and if they don't convict someone we should be happy to believe that they're morally upstanding individuals and we shouldn't be allowed to publicize the travesty of justice to right the wrongs or push for laws to be written or expanded to encompass this sort of behavior.
This kind of case is exactly what causes laws, or interpretations of laws, to be changed. When the public at large is so outraged by a behavior that is so obviously immoral and leads to the death of a child, laws will be changed, or opinions will be changed in regards as to whether it can be charged now or not. Laws are in direct response to something taking place that the public doesn't want to take place. According to you if it's not already a law then we should just shut up and accept it. That's fatalistic and completely detached from the reality of a participatory society.
Someone else said it best in this thread and I'll leave the final word with him:
NMerriam (15122) said on Sunday November 18, @05:35AM:: the world is not a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard, not a moral one. There is no question about this woman's actions, or her identity. There are no significant facts in dispute, only legal and moral culpability. And yes, individuals and communities do have the right to judge moral culpability for themselves, with or without your permission.
NMerriam (15122) said on Sunday November 18, @05:35AM:: the world is not a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard, not a moral one. There is no question about this woman's actions, or her identity. There are no significant facts in dispute, only legal and moral culpability. And yes, individuals and communities do have the right to judge moral culpability for themselves, with or without your permission.
Perhaps that law should only be against people that get it wrong. Oh wait... there already is one... It's called libel and slander. If what folks say isn't true, and a law will help prevent that, then those laws are already on the books. Including harassment, etc. which would cover the posting of personal info so as to solicit illegal behavior.
There's nothing wrong with shaming people for killing a kid, or contributing to the death of that kid.
Or have you and the other million assholes on here defending the perpetrator's privacy either,
forgotten that a child's life was lost and several families destroyed because of this one woman's decisions, actions and words, -or-
not read enough to see that the woman was identified and stated as much in a police report readily available to the press, -or-
not read enough to realize that the family has now gone public because this happened 13 months ago and law enforcement has said no charges can/will be brought, meaning no one's going to hold these folks accountable if their community doesn't.
compumike (454538) on Tuesday November 13, @12:37AM, said What I think might be interesting is to decouple the wire from the service provider. Think about electricity deregulation: the transmission is seperate from the generation, and while everyone has to pay for the transmission (since we don't want overly redundant infrastructure), individuals can choose their generation source. The disadvantage here, as seen in the electrical case, is that there are more places to nickel-and-dime consumers. However, done with cable systems, we might actually have enough diversity of service offerings that it makes sense.
Best idea ever. The same should be done on the telco side too, and very nearly has with CLECs and unbundled network element requirements. The physical layer is a natural monopoly that should have a regulated rate of return; the services layer is not and should be open to all comers. I think this would be the only way to push this country ahead of the rest of the world regarding connectivity - decouple cable and telco from their physical layer so you've got two distinct platforms to reach the home, three if you include wireless.
I think it's actually redundant to have the two infrastructures and more could be done with a single infrastructure, but I think the competition is good and each will push the other forward in technology. It's probably wasteful to maintain two networks, but I can't see this country's politicians actually choosing who would operate the single infrastructure or ever regulating it well enough so as to force innovation in that single network -- note how much telco innovation came post-breakup of Ma Bell.
Due to these shortcomings, the security of elections conducted with the Diebold system depends almost entirely on the effectiveness of election procedures. Improvements to existing procedures may mitigate some threats in part, but others would be difficult, if not impossible, to remedy procedurally. Consequently, we conclude that the safest way to repair the Diebold system is to reengineer it so that it is secure by design.
Frankly, it's not the casino's problem if there are people who are too stupid to set a budget for gambling or don't know how to draw some other line where they'll stop. It's not like the casino comes to their doorstep and coerces them to gamble. These people make the choice to walk through in and play.
And, conversely, it's not the peoples' problem that the casino in question has a faulty QA program or didn't know how to draw some other line where the machine would stop losing money for them. It's not like the people came to the casino and coerced the casino to put out a faulty slot machine. The casino made the choice to deploy a faulty system.
Everyone makes a point that people have to take responsibility for their own actions and suffer the consequences. Guess what. So do companies. That's why there are QA programs.
I guarantee you if some idiot thought he was playing nickel slots but was really spending a dollar every pull instead, the casino would not say, "hey, that's okay, it was obviously a mistake and we owe you that money back."
Please apply the same standard to corporate behavior as you do personal behavior.
What the hell? You're going to cite morals as a reason to reimburse a casino for a loss due to their own negligence? You realize a casino survives by taking money from people that don't know any better, right? What's the difference in taking it from a casino that didn't know any better?
Presumably they had a QA inspection done on the machine before they put it into production, right? I mean we're talking about a machine that dispenses money. Surely they take that seriously. If not, screw 'em, it's their own damned fault.
It takes a great individual to be able to talk to kids about science (or anything, really) in a way that intrigues them and inspires their own exploration. I think the two greatest things I had growing up were the How Things Work books and this show, each teaching that you can wonder about your world and find your own answers. I only hope my kids have a similar source of inspiration.
If you need a graphing calculator, get an affordable TI for the graph portion. Don't blow a lot of money on a fancy calculator that you will use as a crutch instead of a learning aid.
Do yourself a favor and, assuming you'll be pursuing an engineering discipline, get and ALWAYS use one from the approved list of calculators by the NCEES for use on the Professional Engineering exams. After 10 years with a TI-83, I'm having to relearn a new calculator because the one I used on the first exam will no longer be allowed on the next. This is NOT something you will want to do. You want your brain to know the math and not be hamstrung by a piece of high-technology. The exams are hard enough without having to worry about studying the calculator too. You wouldn't think it's a big deal, but when you've got 10 years of using one under your belt, it's better to not have to pick up another one at a critical exam. Trust me.
1. What is the calculator policy? What calculators may I bring to the exam? Only models of calculators approved by NCEES are permitted in the exam room. No other models of calculators or variations of the models listed below are permitted in the exam room. The following are the only calculators that will be permitted in the exam room for the 2007 exam administrations.
Hewlett Packard - HP 33S
Casio - FX 115MS or FX 115MSPlus
Texas Instruments - TI 30X IIS
Texas Instruments - TI 36X SOLAR
Each year, NCEES will review and revise the approved calculator list and then announce the updated list by November 15.
Idiot. He's not comparing anything. He's indicating that most folks will do exactly as you just did and waiver their position based upon the type of content. The type of content is inconsequential. Either offended persons have a right to complain to sponsors or they don't. Either those sponsors have a right to react or they don't. Arguing the merits of the complaint and/or response has no bearing on whether or not it may be done.
...should cause the price to go to zero. Demand only drives up prices when there is scarcity in the market. This is a world in which a weapon exists because a server says it does; how does that translate to scarcity? I suppose you could look at valve as the sole vendor so they've got a monopoly or something.
If they really want to introduce economics to the game, they should make money persistent from session to session and server to server and let each server set their own prices either fixed or with their own weighted algorithm. Once prices were posted and aggregated for the multitude of servers, people would presumably flock to where they could get more equipment for less money. Admins could drive up traffic by lowering prices, etc. In which case, real world economics could come into play and admins could start advertising on server splash screens or something, which of course Valve would want a piece of.
Perhaps that is why they're introducing it now... Maybe they're on the path to a new revenue stream.
You shouldn't be using sub-par services/providers for business-class, mission-critical services. This isn't anyone's fault but the decision-maker that thought they could get by on the cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
...thinking, "who gives a fuck?"
weird how things seem to stay the same
Decent, respectable people on Slashdot?
You're new here, aren't you?
The part of the ToS I'm talking about:
Here's the problem though. The woman in question that harassed the kid is named in a police report and in that report she states that she instigated the account in question and used it over a period of time to gain the confidence of the girl before harassing her. Her actions are not in question here.
I agree with you that we don't know the exact events as they transpired. And I'd like to believe it was a widely distributed password so instead of an adult, some dumb kid made the final remark about "the world is better off without you" prior to the girl hanging herself. But the problem here is that, at a minimum, this mother in question facilitated that harassment and permitted it to take place. If that isn't criminal it's at least immoral and she should be publicly shamed for it and shunned from her community for the resulting tragedy that took place as a direct result of her actions and poor decision making.
If I had anything to do with making a child feel so bad they wanted to end their lives, not to mention actually doing so, I could not live with myself. I see no reason I, or anyone else, should just accept what this woman and her family did regardless of whether or not it rises to criminal action.
A crime is not required to be morally outraged at something. That's how a lot of changes in law come about. That said I'm shocked that they didn't at least pursue a "reckless endangerment" count against all involved. It doesn't require intent, only action that caused harm. Perhaps "negligent homicide" would be more fitting. I dunno. Though, to read the blogs (bad sources, I know), there's talk of the woman in question having local ties to the PD, DA, etc. Not surprising in a town of 7,000 but now that the light of justice is shining on their town I'm sure someone will look a little closer.
The thing is, though, that public opinion would not erupt like this just because someone was "wronged." The only reason this woman has anything to fear is because she pushed a depressed kid over a fracking cliff. On purpose. People tend to react strongly to that. Perhaps if you don't you should either RTFA or get a soul.
Generally I agree that posting this kind of info is nothing but harmful and the facts have to be sorted out. In this case however, he facts have been sorted out with the woman in question named in a police report and admitting to her activities. The officials involved chose not to pursue criminal action, so the family went to the press in frustration and the public outcry was so burning hot that it wasn't sufficient to petition for justice from the same a--holes that denied it initially and instead justice had to be found for itself. I have no doubt that even if this is never brought to trial justice will have been served as this woman is now known for what and who she is. People like this should not be able to count on peoples' discretion to protect their world. Shame has a place in society, and people have an obligation to exorcise it in a situation such as this where traditional judicial system has failed.
I can only hope that a civil suit will utterly destroy this woman and her family to the extent that she has destroyed her victim's family. It's called justice.
Fantastic take on this. I agree whole heartedly. Except that I'd throw her on the mercy of the fiery internet. Don't you hate how /. doesn't have an edit button? :- )
Regardless, whether she burns in this life or the next I have no doubt that she's a witch.
This kind of case is exactly what causes laws, or interpretations of laws, to be changed. When the public at large is so outraged by a behavior that is so obviously immoral and leads to the death of a child, laws will be changed, or opinions will be changed in regards as to whether it can be charged now or not. Laws are in direct response to something taking place that the public doesn't want to take place. According to you if it's not already a law then we should just shut up and accept it. That's fatalistic and completely detached from the reality of a participatory society.
Someone else said it best in this thread and I'll leave the final word with him:
There's nothing wrong with shaming people for killing a kid, or contributing to the death of that kid.
Or have you and the other million assholes on here defending the perpetrator's privacy either,
- forgotten that a child's life was lost and several families destroyed because of this one woman's decisions, actions and words, -or-
- not read enough to see that the woman was identified and stated as much in a police report readily available to the press, -or-
- not read enough to realize that the family has now gone public because this happened 13 months ago and law enforcement has said no charges can/will be brought, meaning no one's going to hold these folks accountable if their community doesn't.
I'm guessing probably all three.Just for the record:
news reports: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?s=UBbGpkKGpbc
police report: http://bluemerle.blogspot.com/2007/11/lori-drew-cnn-capture-police-report.html
I think it's actually redundant to have the two infrastructures and more could be done with a single infrastructure, but I think the competition is good and each will push the other forward in technology. It's probably wasteful to maintain two networks, but I can't see this country's politicians actually choosing who would operate the single infrastructure or ever regulating it well enough so as to force innovation in that single network -- note how much telco innovation came post-breakup of Ma Bell.
...your ISP does not have the right to censor you or limit your access based on what you have to say so long as it conforms to any applicable laws.
And, conversely, it's not the peoples' problem that the casino in question has a faulty QA program or didn't know how to draw some other line where the machine would stop losing money for them. It's not like the people came to the casino and coerced the casino to put out a faulty slot machine. The casino made the choice to deploy a faulty system.
Everyone makes a point that people have to take responsibility for their own actions and suffer the consequences. Guess what. So do companies. That's why there are QA programs.
I guarantee you if some idiot thought he was playing nickel slots but was really spending a dollar every pull instead, the casino would not say, "hey, that's okay, it was obviously a mistake and we owe you that money back."
Please apply the same standard to corporate behavior as you do personal behavior.
What the hell? You're going to cite morals as a reason to reimburse a casino for a loss due to their own negligence? You realize a casino survives by taking money from people that don't know any better, right? What's the difference in taking it from a casino that didn't know any better? Presumably they had a QA inspection done on the machine before they put it into production, right? I mean we're talking about a machine that dispenses money. Surely they take that seriously. If not, screw 'em, it's their own damned fault.
It takes a great individual to be able to talk to kids about science (or anything, really) in a way that intrigues them and inspires their own exploration. I think the two greatest things I had growing up were the How Things Work books and this show, each teaching that you can wonder about your world and find your own answers. I only hope my kids have a similar source of inspiration.
Ass.
Are you sure he had the right to make/publish anything? Aren't film makers required to get a release of some sort from their subjects?
There are laws about recording conversations so that all involved parties are aware that they are being recorded. Do such laws pertain to video?
No.
I vote for the above definition.
Do yourself a favor and, assuming you'll be pursuing an engineering discipline, get and ALWAYS use one from the approved list of calculators by the NCEES for use on the Professional Engineering exams. After 10 years with a TI-83, I'm having to relearn a new calculator because the one I used on the first exam will no longer be allowed on the next. This is NOT something you will want to do. You want your brain to know the math and not be hamstrung by a piece of high-technology. The exams are hard enough without having to worry about studying the calculator too. You wouldn't think it's a big deal, but when you've got 10 years of using one under your belt, it's better to not have to pick up another one at a critical exam. Trust me.
The NCEES approved calculator list:
http://www.ncees.org/exams/calculators/index.php#
Idiot. He's not comparing anything. He's indicating that most folks will do exactly as you just did and waiver their position based upon the type of content. The type of content is inconsequential. Either offended persons have a right to complain to sponsors or they don't. Either those sponsors have a right to react or they don't. Arguing the merits of the complaint and/or response has no bearing on whether or not it may be done.
No it isn't.
It means "fast."
...should cause the price to go to zero. Demand only drives up prices when there is scarcity in the market. This is a world in which a weapon exists because a server says it does; how does that translate to scarcity? I suppose you could look at valve as the sole vendor so they've got a monopoly or something.
If they really want to introduce economics to the game, they should make money persistent from session to session and server to server and let each server set their own prices either fixed or with their own weighted algorithm. Once prices were posted and aggregated for the multitude of servers, people would presumably flock to where they could get more equipment for less money. Admins could drive up traffic by lowering prices, etc. In which case, real world economics could come into play and admins could start advertising on server splash screens or something, which of course Valve would want a piece of.
Perhaps that is why they're introducing it now... Maybe they're on the path to a new revenue stream.
You get what you pay for.
You shouldn't be using sub-par services/providers for business-class, mission-critical services. This isn't anyone's fault but the decision-maker that thought they could get by on the cheap.