My response was predicated on your use of "any system" not "any private social network site".
I also disagree to some degree -- since you were speaking of defaults, not of options. If a social networking site clearly tells you that everything is public until you mark it private and lets you set anything to private that you wish, then its not a failure at all IMHO.
I would lay more blame on people using Facebook like its a private whispering club in the corner of a staircase than on Facebook for assuming people using a social networking site want to be sociable.
I think you failed Christianity 101 -- the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with some corrupt people in power of an organization that coincidentally called itself the church.
Corrupt people exist in all organizations, its unfortunate those ones called themselves Christians when they obviously weren't.
I see no irony in atheists who are selfish or who are not. At that point it becomes a personal moral conviction, and don't see the point of your question for that matter.
I think atheists should act out of support for others in society because it makes for a better and more peaceful society and because self-aggrandizement is rarely helpful to the whole but I would have no higher power's opinions to convince you with.
You're an idiot. Your boss isn't everything, especially when you work for the public (city government in this case). Your boss can tell you to lie cheat and steal but you still shouldn't do it.
Your boss tells you to bury a body, or to steal a car, or to tamper with evidence, you don't.
All joking aside, you could easily provide database storage for the messages elsewhere, supported by ads, and show only the summary and a link as the real Tweet.
"OzPeter is making a joke... "
Of course, many people I know already do this using their Blogs.
People who set the cookie on tinyurl, or install the preview add-on for bit.ly don't have to worry about clicking on nasty website links accidentally, they can see what the site redirects to in advance. Swift, the Twitter (Android) app I use on my phone automatically shows previews for links as well, since they're so common when tweeting.
I quite like the fact that with http://tinyurl.com/ I can set a cookie that will always take me to tinyurl itself and show me what the shortened link redirects to before actually following the redirect. This would be much harder to do without a database driven system, and a good database structure results in faster lookups than most filesystems anyway.
I've always found it deeply ironic that many "mine mine mine!" capitalists also declare themselves to be Christians and fail to understand sharing one's wealth in the Christian sense at all.
"If you have two coats and your neighbour has none, give one of them away to him."
Give, not sell, because you have more than you need, and he has nothing. Whether you earned it or not is irrelevant.
Get a grip on international trade agreements and why courts have anything to do with them.
Get an education in economics and trade, a little legal background, and then look into the specifics of the softwood lumber agreements, and the various great lakes water agreements.
How does adding government regulated rsitrictions not give government any more influence?
You obviously fail to understand the framing of legislation.
The government says you can't punch someone in the mouth for failing to answer a question. That's a restriction on the Free Press giving interviews isn't it? The government says you can't kidnap a senator's family and hold them ransom to get an honest answer out of him about the source of his donations, that's government intervention in the media too, right?
Lots of things are illegal for the benefit of all, from murder to j-walking and yet you assume that any such law targeting the printing of untruths as facts would lead to sudden government interventions?
"it is the author's belief that the sky is pink and that snails are evolved from aliens" would easily be seen as opinion and not fact publishing. The problem I have is with the media being allowed to say "The highway is closed today due to construction" when in fact there's a protest march going on that the government doesn't want covered.
My point is intact despite your reply -- libel and slander only come into effect if a third party is directly harmed by the statement and it is untrue.
Untrue statements that cause no harm to a specific third party are not held into account at all.
For example, publishing "the sky is yellow with a tint of green today over New York" cannot result i a libel or slander suit, no matter how untrue it is*.
* if you also said "Dumbass said... " then Dumbass could of course sue if he had not in fact said those things. Simply printing untruths though has no legal consequences whatsoever.
I've taken a lot more than one semester, and unlike you I'm betting, I've studied language, the interpretation of language and pure logic as applied to linguistic studies.
You're believing a common statement that is given about a document and ignoring the facts about the document itself.
If I made a rule in my own home saying I could make no rules against wearing shoes in the house, would it cease to be a rule because its against specific other rules? Would it cease to be my rule even though I made it?
Who do you think passed the Amendments to the Constitution? Congress. Who do they limit? Congress. What relevance is this second fact? None. What I said was that its just another law made by the government, and if one honestly doesn't believe in the integrity of government, then they couldn't accept the Amendments to the Constitution either.
Learn to read the thread -- I posted which case I meant and you can find it yourself. They all refer to Fox News, and being an affiliate doesn't change the issue at all, does it? By wearing Fox on their sleeve, they represent Fox, that's hwo it works.
For what its worth, your logic meter is running low -- in a thread about holding the media responsible for publishing facts that are true, I see either a misrepresentation of the facts on the part of the media who reported on the case, or a non-journalist making a mistake, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
You should be sent back to school if you believe everything you read in a Slashdot thread, but you should be allowed to believe what you get from the media as news.
I see a cop pushing a guy through a window. The guy putting up his hand to keep his face from hitting it first is hardly the wrong move.
What would you do if someone was pushing you into a window? Would you take it in the forehead? or put an arm up to protect yourself?
The police officer should expect a suspect to put his hands on the wall/window for the pat-down, and as such should be at least partly responsible for what happened.
I get the distinct impression you've done no research at all and are just foaming at the mouth.
I never said we got suckered into unfair practices, I said the United States doesn't follow the practices they promise to follow and then ignores courts that disagree with their decisions.
The fact that trade already exists in extreme volumes between the USA and Canada means that you're wrong on thinking there's no value in the money, and "just moving" trade elsewhere is not exactly an overnight procedure.
To respond to your very first point, acting unfairly in return is not the right thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
At the very least, most security DVR systems I've used or seen require an Active-X control to be used to view the cameras, which then requires IE.
My response was predicated on your use of "any system" not "any private social network site".
I also disagree to some degree -- since you were speaking of defaults, not of options. If a social networking site clearly tells you that everything is public until you mark it private and lets you set anything to private that you wish, then its not a failure at all IMHO.
I would lay more blame on people using Facebook like its a private whispering club in the corner of a staircase than on Facebook for assuming people using a social networking site want to be sociable.
I think you failed Christianity 101 -- the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with some corrupt people in power of an organization that coincidentally called itself the church.
Corrupt people exist in all organizations, its unfortunate those ones called themselves Christians when they obviously weren't.
I see no irony in atheists who are selfish or who are not. At that point it becomes a personal moral conviction, and don't see the point of your question for that matter.
I think atheists should act out of support for others in society because it makes for a better and more peaceful society and because self-aggrandizement is rarely helpful to the whole but I would have no higher power's opinions to convince you with.
So you're a pharmacist and you get a clear prescription for narcotics handed to you from a known drug dealer. Do you fill the prescription?
How people can be so short-sighted as to follow orders even when doing something they know can cause harm is beyond me.
You're an idiot. Your boss isn't everything, especially when you work for the public (city government in this case). Your boss can tell you to lie cheat and steal but you still shouldn't do it.
Your boss tells you to bury a body, or to steal a car, or to tamper with evidence, you don't.
See Enron.
While you're arguing orders vs. morals, lets take a completely impenetrable hierarchy -- the military.
When you're given an order to shoot an innocent civilian in the head to keep him from talking, do you do it?
If you do, you might set yourself up for court marshalling or war crimes, despite the orders.
What kind of stupid society have we bred if you can believe that policy is more important than ethics?
http://cr.yp.to/ ignores the meaning as well :) But its a cool domain to own.
You can also set a cookie at tinyurl.com that will remember you prefer to preview your URLs.
All joking aside, you could easily provide database storage for the messages elsewhere, supported by ads, and show only the summary and a link as the real Tweet.
"OzPeter is making a joke ... "
Of course, many people I know already do this using their Blogs.
People who set the cookie on tinyurl, or install the preview add-on for bit.ly don't have to worry about clicking on nasty website links accidentally, they can see what the site redirects to in advance. Swift, the Twitter (Android) app I use on my phone automatically shows previews for links as well, since they're so common when tweeting.
I quite like the fact that with http://tinyurl.com/ I can set a cookie that will always take me to tinyurl itself and show me what the shortened link redirects to before actually following the redirect. This would be much harder to do without a database driven system, and a good database structure results in faster lookups than most filesystems anyway.
Sensible URLs are rarely short. For example, the URL for this article is quite sensible -- but http://search.slashdot.org/story/09/12/15/1323247/Google-Unveils-googl-URL-Shortening-Service is hardly short. Now sure, everyone could implement their own shortening service and use it when people click "share" links on their site, so that 'sharing' a Slashdot story on Facebook would result in something like http://slashdot.org/af32g38d which would resolve to the above URL.
That said, it seems like a horrific waste of coding effort to repeat for every website.
I love good solid union members who don't believe in socialism :-)
I've always found it deeply ironic that many "mine mine mine!" capitalists also declare themselves to be Christians and fail to understand sharing one's wealth in the Christian sense at all.
"If you have two coats and your neighbour has none, give one of them away to him."
Give, not sell, because you have more than you need, and he has nothing. Whether you earned it or not is irrelevant.
Last I heard only California had a law against such contract stipulations, but I could easily be wrong.
Because you want to share those photos with a friend, but not with random strangers?
Why don't you publish all your personal E-mails and chats to the web as well while you're at it? Those are done online too.
You mean the web?
See robots.txt
Wow, you're a raving lunatic.
Get a grip on international trade agreements and why courts have anything to do with them.
Get an education in economics and trade, a little legal background, and then look into the specifics of the softwood lumber agreements, and the various great lakes water agreements.
You obviously fail to understand the framing of legislation.
The government says you can't punch someone in the mouth for failing to answer a question. That's a restriction on the Free Press giving interviews isn't it? The government says you can't kidnap a senator's family and hold them ransom to get an honest answer out of him about the source of his donations, that's government intervention in the media too, right?
Lots of things are illegal for the benefit of all, from murder to j-walking and yet you assume that any such law targeting the printing of untruths as facts would lead to sudden government interventions?
"it is the author's belief that the sky is pink and that snails are evolved from aliens" would easily be seen as opinion and not fact publishing. The problem I have is with the media being allowed to say "The highway is closed today due to construction" when in fact there's a protest march going on that the government doesn't want covered.
My point is intact despite your reply -- libel and slander only come into effect if a third party is directly harmed by the statement and it is untrue.
Untrue statements that cause no harm to a specific third party are not held into account at all.
For example, publishing "the sky is yellow with a tint of green today over New York" cannot result i a libel or slander suit, no matter how untrue it is*.
* if you also said "Dumbass said ... " then Dumbass could of course sue if he had not in fact said those things. Simply printing untruths though has no legal consequences whatsoever.
I've taken a lot more than one semester, and unlike you I'm betting, I've studied language, the interpretation of language and pure logic as applied to linguistic studies.
You're believing a common statement that is given about a document and ignoring the facts about the document itself.
If I made a rule in my own home saying I could make no rules against wearing shoes in the house, would it cease to be a rule because its against specific other rules? Would it cease to be my rule even though I made it?
Who do you think passed the Amendments to the Constitution? Congress. Who do they limit? Congress. What relevance is this second fact? None. What I said was that its just another law made by the government, and if one honestly doesn't believe in the integrity of government, then they couldn't accept the Amendments to the Constitution either.
Learn to read the thread -- I posted which case I meant and you can find it yourself. They all refer to Fox News, and being an affiliate doesn't change the issue at all, does it? By wearing Fox on their sleeve, they represent Fox, that's hwo it works.
For what its worth, your logic meter is running low -- in a thread about holding the media responsible for publishing facts that are true, I see either a misrepresentation of the facts on the part of the media who reported on the case, or a non-journalist making a mistake, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
You should be sent back to school if you believe everything you read in a Slashdot thread, but you should be allowed to believe what you get from the media as news.
I see a cop pushing a guy through a window. The guy putting up his hand to keep his face from hitting it first is hardly the wrong move.
What would you do if someone was pushing you into a window? Would you take it in the forehead? or put an arm up to protect yourself?
The police officer should expect a suspect to put his hands on the wall/window for the pat-down, and as such should be at least partly responsible for what happened.
I get the distinct impression you've done no research at all and are just foaming at the mouth.
I never said we got suckered into unfair practices, I said the United States doesn't follow the practices they promise to follow and then ignores courts that disagree with their decisions.
The fact that trade already exists in extreme volumes between the USA and Canada means that you're wrong on thinking there's no value in the money, and "just moving" trade elsewhere is not exactly an overnight procedure.
To respond to your very first point, acting unfairly in return is not the right thing to do.