If recent post quality is an indicator, that might not be so far fetched... *sigh*
By the way: How many movie plots do you remember from films you saw under the age of 3?
I'm a little confused - are you talking about zombies, or politicians here? One group is always looking for brains, while the other would prefer their prey to be brainless, but apart from that...
Wow. I am truly impressed by your lack of knowledge, ignorance, your false claims (did you actually read that amendment?) and ranting. Do you have even a close idea what any of the words you used (liberal, military dictatorship, fascism, true citizen, socialist, "elect") actually mean? I was tempted to include one or more derogatory comments on your person, but I shall refrain from doing so at this time.
+1 "Understood the concept" Why are the post of people actually understanding the issues at hand and even properly explaining it to those who do not, always so far down the page?
Restaurants - Tax for not wearing the right clothes.
OK, not that one, but they might refuse to serve you
Tax for asking for modification to your orders.
Many pizza places do that as standard procedure, and I have seen in other places to.
Stores - Tax for not wearing the "approved" shoes, since you are causing more wear on the floor.
That is slightly silly, don't you think?
Government - Tax for being obese.
Not government, but many health insurance companies will
Tax for not being married.
There is a tax deduct for being married, so yes this exists
Tax for not belonging to the right religion.
Many churches expect their members to donate money to them. But the government won't collect that money for them (unless you live in Germany)
Schools - Taxed for being stupid.
If you need to take courses again, it will take longer and cost you more. If you need extra tuition it will cost you. If you drop out you loose your investment. So yes there is a tax on stupid
The "IE tax" won't pay for the extra work needed and probably was never intended to do so. Think of it as a negative discount or a extra charge for using an inconvenient ordering channel. The sole intend is to reduce the ie7 user base to a point where dropping support won't impact your business, preferably without loosing those customers.
People are lazy and I expect many of the IE7 users just couldn't be bothered to upgrade / change their browser. I doubt that this will actually make the company a lot (if any) extra money from the IE users. Neither do I think this is the intended effect. The idea is to give them a reason to upgrade without alienating them to much.
If they just dropped support, people would probably just shop elsewhere. Adding a easily available extra fee might might actually encourage an update without loosing the customer. Once the IE7 user base is low enough, you can simply drop support and start saving money.
If even MS dropped support of the old versions, why is everybody else expected to continue it? I would gladly encourage the use of an "Please update to any current browser" popup, complete with a warning that the site probably won't properly display. If enough sites drop support for this anachronistic excuse for a browser, more people would update or use a secondary browser. There are internal web apps in many companies, that through lack of foresight require IE7 or even 6, but nothing stops you from using another browser for the real internet. That way you won't even face the problem of having different IE versions on one machine or the security issues of using a seriously outdated piece of software on the public internet.
It might be interesting to monitor what happens to this in a few months time. Will it be simply ignored, shelved or "noted as valuable input" and then ignored. I'm getting a bit pessimistic about common sense and politicians accepting input from the public lately.
I really hope something good will come out of this, but I won't hold my breath.
...and fall in line. That's what you meant to say, right? Don't dare have a dissenting opinion or air a grievance against someone with more power and/or money, because that will only get you in trouble. Keep your head down and don't attract attention to yourself.
First,we are not talking about opinions, we are talking about insults. Second if you really have an issue, anonymous ranting will rarely help it.
This is not about a factory worker or dissident who communicates the wrongdoings of those in power to the public. This is about some idiots who use their anonymity as a weapon against a woman who can't defend herself against the allegations.
finally someone who actually read and considered the implications before starting a rant on free speech, Britain, facebook (evil) without knowing (or caring) what it really is about
Why not abolish anonymity for such forums. If you now your members, give them personalized accounts and only allow account holders to post. That also stops external posters and spammers.
If you trust your operator, you can reintroduce some form of pseudo anonymity where a posters name is not shown, but recorded by the system. Make sure everybody knows how it works and enjoy a decent discussion for once.
Of course it is possible to hide your identity, but in my experience many of the guys harassing women aren't exactly that sophisticated. Some even use real email addresses and think a false name will do.
Isn't that what the whole thing is about? Some idiots harass a woman, she wants to sue them, but doesn't know who they are. Has the options to either drop it, go to the police and demand an investigation (yes mam, of course we'll do that first thing in the morning *cough*) or contact facebook to get the info on the guys. Fb declines to answer without a court order, so she sues them in order to get one.
Slashdot Mirror
Well their relation is rather fishy
If recent post quality is an indicator, that might not be so far fetched... *sigh*
By the way: How many movie plots do you remember from films you saw under the age of 3?
I'm a little confused - are you talking about zombies, or politicians here? One group is always looking for brains, while the other would prefer their prey to be brainless, but apart from that...
Just to keep the ball rollin', there's probably GPL violations, Microsoft software and patented things at those bases, too!
but does it run Linux? (sorry, couldn't resist)
And not just the US. I guess anybody ever participating in a public discussion of a decent size knew that for a few thousand years.
Wow. I am truly impressed by your lack of knowledge, ignorance, your false claims (did you actually read that amendment?) and ranting. Do you have even a close idea what any of the words you used (liberal, military dictatorship, fascism, true citizen, socialist, "elect") actually mean? I was tempted to include one or more derogatory comments on your person, but I shall refrain from doing so at this time.
The most important part of your day is fiber, which helps keep the cycle regular.
I imagine an annual release cycle in this context to be rather "unpleasant".
+1 "Understood the concept"
Why are the post of people actually understanding the issues at hand and even properly explaining it to those who do not, always so far down the page?
Restaurants - Tax for not wearing the right clothes.
OK, not that one, but they might refuse to serve you
Tax for asking for modification to your orders.
Many pizza places do that as standard procedure, and I have seen in other places to.
Stores - Tax for not wearing the "approved" shoes, since you are causing more wear on the floor.
That is slightly silly, don't you think?
Government - Tax for being obese.
Not government, but many health insurance companies will
Tax for not being married.
There is a tax deduct for being married, so yes this exists
Tax for not belonging to the right religion.
Many churches expect their members to donate money to them. But the government won't collect that money for them (unless you live in Germany)
Schools - Taxed for being stupid.
If you need to take courses again, it will take longer and cost you more. If you need extra tuition it will cost you. If you drop out you loose your investment. So yes there is a tax on stupid
The "IE tax" won't pay for the extra work needed and probably was never intended to do so. Think of it as a negative discount or a extra charge for using an inconvenient ordering channel. The sole intend is to reduce the ie7 user base to a point where dropping support won't impact your business, preferably without loosing those customers.
People are lazy and I expect many of the IE7 users just couldn't be bothered to upgrade / change their browser. I doubt that this will actually make the company a lot (if any) extra money from the IE users. Neither do I think this is the intended effect. The idea is to give them a reason to upgrade without alienating them to much.
If they just dropped support, people would probably just shop elsewhere. Adding a easily available extra fee might might actually encourage an update without loosing the customer. Once the IE7 user base is low enough, you can simply drop support and start saving money.
If even MS dropped support of the old versions, why is everybody else expected to continue it? I would gladly encourage the use of an "Please update to any current browser" popup, complete with a warning that the site probably won't properly display. If enough sites drop support for this anachronistic excuse for a browser, more people would update or use a secondary browser. There are internal web apps in many companies, that through lack of foresight require IE7 or even 6, but nothing stops you from using another browser for the real internet. That way you won't even face the problem of having different IE versions on one machine or the security issues of using a seriously outdated piece of software on the public internet.
What about mobile installations for Firefox / Chrome available that don't need admin access to run/install? Though it might be against company policy.
What about coupling HR bonuses to the performance of the people they hired?
At a former employer, you would come back from lunch to find your keyboard missing.
Sounds like a great opportunity to pull pranks on your coworkers.
It might be interesting to monitor what happens to this in a few months time. Will it be simply ignored, shelved or "noted as valuable input" and then ignored. I'm getting a bit pessimistic about common sense and politicians accepting input from the public lately.
I really hope something good will come out of this, but I won't hold my breath.
...and fall in line. That's what you meant to say, right? Don't dare have a dissenting opinion or air a grievance against someone with more power and/or money, because that will only get you in trouble. Keep your head down and don't attract attention to yourself.
First,we are not talking about opinions, we are talking about insults. Second if you really have an issue, anonymous ranting will rarely help it.
This is not about a factory worker or dissident who communicates the wrongdoings of those in power to the public. This is about some idiots who use their anonymity as a weapon against a woman who can't defend herself against the allegations.
so you played it to...
finally someone who actually read and considered the implications before starting a rant on free speech, Britain, facebook (evil) without knowing (or caring) what it really is about
If you don't dare to insult people face to face, you probably should just shut up.
Why not abolish anonymity for such forums. If you now your members, give them personalized accounts and only allow account holders to post. That also stops external posters and spammers. If you trust your operator, you can reintroduce some form of pseudo anonymity where a posters name is not shown, but recorded by the system. Make sure everybody knows how it works and enjoy a decent discussion for once.
Simple answer: Never give out any information, unless ordered by a court to do so (or in facebook's case being properly paid).
Of course it is possible to hide your identity, but in my experience many of the guys harassing women aren't exactly that sophisticated. Some even use real email addresses and think a false name will do.
Isn't that what the whole thing is about? Some idiots harass a woman, she wants to sue them, but doesn't know who they are. Has the options to either drop it, go to the police and demand an investigation (yes mam, of course we'll do that first thing in the morning *cough*) or contact facebook to get the info on the guys. Fb declines to answer without a court order, so she sues them in order to get one.
They can also simply block all users FROM the UK and solve it that way as well....
Companies always have the option to ignore laws from other countries and block the freedom hating country as a whole.
Like Hulu does with the non US parts of the world?