What should reputation be dependent on, if not what a person says and the veracity of the things they've said in the past? It's impossible to dissociate reputation from what one says, and the idea is ridiculous on its face.
Of course there are going to be police at protests. Blending in with the crowd just makes it easier to take care of things if an incident occurs. Is this supposed to be surprising, scandalous, conspiratorial? Because it's not. It's perfectly logical to anyone with a lick of sense.
Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it will be difficult to draft a cyberbullying law that doesn't infringe on free-speech rights.
That's because you can't. I'm so sick of this "cyberbullying" issue being brought up time and time again, when it's completely obvious it's a cover for lawmakers to regulate what we can and can't say on the internet. They always cite the story about the kid who killed himself. This is an extreme, an edge case. Most normal people do not, in fact, kill themselves over unpleasant things people said about them on the internet.
"The kids are forcing our hands to do something legislatively," said Rhode Island state Sen. John Tassoni, who introduced a bill to study cyberbullying and hopes to pass a cyberbullying law by late 2007.
No, senator, they're not. You never have to curb free speech, and the most important part of free speech is allowing that which offends you most. Maybe "the kids" can learn to just let it go, and you can stop using them as a cover to try and introduce a legislative solution to a massively overblown social problem. The last thing schools need is even more control of students' lives outside of their jurisdiction. You can't make people play nice on the internet. And you won't.
Millions of dollars isn't going to un-rape their children, and blaming a website operator for the result of unmonitored, unrestricted communication between its users can only lead to more pointless and dangerous lawsuits. Why do they need someone else to blame here? Why not blame, say, the person who raped their kid? If that isn't enough, why not blame the kid for being stupid enough to fall for it?
They're only doing this because MySpace is part of a massive company that can actually pay out.
If I had a nickel for every time some MySpace profile with several embedded videos nearly crashed Mozilla, News Corp. wouldn't own it. Seriously, get rid of , the illegible text and eye-damaging backgrounds are barely tolerable without lousy music blaring in your ears.
"Trendwhore" might work, or more to the point, "idiot". I agree that this social stuff is way out of hand, it seems like developers tend to just make anything social (which seems to be nothing more than allowing some degree of interaction and collaboration between users, kind of like, say, the whole darn internet) in an attempt to make it popular.
For the most part, I find these social services to be a waste of time. Google works just fine for locating anything I'm looking for (if you ignore all the opinion pieces for blogs), and I just use decent free image hosts for my photos since I don't need to read people's comments on them.
I see people mentioning this all the time. "The CURRENT SYSTEM is FLAWED, it needs to be CHANGED!" But I rarely see anyone offering actual advice on how to do it, at least not with reverting to some kind of Nupedia-like system that would grind all progress to a halt. Seriously, if people think it's that bad, why aren't they offering solutions? If you're going to pan a service that hundreds of thousands of people use daily, at least try to come up with something better.
I dislike how they look, and how they reduce the space for the actual content I was looking for. I also don't intend to buy whatever product or service they're offering.
I'm a netadmin for a small IRC network, and I really don't think they would be able to pull this off. All the traffic between our servers is encrypted, and clients have the option of connecting with SSL. And we, the opers, can see whenever anyone connects or disconnects from the network, and we can also ban them from connecting. Nothing that isn't part of our network or its services package could join a channel without being visible. Whatever they tried to do, it would be easily detected and blocked if necessary.
Of course, if they try to do this on the ISP level, that's a different story. But again, all inter-server traffic is encrypted.
I'd rather not be a doomsayer, but seriously: If all the spam and viruses continue, people will get so sick of it that they'll take serious action. Since the anti-spam laws are both ineffective and draconian, and very few spammers have been successfully shut down, and worms, trojans, and viruses run rampant despite the availability of patches and better OSes: Everyone will be using a strict whitelist, ISPs will remove the ability to send and receive attachments, and HTML email will be disabled because of the scripting risk. The spammers and malware writers will have forced us to cripple our own communications. Just my 2c.
End wild prognostications.
Slashdot Mirror
What should reputation be dependent on, if not what a person says and the veracity of the things they've said in the past? It's impossible to dissociate reputation from what one says, and the idea is ridiculous on its face.
Of course there are going to be police at protests. Blending in with the crowd just makes it easier to take care of things if an incident occurs. Is this supposed to be surprising, scandalous, conspiratorial? Because it's not. It's perfectly logical to anyone with a lick of sense.
I've noticed this happening as well, on both my computer and my DVD player, but only with certain discs. Is there any way to fix it?
If anyone would like to contact Senator Murphy about this, his email is info [at] gomattmurphy.com. I just did.
And how do you intend to syndicate them anywhere else when you have to be logged into Facebook to see anything?
Because people like to play games? Seriously, what kind of ridiculous question is this? Is this a joke or something?
Millions of dollars isn't going to un-rape their children, and blaming a website operator for the result of unmonitored, unrestricted communication between its users can only lead to more pointless and dangerous lawsuits. Why do they need someone else to blame here? Why not blame, say, the person who raped their kid? If that isn't enough, why not blame the kid for being stupid enough to fall for it?
They're only doing this because MySpace is part of a massive company that can actually pay out.
Um, definitely not. When you can only run IE7 on Vista, XP or 2003, it won't be stemming the growth of Firefox at all. What a ridiculous question.
Does anyone know what this person is talking about? It sounds hilarious.
If I had a nickel for every time some MySpace profile with several embedded videos nearly crashed Mozilla, News Corp. wouldn't own it. Seriously, get rid of , the illegible text and eye-damaging backgrounds are barely tolerable without lousy music blaring in your ears.
"Trendwhore" might work, or more to the point, "idiot". I agree that this social stuff is way out of hand, it seems like developers tend to just make anything social (which seems to be nothing more than allowing some degree of interaction and collaboration between users, kind of like, say, the whole darn internet) in an attempt to make it popular. For the most part, I find these social services to be a waste of time. Google works just fine for locating anything I'm looking for (if you ignore all the opinion pieces for blogs), and I just use decent free image hosts for my photos since I don't need to read people's comments on them.
I see people mentioning this all the time. "The CURRENT SYSTEM is FLAWED, it needs to be CHANGED!" But I rarely see anyone offering actual advice on how to do it, at least not with reverting to some kind of Nupedia-like system that would grind all progress to a halt. Seriously, if people think it's that bad, why aren't they offering solutions? If you're going to pan a service that hundreds of thousands of people use daily, at least try to come up with something better.
I don't use mysql_real_escape_string() until later because I might need the unescaped data for non-SQL purposes.
I dislike how they look, and how they reduce the space for the actual content I was looking for. I also don't intend to buy whatever product or service they're offering.
Maybe you should get back to work on Jason's Weekend II: Yiff Orgy.
Lowtax said he selected "Donation" on Paypal's site. If this is a donation drive, what do you expect him to ship?
Yeah, SA keeps other organizations from donating thousands of dollars to charities all the time. Right? Think here. Please.
You forgot to call him "Blowtax".
I'm a netadmin for a small IRC network, and I really don't think they would be able to pull this off. All the traffic between our servers is encrypted, and clients have the option of connecting with SSL. And we, the opers, can see whenever anyone connects or disconnects from the network, and we can also ban them from connecting. Nothing that isn't part of our network or its services package could join a channel without being visible. Whatever they tried to do, it would be easily detected and blocked if necessary.
Of course, if they try to do this on the ISP level, that's a different story. But again, all inter-server traffic is encrypted.
Scanning for an open proxy?
The moon landing was faked, you insensitive clod!
Here.
It's beginning.
I'd rather not be a doomsayer, but seriously: If all the spam and viruses continue, people will get so sick of it that they'll take serious action. Since the anti-spam laws are both ineffective and draconian, and very few spammers have been successfully shut down, and worms, trojans, and viruses run rampant despite the availability of patches and better OSes: Everyone will be using a strict whitelist, ISPs will remove the ability to send and receive attachments, and HTML email will be disabled because of the scripting risk. The spammers and malware writers will have forced us to cripple our own communications. Just my 2c.
End wild prognostications.