Re:Too bad he's running the site off on 28.8 Kbps
on
Tinfoil Hat House
·
· Score: 1
I can`t stand those type of people.
(With people I mean the people writing down everything about another person, which they shouldn`t care about)
I guess they are just jealous...
I realize this is/. and RTFA isn't in vogue, but did you? If you had you'd likely feel differently. This isn't minor nitpicky stuff, but things that include major city/county/state building code violations, laws against keeping livestock in the city, nearly burning down the entire neighborhood (he took out his whole back yard, it was winter and the grass was dry all around. He's very lucky it didn't take out the entire block), etc. The guy is probably trying to keep his sanity by writing about it.
Besides, if you think it's such a horrid thing, then why are the police on the writer's side? At one point the officer gives the writer his personal business card and tells him if the neighbor causes any more problems (noise late at night in this case) to call and ask for him PERSONALLY to be sent out! The redneck neighbor is beyond just a nuisance, he's a certified hazard to his and those around him's health in the things he's been doing.
So I think his just writing about it is rather tame. He could always press charges for numerous things, notify the city/county departments about the building code violations and health code violations and then let the neighbor end up trying to resolve all that without going broke. I'd say the guy's been incredibly reserved considering the circumstances!
Yes, it's a community code. It means the community got together and a majority decided that they wanted to live in an area with certain rules. Nobody is forced to live in the community and that same community can act to modify those codes whenever they please.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. There are far too many incidents where residents have had to SUE the community organization to put a halt to it's nonsense. I haven't researched the particulars but I figure it must be a case where members are appointed and then run amok. I've seen stories of community codes requiring houses to be painted a particular color, requiring a specific type of railing be used on porches/decks (and we're not talking minimum safety specs here, we're talking ONE particular type of banner is what everyone is required to use), etc. To add insult to injury some of them will make these rules and not bother to grandfather in any houses violating them already. How would you feel if your "community code" got changed and then the organization demanded you tear down your entire porch railing and replace it?
In some places it may a matter of democracy, but in all the bad stories I've read there appears to be no democracy to the organizations. Somehow, someway, they ended up becoming little fiefdoms for those in charge.
This has nothing to do with race, national pride, or an unchecked autocracy. Therefore, the fascism label simply doesn't apply. I suggest you learn the meaning of a word before you start throwing it around.
Before you start putting the smack down on someone verbally you should do your homework and make sure you're not wrong. I know that either the author of
Kevin & Kell or This is True had a problem with their community organization over porch banners in the past year. (I'm pretty sure it was the author of Kevin & Kell, but not 100% sure.) What made it stand out in my mind was that they actually made the changes necessary to make the community organization happy only to find out right afterwards that several homeowners were refusing to comply and filing a lawsuit against the community organization. That certainly doesn't sound like a democratic process was used to decide the new policy does it?
Posted AC for the same reasons for not searching for this stuff from work.:)
Ahh, oh well, not too big a problem. Forgot to check post anonymously. Doh!
Because sex offenses of a particular kind are actually related to sexual addiction, and there is an extremely high recidivism rate due to the fact that prisons don't treat addiction very effectively, and treating addiction at all is difficult in the first place, and these are people that are extremely deep into their addictions to have committed their crimes.
To some extent you're correcct, prisons are quite bad at actually treating the addiction (or any underlying reason for criminal activity) so it's no surprise that there's a high rate of recidivism in general. Granted it is higher with sex offenders, probably because prisons don't seem to even _try_ to treat the problem. The person just spends years in prison thinking about what they wish they could do again.
However, I don't think it takes a deep addiction to cause these acts, what info I can find with some quick googling indicates that pedophiles (which fall into a class of disorders called paraphilias) and that they litteral don't think the way you and I do. One example given in discussing treatment states "A pedophile observing a young girl wearing shorts may erroneously think, 'she wants me.'" That's not something most "normal" people would think of a female of any age. The more normal thought process would be "I want her" instead.
The treatments listed don't look terribly useful. All are variations of positive and negative reinforcement. For instance:
"In olfactory aversion therapy, for example, the pedophile is trained to pair and associate the chain of events preceding pedophilic acts with the odor of ammonia, supplied by smelling salt capsules. In covert desensitization, the pedophile practices imagining the chain of events leading to pedophilic acts, and then inserts imagined negative consequences into the chain."
This sounds destined for failure because it requires the willful cooperation of the pedophile. You can't be certain they're associating the smells or negative images with what they say they are after all.
Why don't we fix the prison system so it does treat addictive behaviors related to sex?
Better why don't we fix the prison system so it treats the underlying problems for all crimes, not just sex crimes. While we're at it why don't we work at reintroducing prisoners to normal society and assisting them in finding work/etc. If they know they can have a better life and we help remove the obstacles in the path for former convicts it would likely help lower crime rates for all crimes.
Why don't we distinguish between sex crimes that are connected to an addition and those that are not, and not track sexual offenders who are unlikely to commit a new crime?
Good question for the first part. I know my state doesn't, most of the sex offenders in my area are for statutory rape. (At least the website lists what the crime was if they committed it in state, for out of state crimes it just says unknown, not very helpful). How about we work hard to treat the underlying problems the ones who historically have a high rate of recidivism have and track them through required therapy as a requirment of their parole instead? If they seem to be making progress, or are cured (although I doubt this is possible, I've seen quite a bit of literature flatly state there is no cure for pedohpilia) then we don't track the publically. I have no problem with the police knowing their whereabouts but publishing the info to the world just invites cases of vigilante justice -- often against the wrong targets because the info was out of date.
Why are there so many people on the list who don't deserve to be there? (Misguided applications of the statutory-rape laws come to mind, as others have pointed out.)
Frankly because all the avid supporters of laws like this seem to forget there are different level of sex offenders. If you asked them, I'll bet a good 99% of them would tell you all sex crimes are equally horrendous
I was going to say exactly the opposite thing. Once there's some testimony -- and the computer companies are certainly going to insist that they get a chance to air their views in public
Unless they do what they did with the RealID legislation and sneak it onto some spending bill that no congresscritter dare opposes or ask for hearings on because they'll be accused of not supporting our military/etc.
So yeah, I'd say it'll pass with ease. Enough money will grease hands to insure it.
Exactly. How in the world is it possible to be so stupid to think that someone would honestly help him out in hacking their computer?
You've never ran into some of these script kiddies on IRC before have you? I've seen plenty of them over the years who are just that stupid. No clue about how to do a/whois or get the IP themselves, but plenty stupid enough to boast they can hack you into oblivion if they just knew your IP. Anyone that stupid will certainly believe you when pretend to call their bluff. Besides giving 127.0.0.1, looking up the IP for something like www.fbi.gov and giving them that is always amusing. When they finally dissapear you get to wonder if they left IRC willingly or not.:)
You make it sound as though these 12 year olds have the intellectual mental capacity to make such choices and to be responsible to boot. The reality is they will NEVER be this. They are not just young human beings. Rather, they are (by and large) immature children. Always have been, and always will be until genetic evolution states otherwise.
I suppose genetic evolution was wrong all those thousands of years before the last couple of hundred when most women had already had a couple of kids and were married and no longer living with their parents by 12/13? You should study history, it's really insightful.
If I can't get a 12 year old girl to do her chores and put away her toys when she is finished, what makes you you even think she will be responsible to be on the pill?
Let's be realistic here, what will really happen to her if she doesn't do her chores? Will you stop feeding her? Will you make her sleep in the yard? Will you stop clothing her? At best she'll not get some extra stuff she wants but that she doesn't require for survival. You and she both know this. That's really not much incentive for a lot of people, regardless of age. If her survival literally depended on doing those chores she'd be a lot more inclinded to do them.
And even if shes on the pill (better yet, a patch), can you guaranty the 15 year old boy will wrap his rod to prevent the spread of STDs?
I don't know that a patch is better, they can come off pretty easy depending on how well they stick to a person's body. I know I can't really use them because of this, and this is just for minor stuff like motion-sickness patches. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on one for birth control.
As for the 15yo boy not being willing to use a condom: that's why you have to make sure your daughter will make the decision FOR him. If you're open and honest with her about sex and don't treat it as some horribly embarassing thing to not talk about, and talk to her like she's a young adult starting to have sexual feelings, she'll likely respond like one. If she's not scared to tell you if something like that happens, she's certainly going to be far more likely to tell the boy "no condom, no sex" and know she has the wrath of Dad to back her up. Frankly she might even decide to not have sex at all.
Now I understand there are always exceptions to the rule as everyone is different. But when you at the average maturity children, the society they live in will dictate age of consent. And personally, if it was up to me, I would make that age 16.
Then I fear for your daughter's sexual well being. You can NOT dictate to her the age of consent, if you try she's much more likely to go ahead and have sex because it's forbidden, and forbidden things are much more interesting... If you can get over your age hangup and be open and honest with her, and start talking to her about sex NOW, she may not have sex until well after 16. If you want to pretend she's "just a child" and ignore the fact she's probably already having sexual feelings, well I'm afraid you're in for one hell of a trip over the next 6 years, one you're not going to enjoy.
What it boils down to is it doesn't matter what you or I think is the "appropriate" age for first sexual experience. What matters is children start having sexual feelings somewhere between 9-12 depending on the child. Those feelings won't magically go away. If you don't tell your daughter why she has those feelings and what sex is about and what's right and what's wrong, who will? That 15yo boy that doesn't want use a condom probably. I sort of doubt that's who you'd want your daughter learning about sex from.
It's especially humorous because in no way did I endorse censorship
You have an awfully short memory then, you said:
Television censored after massive complaints about inappropriate content?
As one of your examples that it was unfair that people complained "WHERE ARE THE PARENTS?". Note I didn't have to twist words or anything, you flat out said censored. Not "content labeling" censored. So yes, you did support censorship in your original post.
though this was hardly unexpected.
I guess not when you're trolling. Sorry I fed the trolls, I occasionally mistake someone for trying to make a valid argument when they aren't. The fact you were a foe of a friend should have tipped me off. I'll make sure not to bother next time.
If evolution has made humans capable of killing each other, why are there laws against killing?
If evolution has made humans liars at any age, why are there laws against lying in some situations?
I could go on. The point is this: human laws exist to curb human nature.
Threre's quite a difference there between what you're talking about (murder, lying) and what the grandparent was talking about (ability to reproduce). Apparently you're forgetting that from an evolutionary standpoint sex is simply so you have offspring. Looking at it from that standpoint the grandparent has a _VERY_ good point. Nature is saying at 12 this girl's ready to have kids and pass on her genes. Our laws (and religious morality) is trying to tell mother nature she's wrong. We could legisilate against other things that nature does (hey let's make tornados and hurricanes illegal, it'll save millions!) but good luck getting nature to cooperate there either.
The grandparent's point, which you ignored, is that instead of sticking our heads in the sand (or up our asses as the case may be), we need to accept the fact that once nature decides a child can reproduce, they are sexual beings, whether we LIKE it or not. We can make it illegal all we want, but it will NOT stop it from happening.
On the other hand if we stop outlawing this and accept it as something we can't stop we can try to make sure that at least they have sex safely (to prevent disease) and hell, we might even get them to take contraceptives and not pop out a kid till they're older. If we ignore and/or pretend they're not having sex they're going to end up pregnant, or worse with HIV/AIDS because we did that.
So yeah laws are there to curb human nature to some extent, but when we legislate morality but fail to teach it to our kids we end up with failure. After all, murder is illegal, but don't you teach your kids not to kill others? Hell most of us teach our kids not to harm others, much less kill them. Yet many don't even talk to their kids about what sex IS, much less what can happen if they have it, and sex is as much a natural impulse and lashing out in anger.
What this comes down to is that we have laws restricting the age of consent so as to prevent the abuse of children by adults. The state has a valid interest in preventing emotionally immature children from being taken-advantage-of by malicious adults.
Then why is the crime labeled Statutory Rape in most cases? If it's truly non-consensual and being taken advantage of, why does the state not go for the harsher penalties imposed by a straight charge of rape and/or sexual assault? A person convicted of statutory rape will be out of jail sooner than one convicted of rape or sexual assualt. It can easily be argued the state is failing in really protecting children when they go this route. And what about cases where the child, and the parents of the child do not feel any crime was committed yet the state presses charges anyways? I remember reading a news article last year where a county in Georgia went ahead with pressing statutory rape charges against the _WIFE_ of a minor. Why? He'd gotten her pregnant before they were married. The parents begged them to not do this, but the "authorities" ignored them and put this kid's wife in jail. Just try and tell me that wasn't more emotionally damaging to the boy than having sex with an older woman was.
Age of consent laws exist mainly to keep women from having sex before moralists think they should, at least it appears that way. Until the last few years most laws specified a higher age of consent for girls than for boys. There's no good argument for that, in fact studies have found repeatedly that girls mature faster than boys emotionally. However our society thinks poorly of women who have sex (whores!) but not of men who do. (How many derogatory terms can you think of for a sexually active guy? I can't think of any that have anywhere near the connotations of whore.)
A parents group spending their time and effort to try to have age-limits applied on video games?
Why? There already is one, it's called the ESRB. Most stores are getting much better about enforcing it in fact. Still it doesn't matter, I worked a few years at Wal-mart after the dotcom collapse and can't even begin to tell you how many parents would still buy a M rated game for their 8yo even after it was pointed out to them that the game was for 17+. Is that the store's fault? Looks like a bad parent to me. I was always quite impressed by the parents who would go "oh, I didn't know that, thanks." then tell their kids they'd have to pick something else out. Even more impressive was the parents who would take the time to read the back and see what the game was about and decide based on that if they thought their kid could handle it even if they were under the recommended age. That looks like good parenting to me. Do you do the same? Or do you buy your kids whatever games they want and get mad when the store employee tells you it's rated M for Mature, ages 17+ and still buy it for your 8yo?
Television censored after massive complaints about inappropriate content?
There's a most
amusing article in Scientific American addressing the issues with the infamous Janet Jackson boob episode and Randy Moss' mooning incident. It seems that while everyone was outraged about those, they forgot to pay attention to the carnage on field. But yeah, it's so much worse to see a nipple or someone pretend to moon someone than guys getting concussions bashing into each other. Yep, certainly censoring the important stuff there.
Parents can't watch their children 24/7 and create healthy children, especially in the mid teens, and there has to be some reliance upon the behaviour of others in this giant village that we all live in - It DOES take a village to raise a child, unless you're raising a bush-person.
Bullshit. My parents couldn't watch me 24/7, yet as a teen I managed to not smoke, drink or do any drugs. (And frankly, by choice, I've yet to smoke or do drugs, and I drink very rarely. In fact I've never been drunk once in my life.) Sure I could have if I wanted to, but I knew it was wrong and made a decision on my own to not take the opportunity. All of my values came from my parents, and they did a great job in instilling them in me. I'm 33 now so that you know I'm not some underage brat (as you seem to think most of/. is). And yes I am single, but most of my friends are married and have kids. You know what? All of them aren't relying one bit on government-imposed censoring or other things to keep their kids safe. They take responsibility for them themselves and seem to be doing a great job.
By the time your kids are 15-16 or so if they don't have values instilled in them by their parents it's too late. It doesn't matter what censoring or laws you pass, they're going to make the wrong choices.
So perhaps the better question (especially in this case) is WHERE WERE THE PARENTS the first 14 years of this girl's life? Why did she think it was OK to meet a stranger she met online for sex? You know my parents never told me directly I shouldn't meet a stranger for sex but I was quite capable of working that one out on my own, even at 15, much less 17. It's not a major stumper after all.
But yeah, parents can't be everywhere so all of us should suffer censorship because they decided to have kids right?
It seems the Slashdot crowd is very fast on judging parents, but have you really thought this through? Maybe you should try to imagine how it would be to have a child n your own? Would you be that perfect parent that you expect everyone else to be?
I can and have imagined it. I've thought about a lot of things I'd do both technical and social. I seriously doubt I, or anyone, will ever be a "perfect" parent. But what I do know is I'm not going to sue someone over something that I could have, and should have prevented, especially when my child was EQUALLY as guilty. This went on for two freaking years! They talked online and on the phone (according to TFA). This isn't like it was just online only and the parents were technophobes. They were paying no attention to what this girl was doing. The girl was willing too, sure she was underage, but by the time she agreed to meet him she was 17. Irregardless of the law, I've met very few 17 years olds who don't know what sex is and the implications of it. Many states make the age of consent 16 in fact.
Sorry, I can cut parents slack when it's all online and happens quickly, but when something is both online and off, and lasts for multiple years, the parents were too busy being something besides parents.
And frankly if you trust someone else to decide what is and isn't safe for your child to view online, you're both an idiot and a bad parent. Take some responsibility, watch what they view, check out sites ahead of time. If you don't understand how to limit their browsing technically find someone who can, even if you have to pay them. If you can't afford to pay someone to do this, stay in the room with them or don't let them be online. Frankly this is the type of think I'll help friends set up for free (well maybe make them feed me, but that's cheap). I suspect many other computer folks will do the same. I won't fix your worm/virus/trojan infested computer for you for free (at least no more than once, and only if you're a close friend), but I will help you learn how to monitor what your kid does online. I consider it community service.
In most of the states (in US), the consent age is 16. As in, if I am 50, 16 is good to go for me.
Better
check the laws before you try that. Many states have an age limiter, so that for a few more years after the age of consent unless you're within 2-3 years of the younger partner it's still considered statutory rape. IIRC, AgeOfConsent.com lists the actual age where it's legal to have sex with anyone of any age. I can't quite check though as work blocks the site.
The law does not recognize someone as a legally responsible adult until the age of 18. Who among us did NOT do some fairly stupid things when we were teenagers?
It depends on what aspect of adulthood and what state. Since this is a case about potential sex with a minor it ranges from 16 to 18 throughout the US (check
Age of Consent.com for the details.) In this case 18 is the age of consent in CA so it would have been considered a crime _IF_ he had met her. Yet he didn't, and hasn't been charged with a crime even though this occured 2 years ago. I'm quite sure AOL informed authorities along with firing him, otherwise they would risk liability.
Yes we all did stupid things, but that doesn't excuse this type of lawsuit. She waits two years to file it? It's not filed just against the guy seduced her, but AOL as well, even though AOL FIRED him when they discovered he was breaking the rules (and about to break the law)? This looks like a classic money-grabbing scheme. That's the only possible reason to sue AOL here, they have deeper pockets than this guy does so that's where the money is. The lawyer's probably betting that AOL will settle to get the case our of the public eye instead of fighting.
So yeah I can feel sorry for her for screwing up and falling for this guy. And yes the guy's an ass/idiot for what he did. But I feel not the least bit sorry for her current actions. She's 19 now, no longer a child and filing a lawsuit to try to get rich quick. This type of thing has a tendency to backfire though. Remember the girl who sued her school system because she was made co-valedictorian a few years back? She eventually won the suit, but it cost her dearly. Harvard dropped it's offer for her to come there, along with the scholarship (she had a full scholarship). Her legal bills were probably higher than the final settlement as well. She did get what she wanted though, she was named sole valedictorian. Too bad she ruined her life to get it.
So I guess my ultimate point is, she's an adult now, why's she still doing amazingly stupid things?
When in comes to filtering at rest stops, it has little to do with whether people like porn or not. It comes down to the fact that many people don't want to pay for someone else to download porn or commit copyright infringement.
But is there really a problem? Has anyone really stopped to _think_ about this? Who use rest stops mostly? Travelers (generally on vacation) and truckers. Truckers might want to surf a bit of porn now and then, but they aren't going to spend much time doing it. For them time is money, they're going to make their pitstop if they need it, maybe grab something to eat and head back on the road asap. If they're stopping for a sleep break, they're going to get to sleep asap so they can start driving again as soon as is allowed. That's how they make their money, they're going to lose money sitting at a rest stop surfing porn.
For travelers on vacation it makes no sense either. Even if I'm traveling alone why would I want to stop at a rest stop and surf some porn when I have a destination to get to that's probably a lot more fun?
The whole thing's been blown out of proportion, it's basically a small group of moralists trying to tell others what to do, even if they're not doing anything they disapprove of yet. Gotta make sure they don't get any chance to do anything morally wrong after all!
Because Dell looked at the numbers and determined that the exclusively-Intel price discount that Dell gets is more valuable than the potential revenue they'd get by offering AMD.
I'm sure this is true, and in the past sticking to Intel has served Dell well. However Intel's been stumbling recently, for the first time we're starting to see AMD not only catch up, but pass Intel in some areas, and Intel play follow the leader to AMD. I'm not sure sticking to Intel only at this point, even with the massive discounts I'm sure they're getting, is a terribly wise move. If Intel stumbles a few more times, the market may leave them behind, and Dell with them.
I know if I owned stock in Dell that I'd be a bit concerned.
I use the ad blocking software, but that's mostly because ads have gotten so out of control on the commercial web sites. There's a tiny bit of content in the middle of the screen, and the rest is moving graphics, flash animations, and pop up/under windows. All of that is hugely annoying, and yet Google ads don't bother me because their understated and textual. With most sites, it seems the content is just an afterthought to the advertising.
I agree, and there's also the problem of sites with decidedly non-adult content having ads show up that are borderline porn (remember how X10 used to be horrid about this?). I use ad blocking but don't block Google's ads. (One exception is at work. Occasionally the Google ads get a bit funky and bring up adult links. Text or not I don't want any misunderstandings over what's displayed on my screen and lose my job thanks to an ad I didn't ask for.)
Still, I never click on ads, even the Google ones. I never will either, most of the ads sound almost desperate for attention. I figure if they're like that the product must be absolute shit so why bother.
Those creators of the websites want you (obviously) to view their information but pay for it by viewing their ads. If they didn't want you to view their ads - they would not have put it there. Why should the burdeon be put on them? WIth the exception of malicious websites (which i do not agree with) why should a webmaster have to make access to his site restrictive and unfriendly because *YOU* feel you deserve something for free?
I don't feel I deserve something for free. In fact I pay for Keenspot's premium service (just so I can read General Protection Fault in hi-def) and subscribe to Girlamatic.com so I can read archives of The Wisdom of Moo and Smile. Yet I still use adblocking and feel no guilt. The simple fact is I'll donate or subscribe to a site if it's worth it. But I will NEVER click on an ad. They're not losing any money from me blocking their ads, as I'm not going to click through anyway.
And while we're at it, what about sites I do donate to. I pay them what I think their site's worth, and even if I only donate $5, it's probably a LOT more than they'd get if I clicked all their ads in a day. Should I still have to see their ads if I've donated? Are they violatint the social contract by making me still see their ads when I give them money? This works both ways you know.
As for your That's how the social contract works -- You are dead wrong. Show me where this says this tidbit of information. A social contract is one of mutual respect. A website puts up its content - the website owner pays fee's and spends his/her time. They, in good faith, would like for you to view their ads which help them keep that material going. Again, with the exception of malicious websites - there is nothing wrong with this.
You're trying to force a link between respect for a site and viewing it's ads. It just doesn't work that way. If I respect a site I'll support them, but I will _NOT_ view their ads. I'll support them in other ways, mostly by donating, or subscribing if it's an option. By your twisted logic, even though I donate to sites I disrespect them because I have ad blocking on. Care to explain how that makes any sense?
Because of the commercials cable television doesn't cost as much.
This is the prevailing logic, but with cable prices going up every year (more so in places with only one cable provider) I'm beginning to wonder just how true this really is.
Because of the commercials DVDs don't cost that much.
Bullshit. The decision to put forced ads on DVDs appears to be nothing more than a company-specific greed mechanism. Some don't do it, some do. Their new releases cost _THE SAME_ irregardless. It's nothing more than total greed and consumer disrespect. Someone gets the idea that forcing the consumer to watch ads for their other movies will lead to increased sales. What it leads to is pissed off customers, and visits to the kitchen or bathroom while the ads play. (And for the more tech-savvy consumers it leads to making copies of the DVD and removing the restrictions to the ads can be skipped. Note this is legal, I'm not talking about renting a DVD and doing this, but doing it to a DVD you purchased.)
Personally I'm more familiar with Anime releases and companies, but I can tell you that Viz & Media Blasters continue to force ads on their customers. ADV tries it occasionally, but mostly they've finally gotten the message that consumers hate it. Geneon (used to be Pioneer) and Bandai don't seem to do this at all. For all of them new releases are right at $30 a volume. If the ads were there to lower prices then Viz's & Media Blasters' releases should cost less. Yet they don't. I should note that when the ads (aka previews of other titles) are not forced on me at all, I'm much more likely to check a few out. If they're forced I refuse to watch them at all. If I have to I'll start the DVD up and go do something on the computer in the other room for a bit and come back once I'm sure it's at the main menu.
I can accept ads on TV for now, if cable continues to go up though at some point I'm going to refuse to watch them. The same will happen with more and more consumers and the backlash will really put the industry into chaos. I may reach that point of non-acceptance earlier if they don't stop the current practice of running the same damn ad multiple times per commercial break. Yes I know repetition is supposed to be good for advertising, but doing it in the same commercial break backfires. It makes me more determined to make sure that business never gets one cent from me as long as I live.
When you debate enough Republicans, you realize that although you disagree with them, they are not vampires, and you can have them as friends and colleagues. Again, through debate, you realize that I'm not evil, that I don't run over kittens with my Hummer for fun, and that I love it that both I and the people who disagree with me completely can debate.
This is true, what's scary is when you run into one of the extremists (from either party) to whom logic is "I believe it so it HAS to be true" no matter what. Sadly there's enough of those (again on both sides) that they give everyone bad names. I don't mind disagreeing and debating someone, but I really dislike having my viewpoint dismissed simply because it's convenient, even if I have proof that I'm right. I'm not so sure we should call them extremists, whackos is probably a more accurate term.
Um for years you could do this, you dont need to be listed in a phone book at all.
It's on an individual basis and costs a fee (at least with BellSouth). I'm referring to stopping the phone book from being published at all. You're not paying attention.
Most places make it very hard for you to just go look, you have to have a reason to look at this stuff so again not a valid argument compaired to joe blogger saying so and so is a rapist at so and so address and the truth being far from it.
This may vary from place to place but have you tried? Here in Tennessee you don't need a reason to go look at a warranty deed or trustee's deed. I spent 3-4 years traveling to 3 different counties typing in the information off the new warranty deeds each month for a company that sold a database of that information. All you have to do is go to the courthouse, find the Register of Deeds office and ask. The warranty and trustee's deeds are a matter of public record and available for any member of the public to view for any reason. You don't even have to show ID or tell who you are.
to joe blogger saying so and so is a rapist at so and so address and the truth being far from it.
If Joe Blogger is lying this would be libel, and I've covered that in another post if not in the grandparent one to this. We have laws to cover that situation, and if someone goes and attacks so and so thinking they're a rapist you have two legal issues:
They're a moron to go commit a crime based on hearsay, and they're committing assault, possibly attempted homicide. If they kill them it'll be premeditated.
Joe Blogger both libeled the person and incited the attack, so they're going to get nailed on libel at least and quite probably accesory to the crime.
Unfortunatly its very hard to prevent a blogger from posting false information as I found out with a situation on Live Journal where a stalker was posting false info and Live Journal required a court order to get it removed. Really having went through a situation which in the normal. world would easily been solved I can very strongly agree that bloggers have far too powerful a ability to ruin a persons life for no other reason than to be selfish
I can sympathize with your situation, but look at what you just said. You had to get a court order (you did), so they were breaking pre-existing laws. You can sue them for libel now (you did didn't you?). Why do we need MORE laws to cover something already illegal? And truly, do you blame Live Journal for requiring a court order? What if _you_ had been lying about who was lying? If Live Journal had complied in that scenario they'd have been in deep shit with the blogger. They're not going to put their necks on the line for hearsay.
Look at it another way, do you think that the RIAA/MPAA should be able to get your personal info and your ISP connection taken down just because they contact your ISP and _claim_ you're breaking the law? You'd want them to have to get a court order to do this right? So what's the difference? It's just different harm levels.
And finally, solving problems with stalkers in the "normal world" is very rarely easy. In fact it was probably _easier_ to get the false info removed from Live Journal than it is to keep them from harassing you/coming near you/etc. Many states still don't even have laws against stalking.
I'm not sure how I feel about John Q Public's address being posted, but certainly I think it's a bad idea to post a judge's home address (and maybe even other elected officials). Note the Lefkow case recently...
There are good and bad sides to this. On the bad side obviously are problems like the Lefkow case where some criminal decides to take revenge by killing the judge/loved ones. On the other side it brings a lot of public accountability. If a public official knows that anyone in their jurisdiction can look them up, call them, etc. they're going to think more carefully about decisions they make and keep the public's interests in mind better. Our local school board has made it official policy that the superintendent, director of transportion, etc. (all director level positions down to principals of each school) as well as all school board members, must have a published telephone number so parents can reach them easily even outside of school hours. Amazingly it's not abused, but there are times when it's been very good that the policy existed. Overall it's been a really good thing.
Basically you can't let the fact that some psychopath _might_ come kill you and/or your family make you live in constant fear. If you're worried about that, stay out of public service. Even if you do have an unlisted number/etc. you're not totally safe. It's a risk that everyone entering public service takes.
I know that if somebody posted my son or daughter's picture, address, and phone number... I would want it removed.
What if it was their school's website showing them among other students participating in sports/misc. school activities? Kid's pictures end up in the newspaper all the time from sporting events especially, would you raise hell with the newspaper for publishing it or be proud your kids made it into the paper? Why would this be different?
What if somebody posted your address and said, "They are always gone by 8:30 in the am."
Then if your house gets broken into and robbed, they could quite easily find themselves an acessory to the crime. Just posting your address isn't a major issue, it's already out there (unless your phone's unlisted) on a couple of hundred different sites that have phone listings. You're trying to confuse the issue by tying posting of your address along with information that could encourage a crime. They're not necessarily linked.
We all want freedom... and that's why we hide ourselves on slashdot and in blogs. The things we say can hurt us. However, it can be used for evil too...
Since this is primarily a freedom of speech issue, I should note that freedom of speech is not there to defend speech you want to hear, it's there to defend the speech you _don't_ want to hear. There are limits, encouraging violence or criminal activity is not protected. Slandering or libeling someone is not protected. Just posting public information about someone without any libeling or ecouraging a crime to be comitted against them is not a problem. (The phone book's been around for how many years now, it has your address in it unless you have an unlisted phone number.) When a person crosses the line into doing something illegal, well, it's illegal because we have laws against it already.
Banning people from publishing the personal details of others is perfectly fair. This is nothing to do with 'unsuitable' content. While the article goes into more detail this appears to be more about privacy than regular censorship based on mature content. This just appears to be slashdot trying to kick off a load of censorship arguments and get more ad hits.
So you think we need to stop the phone companies publishing people's addresses and phone numbers in their phone books? What about the county courthouse, they have your warranty deeds and trustee deeds on file with your addresses on those as well. Do we make the Register of Deeds an armed guard making sure no one can read the _public_ information stored in the warranty and trustees deed books?
This isn't about unsuitable content or privacy, it's a poll with questions designed to stir up trouble. Addresses are public information. You may not like someone posting your address on their blog, but you can't stop them, or anyone else, from figuring out what your public address is. If it's information that is private, sure this is an issue of privacy, but that's not what the article says, it says "home addresses", starting us off right away with the main bit of personal info being totally public.
The problems occur when you have sites/blogs that are encouraging others to commit violence/etc. against the people they're posting about, but current laws cover this. I remember an anti-abortion website getting in trouble because the courts found they were actively encouraging people to kill the doctors they provided info about on their site.
Why did they wait 4 years if they knew MS was using it without a license? Sounds like a Phishing scheme at the corporate level to dig into some pockets.
It's not clear from the article when Alacritech found out MicroSoft had continued to use their technology. If they didn't find out until four years later, it would make sense that there's a gap there before they offered them a license. If all happened as Alacritech says it did, it's to their credit they tried to get MS to do the right thing and offered them a license. They could have skipped that and gone straight to a lawsuit, after all MS had stolen their technology pretty blatantly.
This also doesn't look like a submarine patent scheme, MicroSoft hasn't actually started shipping products with the technology at question in them yet. Alacritech seems to be trying to prevent them from doing so, instead of waiting until it was all over the market then suddenly popping up and filing suit.
I am not a programmer, so I don't know how it works with software, but I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in that industry too. A small company develops an impressive bit of code, and the only way they can sell it is with the protection of IP to shield them while they show it off and sell it.
It's a bit different, software patents patent an algorithm generally. To put this in perspective, you know that 2 + 2 = 4 right? Well I can write a bit of code implementing an algorithm to add two numbers and give the result. Now let's say I get a patent on that, and enforce it. Suddenly the entire industry has to pay me licensing fees to add two numbers in a program.
In software there are multiple ways to do some things, and others there aren't. Many of these software patents specify a specific way of implementing an algorithm, but then if someone else indpendently comes up with a way of doing the same thing, the odds are a LOT of the code will be similar. Then the company with the patent sues company #2 to make them stop using code they developed that does something similar and/or pay fees to company #1 on something that company #2 spent the time and money to develop independantly. Company #2's losing money here either way.
I'm guessing in nanotechnology if you come up with a product the odds are against someone being able to create the same product without the exact same methods used. In software this isn't true. And fundamentally can you really lay claim to something like x + y = z?
IP laws are not the bane of creativity. The patent system has more then a few flukes and shitty patents handed out, but it is without a doubt needed. Kill patents and you better get cozy with universities and massive corporations, because without IP laws entrepreneurs and risk taking startups are SOL.
Patents aren't always bad, I'm sure they're quite vital in nanotech in fact and that they're a good thing there. As you say, it allows your company to do R&D and license it out to other companies to make the product viable. Both of you win, you get money from your research and they get money from the product.
However, software patents are not a good thing. They allow companies to patent things that are far too easy to be recreated with absolutely no knowledge of the existing patent. With software patents only the holder of the patent wins. Other companies are forced to pay licensing fees for something they may have developed on their own as well, but can't risk a lawsuit. Or they can't get a license and interopability goes down the tubes. Software patents tend to lead to stagnation in creativity. Even Bill Gates has admitted that Microsoft could have never become the company it is now if they'd had to get licenses for every little thing they implemented in software when they were starting out.
Back to the adding algorithm, imagine if only Microsoft was allowed to add two numbers together in code. Not a particularly pleasant thought is it?
Slashdot Mirror
(With people I mean the people writing down everything about another person, which they shouldn`t care about)
I guess they are just jealous...
I realize this isBesides, if you think it's such a horrid thing, then why are the police on the writer's side? At one point the officer gives the writer his personal business card and tells him if the neighbor causes any more problems (noise late at night in this case) to call and ask for him PERSONALLY to be sent out! The redneck neighbor is beyond just a nuisance, he's a certified hazard to his and those around him's health in the things he's been doing.
So I think his just writing about it is rather tame. He could always press charges for numerous things, notify the city/county departments about the building code violations and health code violations and then let the neighbor end up trying to resolve all that without going broke. I'd say the guy's been incredibly reserved considering the circumstances!
In some places it may a matter of democracy, but in all the bad stories I've read there appears to be no democracy to the organizations. Somehow, someway, they ended up becoming little fiefdoms for those in charge.
This has nothing to do with race, national pride, or an unchecked autocracy. Therefore, the fascism label simply doesn't apply. I suggest you learn the meaning of a word before you start throwing it around. Before you start putting the smack down on someone verbally you should do your homework and make sure you're not wrong. I know that either the author of Kevin & Kell or This is True had a problem with their community organization over porch banners in the past year. (I'm pretty sure it was the author of Kevin & Kell, but not 100% sure.) What made it stand out in my mind was that they actually made the changes necessary to make the community organization happy only to find out right afterwards that several homeowners were refusing to comply and filing a lawsuit against the community organization. That certainly doesn't sound like a democratic process was used to decide the new policy does it?Posted AC for the same reasons for not searching for this stuff from work. :)
Ahh, oh well, not too big a problem. Forgot to check post anonymously. Doh!
However, I don't think it takes a deep addiction to cause these acts, what info I can find with some quick googling indicates that pedophiles (which fall into a class of disorders called paraphilias) and that they litteral don't think the way you and I do. One example given in discussing treatment states "A pedophile observing a young girl wearing shorts may erroneously think, 'she wants me.'" That's not something most "normal" people would think of a female of any age. The more normal thought process would be "I want her" instead.
The treatments listed don't look terribly useful. All are variations of positive and negative reinforcement. For instance:
"In olfactory aversion therapy, for example, the pedophile is trained to pair and associate the chain of events preceding pedophilic acts with the odor of ammonia, supplied by smelling salt capsules. In covert desensitization, the pedophile practices imagining the chain of events leading to pedophilic acts, and then inserts imagined negative consequences into the chain."This sounds destined for failure because it requires the willful cooperation of the pedophile. You can't be certain they're associating the smells or negative images with what they say they are after all.
Why don't we fix the prison system so it does treat addictive behaviors related to sex?
Better why don't we fix the prison system so it treats the underlying problems for all crimes, not just sex crimes. While we're at it why don't we work at reintroducing prisoners to normal society and assisting them in finding work/etc. If they know they can have a better life and we help remove the obstacles in the path for former convicts it would likely help lower crime rates for all crimes.Why don't we distinguish between sex crimes that are connected to an addition and those that are not, and not track sexual offenders who are unlikely to commit a new crime?
Good question for the first part. I know my state doesn't, most of the sex offenders in my area are for statutory rape. (At least the website lists what the crime was if they committed it in state, for out of state crimes it just says unknown, not very helpful). How about we work hard to treat the underlying problems the ones who historically have a high rate of recidivism have and track them through required therapy as a requirment of their parole instead? If they seem to be making progress, or are cured (although I doubt this is possible, I've seen quite a bit of literature flatly state there is no cure for pedohpilia) then we don't track the publically. I have no problem with the police knowing their whereabouts but publishing the info to the world just invites cases of vigilante justice -- often against the wrong targets because the info was out of date.Why are there so many people on the list who don't deserve to be there? (Misguided applications of the statutory-rape laws come to mind, as others have pointed out.)
Frankly because all the avid supporters of laws like this seem to forget there are different level of sex offenders. If you asked them, I'll bet a good 99% of them would tell you all sex crimes are equally horrendousSo yeah, I'd say it'll pass with ease. Enough money will grease hands to insure it.
- I suppose genetic evolution was wrong all those thousands of years before the last couple of hundred when most women had already had a couple of kids and were married and no longer living with their parents by 12/13? You should study history, it's really insightful.
If I can't get a 12 year old girl to do her chores and put away her toys when she is finished, what makes you you even think she will be responsible to be on the pill?- Let's be realistic here, what will really happen to her if she doesn't do her chores? Will you stop feeding her? Will you make her sleep in the yard? Will you stop clothing her? At best she'll not get some extra stuff she wants but that she doesn't require for survival. You and she both know this. That's really not much incentive for a lot of people, regardless of age. If her survival literally depended on doing those chores she'd be a lot more inclinded to do them.
And even if shes on the pill (better yet, a patch), can you guaranty the 15 year old boy will wrap his rod to prevent the spread of STDs?- I don't know that a patch is better, they can come off pretty easy depending on how well they stick to a person's body. I know I can't really use them because of this, and this is just for minor stuff like motion-sickness patches. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on one for birth control.
Now I understand there are always exceptions to the rule as everyone is different. But when you at the average maturity children, the society they live in will dictate age of consent. And personally, if it was up to me, I would make that age 16.As for the 15yo boy not being willing to use a condom: that's why you have to make sure your daughter will make the decision FOR him. If you're open and honest with her about sex and don't treat it as some horribly embarassing thing to not talk about, and talk to her like she's a young adult starting to have sexual feelings, she'll likely respond like one. If she's not scared to tell you if something like that happens, she's certainly going to be far more likely to tell the boy "no condom, no sex" and know she has the wrath of Dad to back her up. Frankly she might even decide to not have sex at all.
What it boils down to is it doesn't matter what you or I think is the "appropriate" age for first sexual experience. What matters is children start having sexual feelings somewhere between 9-12 depending on the child. Those feelings won't magically go away. If you don't tell your daughter why she has those feelings and what sex is about and what's right and what's wrong, who will? That 15yo boy that doesn't want use a condom probably. I sort of doubt that's who you'd want your daughter learning about sex from.
- You have an awfully short memory then, you said:
-
Television censored after massive complaints about inappropriate content?
though this was hardly unexpected.As one of your examples that it was unfair that people complained "WHERE ARE THE PARENTS?". Note I didn't have to twist words or anything, you flat out said censored. Not "content labeling" censored. So yes, you did support censorship in your original post.
I could go on. The point is this: human laws exist to curb human nature.
- Threre's quite a difference there between what you're talking about (murder, lying) and what the grandparent was talking about (ability to reproduce). Apparently you're forgetting that from an evolutionary standpoint sex is simply so you have offspring. Looking at it from that standpoint the grandparent has a _VERY_ good point. Nature is saying at 12 this girl's ready to have kids and pass on her genes. Our laws (and religious morality) is trying to tell mother nature she's wrong. We could legisilate against other things that nature does (hey let's make tornados and hurricanes illegal, it'll save millions!) but good luck getting nature to cooperate there either.
What this comes down to is that we have laws restricting the age of consent so as to prevent the abuse of children by adults. The state has a valid interest in preventing emotionally immature children from being taken-advantage-of by malicious adults.The grandparent's point, which you ignored, is that instead of sticking our heads in the sand (or up our asses as the case may be), we need to accept the fact that once nature decides a child can reproduce, they are sexual beings, whether we LIKE it or not. We can make it illegal all we want, but it will NOT stop it from happening.
On the other hand if we stop outlawing this and accept it as something we can't stop we can try to make sure that at least they have sex safely (to prevent disease) and hell, we might even get them to take contraceptives and not pop out a kid till they're older. If we ignore and/or pretend they're not having sex they're going to end up pregnant, or worse with HIV/AIDS because we did that.
So yeah laws are there to curb human nature to some extent, but when we legislate morality but fail to teach it to our kids we end up with failure. After all, murder is illegal, but don't you teach your kids not to kill others? Hell most of us teach our kids not to harm others, much less kill them. Yet many don't even talk to their kids about what sex IS, much less what can happen if they have it, and sex is as much a natural impulse and lashing out in anger.
Age of consent laws exist mainly to keep women from having sex before moralists think they should, at least it appears that way. Until the last few years most laws specified a higher age of consent for girls than for boys. There's no good argument for that, in fact studies have found repeatedly that girls mature faster than boys emotionally. However our society thinks poorly of women who have sex (whores!) but not of men who do. (How many derogatory terms can you think of for a sexually active guy? I can't think of any that have anywhere near the connotations of whore.)
- Why? There already is one, it's called the ESRB. Most stores are getting much better about enforcing it in fact. Still it doesn't matter, I worked a few years at Wal-mart after the dotcom collapse and can't even begin to tell you how many parents would still buy a M rated game for their 8yo even after it was pointed out to them that the game was for 17+. Is that the store's fault? Looks like a bad parent to me. I was always quite impressed by the parents who would go "oh, I didn't know that, thanks." then tell their kids they'd have to pick something else out. Even more impressive was the parents who would take the time to read the back and see what the game was about and decide based on that if they thought their kid could handle it even if they were under the recommended age. That looks like good parenting to me. Do you do the same? Or do you buy your kids whatever games they want and get mad when the store employee tells you it's rated M for Mature, ages 17+ and still buy it for your 8yo?
Television censored after massive complaints about inappropriate content?- There's a most
- amusing article in Scientific American addressing the issues with the infamous Janet Jackson boob episode and Randy Moss' mooning incident. It seems that while everyone was outraged about those, they forgot to pay attention to the carnage on field. But yeah, it's so much worse to see a nipple or someone pretend to moon someone than guys getting concussions bashing into each other. Yep, certainly censoring the important stuff there.
Parents can't watch their children 24/7 and create healthy children, especially in the mid teens, and there has to be some reliance upon the behaviour of others in this giant village that we all live in - It DOES take a village to raise a child, unless you're raising a bush-person.By the time your kids are 15-16 or so if they don't have values instilled in them by their parents it's too late. It doesn't matter what censoring or laws you pass, they're going to make the wrong choices.
So perhaps the better question (especially in this case) is WHERE WERE THE PARENTS the first 14 years of this girl's life? Why did she think it was OK to meet a stranger she met online for sex? You know my parents never told me directly I shouldn't meet a stranger for sex but I was quite capable of working that one out on my own, even at 15, much less 17. It's not a major stumper after all.
But yeah, parents can't be everywhere so all of us should suffer censorship because they decided to have kids right?
Sorry, I can cut parents slack when it's all online and happens quickly, but when something is both online and off, and lasts for multiple years, the parents were too busy being something besides parents.
And frankly if you trust someone else to decide what is and isn't safe for your child to view online, you're both an idiot and a bad parent. Take some responsibility, watch what they view, check out sites ahead of time. If you don't understand how to limit their browsing technically find someone who can, even if you have to pay them. If you can't afford to pay someone to do this, stay in the room with them or don't let them be online. Frankly this is the type of think I'll help friends set up for free (well maybe make them feed me, but that's cheap). I suspect many other computer folks will do the same. I won't fix your worm/virus/trojan infested computer for you for free (at least no more than once, and only if you're a close friend), but I will help you learn how to monitor what your kid does online. I consider it community service.
Yes we all did stupid things, but that doesn't excuse this type of lawsuit. She waits two years to file it? It's not filed just against the guy seduced her, but AOL as well, even though AOL FIRED him when they discovered he was breaking the rules (and about to break the law)? This looks like a classic money-grabbing scheme. That's the only possible reason to sue AOL here, they have deeper pockets than this guy does so that's where the money is. The lawyer's probably betting that AOL will settle to get the case our of the public eye instead of fighting.
So yeah I can feel sorry for her for screwing up and falling for this guy. And yes the guy's an ass/idiot for what he did. But I feel not the least bit sorry for her current actions. She's 19 now, no longer a child and filing a lawsuit to try to get rich quick. This type of thing has a tendency to backfire though. Remember the girl who sued her school system because she was made co-valedictorian a few years back? She eventually won the suit, but it cost her dearly. Harvard dropped it's offer for her to come there, along with the scholarship (she had a full scholarship). Her legal bills were probably higher than the final settlement as well. She did get what she wanted though, she was named sole valedictorian. Too bad she ruined her life to get it.
So I guess my ultimate point is, she's an adult now, why's she still doing amazingly stupid things?
For travelers on vacation it makes no sense either. Even if I'm traveling alone why would I want to stop at a rest stop and surf some porn when I have a destination to get to that's probably a lot more fun?
The whole thing's been blown out of proportion, it's basically a small group of moralists trying to tell others what to do, even if they're not doing anything they disapprove of yet. Gotta make sure they don't get any chance to do anything morally wrong after all!
I know if I owned stock in Dell that I'd be a bit concerned.
Still, I never click on ads, even the Google ones. I never will either, most of the ads sound almost desperate for attention. I figure if they're like that the product must be absolute shit so why bother.
- I don't feel I deserve something for free. In fact I pay for Keenspot's premium service (just so I can read General Protection Fault in hi-def) and subscribe to Girlamatic.com so I can read archives of The Wisdom of Moo and Smile. Yet I still use adblocking and feel no guilt. The simple fact is I'll donate or subscribe to a site if it's worth it. But I will NEVER click on an ad. They're not losing any money from me blocking their ads, as I'm not going to click through anyway.
As for your That's how the social contract works -- You are dead wrong. Show me where this says this tidbit of information. A social contract is one of mutual respect. A website puts up its content - the website owner pays fee's and spends his/her time. They, in good faith, would like for you to view their ads which help them keep that material going. Again, with the exception of malicious websites - there is nothing wrong with this.And while we're at it, what about sites I do donate to. I pay them what I think their site's worth, and even if I only donate $5, it's probably a LOT more than they'd get if I clicked all their ads in a day. Should I still have to see their ads if I've donated? Are they violatint the social contract by making me still see their ads when I give them money? This works both ways you know.
- This is the prevailing logic, but with cable prices going up every year (more so in places with only one cable provider) I'm beginning to wonder just how true this really is.
Because of the commercials DVDs don't cost that much.Personally I'm more familiar with Anime releases and companies, but I can tell you that Viz & Media Blasters continue to force ads on their customers. ADV tries it occasionally, but mostly they've finally gotten the message that consumers hate it. Geneon (used to be Pioneer) and Bandai don't seem to do this at all. For all of them new releases are right at $30 a volume. If the ads were there to lower prices then Viz's & Media Blasters' releases should cost less. Yet they don't. I should note that when the ads (aka previews of other titles) are not forced on me at all, I'm much more likely to check a few out. If they're forced I refuse to watch them at all. If I have to I'll start the DVD up and go do something on the computer in the other room for a bit and come back once I'm sure it's at the main menu.
I can accept ads on TV for now, if cable continues to go up though at some point I'm going to refuse to watch them. The same will happen with more and more consumers and the backlash will really put the industry into chaos. I may reach that point of non-acceptance earlier if they don't stop the current practice of running the same damn ad multiple times per commercial break. Yes I know repetition is supposed to be good for advertising, but doing it in the same commercial break backfires. It makes me more determined to make sure that business never gets one cent from me as long as I live.
- It's on an individual basis and costs a fee (at least with BellSouth). I'm referring to stopping the phone book from being published at all. You're not paying attention.
Most places make it very hard for you to just go look, you have to have a reason to look at this stuff so again not a valid argument compaired to joe blogger saying so and so is a rapist at so and so address and the truth being far from it.- This may vary from place to place but have you tried? Here in Tennessee you don't need a reason to go look at a warranty deed or trustee's deed. I spent 3-4 years traveling to 3 different counties typing in the information off the new warranty deeds each month for a company that sold a database of that information. All you have to do is go to the courthouse, find the Register of Deeds office and ask. The warranty and trustee's deeds are a matter of public record and available for any member of the public to view for any reason. You don't even have to show ID or tell who you are.
to joe blogger saying so and so is a rapist at so and so address and the truth being far from it.- If Joe Blogger is lying this would be libel, and I've covered that in another post if not in the grandparent one to this. We have laws to cover that situation, and if someone goes and attacks so and so thinking they're a rapist you have two legal issues:
- They're a moron to go commit a crime based on hearsay, and they're committing assault, possibly attempted homicide. If they kill them it'll be premeditated.
- Joe Blogger both libeled the person and incited the attack, so they're going to get nailed on libel at least and quite probably accesory to the crime.
Unfortunatly its very hard to prevent a blogger from posting false information as I found out with a situation on Live Journal where a stalker was posting false info and Live Journal required a court order to get it removed. Really having went through a situation which in the normal. world would easily been solved I can very strongly agree that bloggers have far too powerful a ability to ruin a persons life for no other reason than to be selfishLook at it another way, do you think that the RIAA/MPAA should be able to get your personal info and your ISP connection taken down just because they contact your ISP and _claim_ you're breaking the law? You'd want them to have to get a court order to do this right? So what's the difference? It's just different harm levels.
And finally, solving problems with stalkers in the "normal world" is very rarely easy. In fact it was probably _easier_ to get the false info removed from Live Journal than it is to keep them from harassing you/coming near you/etc. Many states still don't even have laws against stalking.
Basically you can't let the fact that some psychopath _might_ come kill you and/or your family make you live in constant fear. If you're worried about that, stay out of public service. Even if you do have an unlisted number/etc. you're not totally safe. It's a risk that everyone entering public service takes.
- What if it was their school's website showing them among other students participating in sports/misc. school activities? Kid's pictures end up in the newspaper all the time from sporting events especially, would you raise hell with the newspaper for publishing it or be proud your kids made it into the paper? Why would this be different?
What if somebody posted your address and said, "They are always gone by 8:30 in the am."- Then if your house gets broken into and robbed, they could quite easily find themselves an acessory to the crime. Just posting your address isn't a major issue, it's already out there (unless your phone's unlisted) on a couple of hundred different sites that have phone listings. You're trying to confuse the issue by tying posting of your address along with information that could encourage a crime. They're not necessarily linked.
We all want freedom... and that's why we hide ourselves on slashdot and in blogs. The things we say can hurt us. However, it can be used for evil too...This isn't about unsuitable content or privacy, it's a poll with questions designed to stir up trouble. Addresses are public information. You may not like someone posting your address on their blog, but you can't stop them, or anyone else, from figuring out what your public address is. If it's information that is private, sure this is an issue of privacy, but that's not what the article says, it says "home addresses", starting us off right away with the main bit of personal info being totally public.
The problems occur when you have sites/blogs that are encouraging others to commit violence/etc. against the people they're posting about, but current laws cover this. I remember an anti-abortion website getting in trouble because the courts found they were actively encouraging people to kill the doctors they provided info about on their site.
This also doesn't look like a submarine patent scheme, MicroSoft hasn't actually started shipping products with the technology at question in them yet. Alacritech seems to be trying to prevent them from doing so, instead of waiting until it was all over the market then suddenly popping up and filing suit.
- It's a bit different, software patents patent an algorithm generally. To put this in perspective, you know that 2 + 2 = 4 right? Well I can write a bit of code implementing an algorithm to add two numbers and give the result. Now let's say I get a patent on that, and enforce it. Suddenly the entire industry has to pay me licensing fees to add two numbers in a program.
IP laws are not the bane of creativity. The patent system has more then a few flukes and shitty patents handed out, but it is without a doubt needed. Kill patents and you better get cozy with universities and massive corporations, because without IP laws entrepreneurs and risk taking startups are SOL.In software there are multiple ways to do some things, and others there aren't. Many of these software patents specify a specific way of implementing an algorithm, but then if someone else indpendently comes up with a way of doing the same thing, the odds are a LOT of the code will be similar. Then the company with the patent sues company #2 to make them stop using code they developed that does something similar and/or pay fees to company #1 on something that company #2 spent the time and money to develop independantly. Company #2's losing money here either way.
I'm guessing in nanotechnology if you come up with a product the odds are against someone being able to create the same product without the exact same methods used. In software this isn't true. And fundamentally can you really lay claim to something like x + y = z?
However, software patents are not a good thing. They allow companies to patent things that are far too easy to be recreated with absolutely no knowledge of the existing patent. With software patents only the holder of the patent wins. Other companies are forced to pay licensing fees for something they may have developed on their own as well, but can't risk a lawsuit. Or they can't get a license and interopability goes down the tubes. Software patents tend to lead to stagnation in creativity. Even Bill Gates has admitted that Microsoft could have never become the company it is now if they'd had to get licenses for every little thing they implemented in software when they were starting out.
Back to the adding algorithm, imagine if only Microsoft was allowed to add two numbers together in code. Not a particularly pleasant thought is it?