Yes it is. It doesn't matter if the package is harmful or not. I'm sure a single person delivering thousands of snail mails to a residential address would be arrested as well. You're trying to say its not the sender's fault that an email arrived at its destination, which is exactly the affect the spammer was going for.
FWIW trespass doesn't cover the USPS because laws were created SPECIFICALLY to allow the postal carrier to come onto your property for the purpose of delivering mail. I also believe that mailboxes are technically the property of the USPS, whereas my computer and internet connection are not (they are owned / leased by me, respectively).
No, it doesn't - that's like saying junk-mailers are "making use" of your mailbox when the mailman does his thing.
I think technically mail boxes are 'owned' by the postal service. I believe they even have markings to that effect.
If the postal service has to check that the sender is legit with you every time someone sends a letter, the system becomes unworkable and breaks down - both from the service's perspective and from yours.
It IS illegal to forge a mailing address though. And with email the checks can be done electronically. It will slow things down a little, sure, but that doesn't mean its not feasable and that the spammers shouldn't have to do this.
How else would people legitimately contact those they have never met?
What if people don't want to be contacted by those they never met? Shouldn't that be their right?
The laws that govern unsolicited junkmail are enough - this court statement just muddy's the waters.
Nope, its pretty clear. The computer is owned by one entity, and the internet connection is paid for by them. At worse, none of MY resources are used when receiving junk mail; that's not the case for email.
Look, I appreciate that this is an emotive issue, especially for those who have dealt with a lot of spam and such, but ineffective application of perfectly suitable laws does not warrant additional laws. That way lies judicial ruin and opressive over-regulation.
Preventing others from gaining a benefit at another person's expense will hardly lead to over-regulation and judicial ruin. The people receiving this crap have a right NOT to be communicated with, especially at their own expense. Arguing this isn't a emotional issue at all; its a perfectly logical stance.
If the current laws are not being enforced, why bother creating more laws? Once again, I have no problem at all with the ruling - just the ill-informed statement that followed it. It displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues.
Who created a new law? Trespass has been around a lot longer than anti-spam laws.
How would pulling out of a market or not selling a product in Europe be abusing monopoly status? Europe doesn't HAVE to upgrade after all. There's nothing forcing them to not selling Vista at all in Europe.
Does anyone else see a problem with modeling a school after a management style better at spin than substance?
I can understand why you'd think this, but to say there's no substance is silly. XP doesn't look much different, but under the hood there are quite a few great technologies. Same goes for Vista. YOU can't see it, but as someone that builds software on top of the MS platform, there's ALOT of great stuff (from the developers perspective).
Nine years in prison for spamming is too much. Heck, two years is too much as well. You can get off easier than that for killing people.
For murdering, that's not true. If you're refering to manslaughter, there's a reason you don't go to jail as long; you didn't intentially kill the other person.
My issue is with the unbelievably inflammatory and ignorant statement made by the court regarding email and trespass. It certainly is not the same thing and, unlike trespass, there is no implicit threat to your safety - or, let's face it, to property. It's just damned annoying.
First off, in my state, there doesn't have to be any threat to safety, implicit or otherwise. Its merely defined as going onto someone else's property without permission. You could be there to give away sugar and spice, it doesn't matter, you're still guilty of trespass.
Second, it IS unwanted use of someone's private property. The internet connection and computer used to view the email. That apparently is the definition of trespass in that state, and spammers DO meet that criteria. The fact that it may not be dangerous and only annoying doesn't mean its not trespass.
Finally, I'd say that shooting someone IS an appropriate response to trespass, providing they refuse to leave. What reason does anyone have to go onto another's property without permission? You don't know the person, and you really don't know what their motives are. They could be giving away a car, or you could be next on their list of victims.
Firstly it is the confluence of internet/SM protocols, not the spammer, that puts the email on your server
Ugh. So the message he wanted to send 'magically' appeared, with no effort from him. Your argument is that its ok to send mail bombs via the USPS. After all, its not the Unibomber, is the 'network of mail carrying stations that delivered the message to his mailbox.'
but to suggest that emailing someone is equivalent to trespass??!? Just how out-of-touch and confused does the state have to get with technology before they're sat down in an electric chair in front of a monitor, with a sticky on its side saying "Learn"?
Tresspass can be classfied as 'making unwanted use of their private property.' They are 'making use' of my computer when it downloads THEIR message, and their message is also unwanted. I think it fits nicely.
Except that the telemarketers found a way around it.
I've been getting calls to my cell phone no less; they claim they got my # when I used a credit card at a gas station. They're calling to give me '$40 of free gas.' Now if they really wanted to send it to me, all they have to do is drop it in the mail. But for some reason they call and need me to give them my information. Oh no, they aren't trying to sell me something though..
I ignore all of the features that you claim it has because they are of no use to me. Why? Because they're no use to me when I can't even write from Mac or Linux.
So that means it doesn't exist? Sorry, no. You fail to realize that MS isn't in business making a file system; they're in business to make an OS. The FS is just one of the features of that OS.
I'm sure NTFS is just wonderful, but forgive me for not liking it because of Microsoft's arrogance towards interoperability.
Funny, I think its arrogant to think that they should give a rat's ass about less than 1% of the market. Honestly, what do they have to gain? Your good will? Not likely; you'd find other reasons to hate them while using their FS, should they open the specs. Its attitudes like yours that kills software, closed or open.
It will not be as simple as DeCSS, the schemes used in HD & BL discs allow the vendors to update encryption keys over the network, so if someone cracks a particular key it can be invalidated for future use.
It was my understanding that there is a blacklist of players on the disc, and newer discs would blacklist the cracked device...but existing discs would continue to work fine.
There is not enough room and the Segway can't traverse stairs.
writing parking tickets
How many tickets will they have to write just to pay for the Segway?
any place where a lot of walking would be involved but a larger vehicle would be inappropriate.
Oh no, someone has to WALK!! You probably think giving very obsese people carts they can ride around on and handicapped parking passes so they don't have to go as far is a good idea too..
It's none of those. It's the fact that Microsoft won't open it up sufficiently to allow drivers for full (and safe) read/write access to be written for Linux and Mac.
That fact that the specs are not open does not mean NTFS is not a real and reliable OS. You ignore all of the features it does have because you aren't happy with how its licensed (or not). Get over it. Its their spec, they can do with it as they wish.
1. If you are honestly saying you would have no qualms about someone follow you around for weeks, note everything you did in public, and broadcast to everyone you know you're either a sociopath or lying. I'm not talking major stuff. I'm just saying, you'd have to watch what you said and you might not want to do that. Even just a montage of every time you try to say a sentence and get tongue-tied would be annoying.
If you're too stupid to realize that this isn't the same as someone following you, this is YOU putting up ALL YOUR details on a website, then I don't know what else there is to discuss. You act as if Facebook is stalking you and recording details without your concent, which is not the case. These people are CHOOSING to post every detail on a public website, and then complain when people actually see it.
2. But I don't expect you to know that. Not reading a contract you agree to does not mean you cannot be held to said contract. Ask any lawyer. Never said that.
So why bother pointing out that no one reads the ToS?
You just contradicted yourself. It's "more embarrassing" because now it's not just three embarrassing incidents it's that "you appear to do a lot of stupid things". That's a new piece of information. Exactly as I said. Look, this isn't really a debatable point - it's just basic information science. As you sample more often, you're not just getting disparate data points, you're also increasing certainty about population mean, etc.
No I didn't; something is not more embarresing because mroe people see it. Doing a lot of stupid things isn't new information, since anyone that came to your profile enough could figure that out without the news feeds.
If you can't see this basic fact, I can't help you, and it's no wonder you're so confused about whether what Facebook has done has changed anything or not.
You can't even reason properly; I guess we have no hope for this country if you're supposed to be our future..
"I posted all my pictures of me being drunk and now everyone can see them!! That's not right!!!" Shut up retard.
Profiles are meant to be "live", not long-running records of adds/deletes. This is more than just a case of mismatched expections of public vs private, this is collecting historical data (including DELETED information) into a personalized narrative that spans every aspect of Facebook: wall posts, forums, groups, profile edits, adding/removing friends, etc. They may as well just publish the raw web logs.
Every change on the internet is logged. Hell, I can still find my old employer's website in the wayback machine.
I think they get REALITY much better than they get the Internet. You've got 12 posts on this thread alone and 4800 posts on Slashdot: this makes you one of the creepy Internet stalker types with no real life. And you hate people complaining about new tools that make automated collection of semi-private/semi-public information easily accessible. Well of course! You = stalker, them = not wanting to be stalked.
Yes, because my posting at lunch / during work makes me creepy. Did you happen to notice the timestamps of my posts? Almost none on the weekends or between 5PM and 8AM. I've had this account with slashdot since the mid 90s, its not suprising I've used it to waste time.
What I hate is stupid people doing stupid things then complain when they are found out. I had a website in 96-97, then I realized how easy it was to find and how much info I had up there about me.. so I took it down.
At any rate, you're a moron; the point of going to slashdot is to have a discussion, not just drop a post and leave never to return..
Yes you do. At least in the USA, anyway. Grabbing someone is not assault. Battery, maybe, but not assault. "Assault" is a verbal threat of harm, not the actual physical harm itself (that would be "battery"). And if there's no threat, there's no assault. And if there's no harm at all, there's no battery.
Grabbing at someone can easily be construed as an assult.
No, a citizens arrest requires that you witness an illegal act and have the power to detain the criminal. Such things can include shoplifting, murder, copyright infringement, failure to yield to an electric signal, jaywalking, statutory sodomy, or many other offenses, both small and large, misdemeanor and felony. At least in the USA, anyway.
It varies by state, but most states only allow it if the arrestee has committed a felony.
You don't have to prove anything, in fact, you're the proof. You witnessed their crime and will be considered "evidence" in the case against the person you arrest. You simply detain the person until the police can take custody of them, then you file a police report against them as a witness of their crime. It is illegal to file a false police report. And as a witness, you open yourself up to the possibility of being picked apart like carrion by a lawyer/vulture in a court of law, possibly ending with a conviction for filing a false report, perjury, or contempt of court (depending on the judge's mood that day).
If you are not legally allowed to make a citizen's arrest (which is usually the case if the person committed only a misdemeaner, which is what shoplifting is classified under) you may be charged with assault, even if you don't injure the other person. Again, it depends on where you are, but in many places you've assaulted someone if you simply touch them without their consent. Simple Assault is assault without a weapon. Note that the degree of assault depends on if you actually hurt them or not as well, so assault isn't always just the threat of violence.
I guess you never noticed the 'in public' part. I've done stupid stuff around co-workers and friends. Not quite public though is it? Nonetheless, experience has taught me to be very careful if I feel something might be embarrasing. Facebook is more or less public though, and I'd be hard pressed to claim i was wronged by posting an embarresing story in a public forum.
No one can read anything they could not have read before.. its just easier to find the new posts to read. How that makes things more or less embarrasing you've never explained. You're bitching that other people can read your posts, when its an ability they've always had. I don't think I'm a demi-god, but at least I know I have a brain in my head, which is more than I can say about you.
1. You have information publicly available that you don't want broadcast. Period. I never said "on Slashdot". I never even said "on the web". I guarantee that someone could follow you around for a week or so and have stuff like you picking your nose that you wouldn't want seen on the internet. I'm not saying it would ruin your life, I'm just saying you'd rather it not be there.
Really? Please tell me, I'd love to hear it. I don't do anything like pick my nose in public. I don't do anything in public that I'd be embarrased about. Broadcasting what I did in public wouldn't bother me. See, if having someone I don't know see me do something would bother me, it doesn't matter if two people saw it, or 200 people saw it. So I don't do anything I'd be embarresed about in public, because I don't know who may end up seeing it.
2. Come on, are you seriously going to fall back on a EULA? You've got to be kidding me. Everyone knows that no one reads them and that they are routinely unenforceable anyway.
We're not talking about a contract that you don't get to read up front. Its displayed and you have to signfy that you agree to it somehow. Terms of service on websites have not proven unenforcible. Even if portions of them have been, that doesn't mean NOTHING in a ToS is unenforceable. But I don't expect you to know that. Not reading a contract you agree to does not mean you cannot be held to said contract. Ask any lawyer.
3. Information about information is information. If you do 3 embarrassing things, then each one of those is an embarrassing piece of information. The collection of all 3 is greater than the sum of the parts, however, it is NEW information. This applies to Facebook. When I post on someone's wall, that's one datum. I don't care if someone goes and reads that post. Obviously, or I wouldn't have posted it where people can see it. But when Facebook aggregates all the posts that I've made and presents them to every person I have a connection to - THAT'S NEW INFORMATION. It's new data. Furthermore, it's information that I didn't provide. I provided the individual posts, but I didn't aggregate them in one place and hand the list to Facebook.
No, its not. Its the same three pieces of information. Its more embarresing because you appear to do a lot of stupid things. That's a pretty wild claim that facebook is coming up with information you didn't provide, especially seeing as how it ONLY knows about information you provide. Are you feeling stupid yet? You should. Why do you care if its easier to get to the information you posted? After all, you don't care if anyone reads your posts.. why care if its not easier to find the post? If you truely didn't care about what you posted, you wouldn't care if its easier for people to read and more people read it.
In conclusion: Facebook is not the equivalent of a public forum. It's not a public place. Credentials are required to enter. It's a private space.
And anyone in that private space can read what you wrote. Nothing facebook did changes that fact.
It's as though you rent a few hotel rooms for a circle of friends. They're not your rooms, but you have an expectation of privacy.
Nope, its nothing like that, unless the interior walls of the hotel are made of glass, and once in, people are free to roam the hotel as they please. THAT's exactly what facebook is like.
Any conversation you have in your suite could be overhead by another guest. But that doesn't mean the hotel has a right to bug the room, record every word everyone says, and then give the tapes out at the end of your stay, and I'm pretty sure you'd be pissed if a hotel every tried that on you.
Except in this case the hotel told you up front that's EXACTLY what they are doing; recording everything. Except the difference here is that YOU CHOOSE what is recorded by deciding what you're going to post, and what you're not going to post. So you can talk in the hotel, knowing its going to be v
Most of the older slashdotters don't seem to "get it". Yeah, it's public, but I nor most other Facebookers want this info SCREAMED out at everyone.
Perhaps you're the one that doesn't get it. Put information into a public forum, and it can be seen. It sounds like you want to put information there but don't want it to be seen, to which the solution is don't put it there in the first place. The whole idea of making the info public is for others to see it; now you're complaining that its easier for others to see that information? Yup, you don't get the internet..
I guess they're not happy with simplification (see "Stalking is supposed to be hard" thread).
Ya, I got a real chuckle out of that 'stalking is supposed to be hard' comment. People being stalked don't run around giving their information to everyone. Someone who is actually stalked begins to limit that information, like changing their phone number and not giving it to just anyone.
People are upset now because they can't just add tons of 'friends' and say 'oh cool I have more friend than you!!!'
I think you should look up the word 'intimate.' It means close. As in, someone is close to you if you share a lot about your life with them. The feeds are increasing the amount of sharing, so now that group of people will be closer to you (i.e., sharing more makes the relationship more intimate).
I think the real issue with these 'haters' is that they can no longer add willey nilley to their friends list so that can brag about how many 'friends' they have, while not really being friends with anyone on the list at all.
unfortunately, the new facebook *news feed* would, without my explicit permission, broadcast my post to EVERYONE we know in common, along with the ENTIRE TEXT. At least half of them would have a chuckle at my expense, or at least that's the way I feel. So, before posting, I hesitate. And send an email instead.
You don't seem to care that those same people could at any time check out your ex's wall and see your message, and still get said chuckle. I don't see why that doesn't bother you; you honestly don't think anyone else will be posting a happy b-day on her wall either? That's pretty naive.
Similar public/private conundrums are going to result when somebody invites me to RSVP for a party via Facebook, wants me to join a group, etc. Updating my profile is now difficult because each change i make will be publicly broadcast to all my Facebook "friends" (some of whom I don't even know). And I don't want that.
Wait, you're complaining that people will know you're going to a party? OMG no!! And then you list people as friends who you don't even know? What kind of moron does that? Why would you list someone that you don't even know? Seems pretty stupid to me, if you're worried about them finding out what you're doing.
The illusion of privacy that facebook gave -- that it was a reasonably intimate network of peers -- is now destroyed.
How intimate is your network if you include people you don't even know? If you knew it was an illusion, why did you take comfort in that?
Your problem is you can't tell the difference between those two statements. Yes, if someone published a picture of me picking my nose or something on my college paper I'd be pretty pissed. It's not really a decent thing to do. But I wouldn't have recourse either. But we're talking about Facebook. Why should I sign up to have someone follow everything I do and broadcast it to everyone I talk to?
If you're mad at the other party you're a fool. Would I be upset at the other party? No. At myself, sure. If you don't like Facebook broadcasting your information don't put your fucking information into facebook. Gee, how hard is that?
Are you going to honestly tell me you've never done anything in public that you'd really prefer not to be emailed to everyone you have contact with. Seriously?
Yup. I don't act like an ass in public.
You clearly don't understand how Facebook works. I may very well post something on someone else's wall that I'd rather not have everyone I know look at. For example, if I'm talking about how much I hate the War in Iraq and make a joke at stupid conservatives with my liberal buddy on his/her wall, I may not want my other friend to get it as a memo. Sure, I know they might stumble across it, but that's a different risk to run than having it posted to their front page.
If you want ONLY that person to see, don't post it on their wall. At any time your other friend can check out what you posted; the fact that they get notifications about it changes nothing. If you don't like how facebook works don't use it.
Who said anything about the web? The internet, in general, is anonymous. Facebook is an onymous site. This means the same rules that apply to the internet in general apply to this location in specific. If you're on Facebook, I can do a ton of research on you because I know your name and the college you go to. Does this mean it's ethical to gather all the info and post it? How would this be different from a kid in your calc class doing the same to you? You may be anonymous on the web, but don't act like you've somehow covered your ass and aren't vulnerable to this. Society is onymous. The argument still applies.,/i>
Nope, different rules apply because the internet is general is anonymous, while facebook is clearly NOT. Why should you expect anonmisity on a non-anonymous site? Taking information from public sources and publishing it is not unethical. Its already public information; its ALREADY published! On facebook. Its just being published differently now.
See above. Facebook is an onymous site, so is real life. If you were on Facebook - I could find the info. If I was in your calc class - I could find the info. In both cases it's legal, but in neither case would you appreciate it.
You chose to make all the information public by joining facebook. Don't complain when facebook actually does something with that information, especially when they told you up front they could do anything they wanted with it. You're publishing identifying information about yourself and then complaining when someone reads it? That's idiot thinking right there..
Who said anything about private details? It's just about regular friendly relationships. You may not discuss abortion with all your friends at the same time. This doesn't mean you would actively hide your opinions from your friends, but you probably don't want them broadcast either. I'm not worried about people stealing credit card info or finding out that you're cheating on your wife, it's just not the way social relationships work.
This seems to be a pretty common problem; people don't know the difference between a friend and aquaintence. Most of these 'regular friendly' relationships are aquaitences, so sharing with them is silly. If you don't want someone repeating what you say, don't say anything to those that are just aquentences. In know you're not in the real world yet, but when you do get there, you'll find that people gossip and
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is. It doesn't matter if the package is harmful or not. I'm sure a single person delivering thousands of snail mails to a residential address would be arrested as well. You're trying to say its not the sender's fault that an email arrived at its destination, which is exactly the affect the spammer was going for.
FWIW trespass doesn't cover the USPS because laws were created SPECIFICALLY to allow the postal carrier to come onto your property for the purpose of delivering mail. I also believe that mailboxes are technically the property of the USPS, whereas my computer and internet connection are not (they are owned / leased by me, respectively).
No, it doesn't - that's like saying junk-mailers are "making use" of your mailbox when the mailman does his thing.
I think technically mail boxes are 'owned' by the postal service. I believe they even have markings to that effect.
If the postal service has to check that the sender is legit with you every time someone sends a letter, the system becomes unworkable and breaks down - both from the service's perspective and from yours.
It IS illegal to forge a mailing address though. And with email the checks can be done electronically. It will slow things down a little, sure, but that doesn't mean its not feasable and that the spammers shouldn't have to do this.
How else would people legitimately contact those they have never met?
What if people don't want to be contacted by those they never met? Shouldn't that be their right?
The laws that govern unsolicited junkmail are enough - this court statement just muddy's the waters.
Nope, its pretty clear. The computer is owned by one entity, and the internet connection is paid for by them. At worse, none of MY resources are used when receiving junk mail; that's not the case for email.
Look, I appreciate that this is an emotive issue, especially for those who have dealt with a lot of spam and such, but ineffective application of perfectly suitable laws does not warrant additional laws. That way lies judicial ruin and opressive over-regulation.
Preventing others from gaining a benefit at another person's expense will hardly lead to over-regulation and judicial ruin. The people receiving this crap have a right NOT to be communicated with, especially at their own expense. Arguing this isn't a emotional issue at all; its a perfectly logical stance.
If the current laws are not being enforced, why bother creating more laws? Once again, I have no problem at all with the ruling - just the ill-informed statement that followed it. It displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues.
Who created a new law? Trespass has been around a lot longer than anti-spam laws.
How would pulling out of a market or not selling a product in Europe be abusing monopoly status? Europe doesn't HAVE to upgrade after all. There's nothing forcing them to not selling Vista at all in Europe.
Does anyone else see a problem with modeling a school after a management style better at spin than substance?
I can understand why you'd think this, but to say there's no substance is silly. XP doesn't look much different, but under the hood there are quite a few great technologies. Same goes for Vista. YOU can't see it, but as someone that builds software on top of the MS platform, there's ALOT of great stuff (from the developers perspective).
Nine years in prison for spamming is too much. Heck, two years is too much as well. You can get off easier than that for killing people.
For murdering, that's not true. If you're refering to manslaughter, there's a reason you don't go to jail as long; you didn't intentially kill the other person.
My issue is with the unbelievably inflammatory and ignorant statement made by the court regarding email and trespass. It certainly is not the same thing and, unlike trespass, there is no implicit threat to your safety - or, let's face it, to property. It's just damned annoying.
First off, in my state, there doesn't have to be any threat to safety, implicit or otherwise. Its merely defined as going onto someone else's property without permission. You could be there to give away sugar and spice, it doesn't matter, you're still guilty of trespass.
Second, it IS unwanted use of someone's private property. The internet connection and computer used to view the email. That apparently is the definition of trespass in that state, and spammers DO meet that criteria. The fact that it may not be dangerous and only annoying doesn't mean its not trespass.
Finally, I'd say that shooting someone IS an appropriate response to trespass, providing they refuse to leave. What reason does anyone have to go onto another's property without permission? You don't know the person, and you really don't know what their motives are. They could be giving away a car, or you could be next on their list of victims.
Firstly it is the confluence of internet/SM protocols, not the spammer, that puts the email on your server
Ugh. So the message he wanted to send 'magically' appeared, with no effort from him. Your argument is that its ok to send mail bombs via the USPS. After all, its not the Unibomber, is the 'network of mail carrying stations that delivered the message to his mailbox.'
but to suggest that emailing someone is equivalent to trespass??!? Just how out-of-touch and confused does the state have to get with technology before they're sat down in an electric chair in front of a monitor, with a sticky on its side saying "Learn"?
Tresspass can be classfied as 'making unwanted use of their private property.' They are 'making use' of my computer when it downloads THEIR message, and their message is also unwanted. I think it fits nicely.
Except that the telemarketers found a way around it.
I've been getting calls to my cell phone no less; they claim they got my # when I used a credit card at a gas station. They're calling to give me '$40 of free gas.' Now if they really wanted to send it to me, all they have to do is drop it in the mail. But for some reason they call and need me to give them my information. Oh no, they aren't trying to sell me something though..
I ignore all of the features that you claim it has because they are of no use to me. Why? Because they're no use to me when I can't even write from Mac or Linux.
So that means it doesn't exist? Sorry, no. You fail to realize that MS isn't in business making a file system; they're in business to make an OS. The FS is just one of the features of that OS.
I'm sure NTFS is just wonderful, but forgive me for not liking it because of Microsoft's arrogance towards interoperability.
Funny, I think its arrogant to think that they should give a rat's ass about less than 1% of the market. Honestly, what do they have to gain? Your good will? Not likely; you'd find other reasons to hate them while using their FS, should they open the specs. Its attitudes like yours that kills software, closed or open.
It will not be as simple as DeCSS, the schemes used in HD & BL discs allow the vendors to update encryption keys over the network, so if someone cracks a particular key it can be invalidated for future use.
It was my understanding that there is a blacklist of players on the disc, and newer discs would blacklist the cracked device...but existing discs would continue to work fine.
At a stadium
There is not enough room and the Segway can't traverse stairs.
writing parking tickets
How many tickets will they have to write just to pay for the Segway?
any place where a lot of walking would be involved but a larger vehicle would be inappropriate.
Oh no, someone has to WALK!! You probably think giving very obsese people carts they can ride around on and handicapped parking passes so they don't have to go as far is a good idea too..
Bite me. I typed OS instead of FS.
It's none of those. It's the fact that Microsoft won't open it up sufficiently to allow drivers for full (and safe) read/write access to be written for Linux and Mac.
That fact that the specs are not open does not mean NTFS is not a real and reliable OS. You ignore all of the features it does have because you aren't happy with how its licensed (or not). Get over it. Its their spec, they can do with it as they wish.
But, linux box at home doesn't crash ever.
Bullshit. I used linux at home, and it would indeed crash, locking to the point where X would no longer respond (not even to ctrl alt backspace).
1. If you are honestly saying you would have no qualms about someone follow you around for weeks, note everything you did in public, and broadcast to everyone you know you're either a sociopath or lying. I'm not talking major stuff. I'm just saying, you'd have to watch what you said and you might not want to do that. Even just a montage of every time you try to say a sentence and get tongue-tied would be annoying.
If you're too stupid to realize that this isn't the same as someone following you, this is YOU putting up ALL YOUR details on a website, then I don't know what else there is to discuss. You act as if Facebook is stalking you and recording details without your concent, which is not the case. These people are CHOOSING to post every detail on a public website, and then complain when people actually see it.
2. But I don't expect you to know that. Not reading a contract you agree to does not mean you cannot be held to said contract. Ask any lawyer. Never said that.
So why bother pointing out that no one reads the ToS?
You just contradicted yourself. It's "more embarrassing" because now it's not just three embarrassing incidents it's that "you appear to do a lot of stupid things". That's a new piece of information. Exactly as I said. Look, this isn't really a debatable point - it's just basic information science. As you sample more often, you're not just getting disparate data points, you're also increasing certainty about population mean, etc.
No I didn't; something is not more embarresing because mroe people see it. Doing a lot of stupid things isn't new information, since anyone that came to your profile enough could figure that out without the news feeds.
If you can't see this basic fact, I can't help you, and it's no wonder you're so confused about whether what Facebook has done has changed anything or not.
You can't even reason properly; I guess we have no hope for this country if you're supposed to be our future..
"I posted all my pictures of me being drunk and now everyone can see them!! That's not right!!!" Shut up retard.
Profiles are meant to be "live", not long-running records of adds/deletes. This is more than just a case of mismatched expections of public vs private, this is collecting historical data (including DELETED information) into a personalized narrative that spans every aspect of Facebook: wall posts, forums, groups, profile edits, adding/removing friends, etc. They may as well just publish the raw web logs.
Every change on the internet is logged. Hell, I can still find my old employer's website in the wayback machine.
I think they get REALITY much better than they get the Internet. You've got 12 posts on this thread alone and 4800 posts on Slashdot: this makes you one of the creepy Internet stalker types with no real life. And you hate people complaining about new tools that make automated collection of semi-private/semi-public information easily accessible. Well of course! You = stalker, them = not wanting to be stalked.
Yes, because my posting at lunch / during work makes me creepy. Did you happen to notice the timestamps of my posts? Almost none on the weekends or between 5PM and 8AM. I've had this account with slashdot since the mid 90s, its not suprising I've used it to waste time.
What I hate is stupid people doing stupid things then complain when they are found out. I had a website in 96-97, then I realized how easy it was to find and how much info I had up there about me.. so I took it down.
At any rate, you're a moron; the point of going to slashdot is to have a discussion, not just drop a post and leave never to return..
Yes you do. At least in the USA, anyway. Grabbing someone is not assault. Battery, maybe, but not assault. "Assault" is a verbal threat of harm, not the actual physical harm itself (that would be "battery"). And if there's no threat, there's no assault. And if there's no harm at all, there's no battery.
t ions.htm#simple_assault
e s_citizens_arrest.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvus/defini
Grabbing at someone can easily be construed as an assult.
No, a citizens arrest requires that you witness an illegal act and have the power to detain the criminal. Such things can include shoplifting, murder, copyright infringement, failure to yield to an electric signal, jaywalking, statutory sodomy, or many other offenses, both small and large, misdemeanor and felony. At least in the USA, anyway.
http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articl
It varies by state, but most states only allow it if the arrestee has committed a felony.
You don't have to prove anything, in fact, you're the proof. You witnessed their crime and will be considered "evidence" in the case against the person you arrest. You simply detain the person until the police can take custody of them, then you file a police report against them as a witness of their crime. It is illegal to file a false police report. And as a witness, you open yourself up to the possibility of being picked apart like carrion by a lawyer/vulture in a court of law, possibly ending with a conviction for filing a false report, perjury, or contempt of court (depending on the judge's mood that day).
If you are not legally allowed to make a citizen's arrest (which is usually the case if the person committed only a misdemeaner, which is what shoplifting is classified under) you may be charged with assault, even if you don't injure the other person. Again, it depends on where you are, but in many places you've assaulted someone if you simply touch them without their consent. Simple Assault is assault without a weapon. Note that the degree of assault depends on if you actually hurt them or not as well, so assault isn't always just the threat of violence.
I guess you never noticed the 'in public' part. I've done stupid stuff around co-workers and friends. Not quite public though is it? Nonetheless, experience has taught me to be very careful if I feel something might be embarrasing. Facebook is more or less public though, and I'd be hard pressed to claim i was wronged by posting an embarresing story in a public forum.
No one can read anything they could not have read before.. its just easier to find the new posts to read. How that makes things more or less embarrasing you've never explained. You're bitching that other people can read your posts, when its an ability they've always had. I don't think I'm a demi-god, but at least I know I have a brain in my head, which is more than I can say about you.
1. You have information publicly available that you don't want broadcast. Period. I never said "on Slashdot". I never even said "on the web". I guarantee that someone could follow you around for a week or so and have stuff like you picking your nose that you wouldn't want seen on the internet. I'm not saying it would ruin your life, I'm just saying you'd rather it not be there.
Really? Please tell me, I'd love to hear it. I don't do anything like pick my nose in public. I don't do anything in public that I'd be embarrased about. Broadcasting what I did in public wouldn't bother me. See, if having someone I don't know see me do something would bother me, it doesn't matter if two people saw it, or 200 people saw it. So I don't do anything I'd be embarresed about in public, because I don't know who may end up seeing it.
2. Come on, are you seriously going to fall back on a EULA? You've got to be kidding me. Everyone knows that no one reads them and that they are routinely unenforceable anyway.
We're not talking about a contract that you don't get to read up front. Its displayed and you have to signfy that you agree to it somehow. Terms of service on websites have not proven unenforcible. Even if portions of them have been, that doesn't mean NOTHING in a ToS is unenforceable. But I don't expect you to know that. Not reading a contract you agree to does not mean you cannot be held to said contract. Ask any lawyer.
3. Information about information is information. If you do 3 embarrassing things, then each one of those is an embarrassing piece of information. The collection of all 3 is greater than the sum of the parts, however, it is NEW information. This applies to Facebook. When I post on someone's wall, that's one datum. I don't care if someone goes and reads that post. Obviously, or I wouldn't have posted it where people can see it. But when Facebook aggregates all the posts that I've made and presents them to every person I have a connection to - THAT'S NEW INFORMATION. It's new data. Furthermore, it's information that I didn't provide. I provided the individual posts, but I didn't aggregate them in one place and hand the list to Facebook.
No, its not. Its the same three pieces of information. Its more embarresing because you appear to do a lot of stupid things. That's a pretty wild claim that facebook is coming up with information you didn't provide, especially seeing as how it ONLY knows about information you provide. Are you feeling stupid yet? You should. Why do you care if its easier to get to the information you posted? After all, you don't care if anyone reads your posts.. why care if its not easier to find the post? If you truely didn't care about what you posted, you wouldn't care if its easier for people to read and more people read it.
In conclusion: Facebook is not the equivalent of a public forum. It's not a public place. Credentials are required to enter. It's a private space.
And anyone in that private space can read what you wrote. Nothing facebook did changes that fact.
It's as though you rent a few hotel rooms for a circle of friends. They're not your rooms, but you have an expectation of privacy.
Nope, its nothing like that, unless the interior walls of the hotel are made of glass, and once in, people are free to roam the hotel as they please. THAT's exactly what facebook is like.
Any conversation you have in your suite could be overhead by another guest. But that doesn't mean the hotel has a right to bug the room, record every word everyone says, and then give the tapes out at the end of your stay, and I'm pretty sure you'd be pissed if a hotel every tried that on you.
Except in this case the hotel told you up front that's EXACTLY what they are doing; recording everything. Except the difference here is that YOU CHOOSE what is recorded by deciding what you're going to post, and what you're not going to post. So you can talk in the hotel, knowing its going to be v
Most of the older slashdotters don't seem to "get it". Yeah, it's public, but I nor most other Facebookers want this info SCREAMED out at everyone.
Perhaps you're the one that doesn't get it. Put information into a public forum, and it can be seen. It sounds like you want to put information there but don't want it to be seen, to which the solution is don't put it there in the first place. The whole idea of making the info public is for others to see it; now you're complaining that its easier for others to see that information? Yup, you don't get the internet..
I guess they're not happy with simplification (see "Stalking is supposed to be hard" thread).
Ya, I got a real chuckle out of that 'stalking is supposed to be hard' comment. People being stalked don't run around giving their information to everyone. Someone who is actually stalked begins to limit that information, like changing their phone number and not giving it to just anyone.
People are upset now because they can't just add tons of 'friends' and say 'oh cool I have more friend than you!!!'
I think you should look up the word 'intimate.' It means close. As in, someone is close to you if you share a lot about your life with them. The feeds are increasing the amount of sharing, so now that group of people will be closer to you (i.e., sharing more makes the relationship more intimate).
I think the real issue with these 'haters' is that they can no longer add willey nilley to their friends list so that can brag about how many 'friends' they have, while not really being friends with anyone on the list at all.
unfortunately, the new facebook *news feed* would, without my explicit permission, broadcast my post to EVERYONE we know in common, along with the ENTIRE TEXT. At least half of them would have a chuckle at my expense, or at least that's the way I feel. So, before posting, I hesitate. And send an email instead.
You don't seem to care that those same people could at any time check out your ex's wall and see your message, and still get said chuckle. I don't see why that doesn't bother you; you honestly don't think anyone else will be posting a happy b-day on her wall either? That's pretty naive.
Similar public/private conundrums are going to result when somebody invites me to RSVP for a party via Facebook, wants me to join a group, etc. Updating my profile is now difficult because each change i make will be publicly broadcast to all my Facebook "friends" (some of whom I don't even know). And I don't want that.
Wait, you're complaining that people will know you're going to a party? OMG no!! And then you list people as friends who you don't even know? What kind of moron does that? Why would you list someone that you don't even know? Seems pretty stupid to me, if you're worried about them finding out what you're doing.
The illusion of privacy that facebook gave -- that it was a reasonably intimate network of peers -- is now destroyed.
How intimate is your network if you include people you don't even know? If you knew it was an illusion, why did you take comfort in that?
Your problem is you can't tell the difference between those two statements. Yes, if someone published a picture of me picking my nose or something on my college paper I'd be pretty pissed. It's not really a decent thing to do. But I wouldn't have recourse either. But we're talking about Facebook. Why should I sign up to have someone follow everything I do and broadcast it to everyone I talk to?
If you're mad at the other party you're a fool. Would I be upset at the other party? No. At myself, sure. If you don't like Facebook broadcasting your information don't put your fucking information into facebook. Gee, how hard is that?
Are you going to honestly tell me you've never done anything in public that you'd really prefer not to be emailed to everyone you have contact with. Seriously?
Yup. I don't act like an ass in public.
You clearly don't understand how Facebook works. I may very well post something on someone else's wall that I'd rather not have everyone I know look at. For example, if I'm talking about how much I hate the War in Iraq and make a joke at stupid conservatives with my liberal buddy on his/her wall, I may not want my other friend to get it as a memo. Sure, I know they might stumble across it, but that's a different risk to run than having it posted to their front page.
If you want ONLY that person to see, don't post it on their wall. At any time your other friend can check out what you posted; the fact that they get notifications about it changes nothing. If you don't like how facebook works don't use it.
Who said anything about the web? The internet, in general, is anonymous. Facebook is an onymous site. This means the same rules that apply to the internet in general apply to this location in specific. If you're on Facebook, I can do a ton of research on you because I know your name and the college you go to. Does this mean it's ethical to gather all the info and post it? How would this be different from a kid in your calc class doing the same to you? You may be anonymous on the web, but don't act like you've somehow covered your ass and aren't vulnerable to this. Society is onymous. The argument still applies.,/i>
Nope, different rules apply because the internet is general is anonymous, while facebook is clearly NOT. Why should you expect anonmisity on a non-anonymous site? Taking information from public sources and publishing it is not unethical. Its already public information; its ALREADY published! On facebook. Its just being published differently now.
See above. Facebook is an onymous site, so is real life. If you were on Facebook - I could find the info. If I was in your calc class - I could find the info. In both cases it's legal, but in neither case would you appreciate it.
You chose to make all the information public by joining facebook. Don't complain when facebook actually does something with that information, especially when they told you up front they could do anything they wanted with it. You're publishing identifying information about yourself and then complaining when someone reads it? That's idiot thinking right there..
Who said anything about private details? It's just about regular friendly relationships. You may not discuss abortion with all your friends at the same time. This doesn't mean you would actively hide your opinions from your friends, but you probably don't want them broadcast either. I'm not worried about people stealing credit card info or finding out that you're cheating on your wife, it's just not the way social relationships work.
This seems to be a pretty common problem; people don't know the difference between a friend and aquaintence. Most of these 'regular friendly' relationships are aquaitences, so sharing with them is silly. If you don't want someone repeating what you say, don't say anything to those that are just aquentences. In know you're not in the real world yet, but when you do get there, you'll find that people gossip and