i mean, does/. really have nothing better to put up on the front page than fluff pieces from The Sun? this kind of tripe might impress technologically illiterate housewives, but it doesn't belong on a site purportedly aimed at nerds.
Dude! Your killing my hopes of finally being able to get some!
So where can I buy one of these?
Pretty sure the company that sent you those e-mails didn't know your size or those belonging to the 232352351 they sent emails to. There is also no relationship between you and those companies. There is a relationship between students and teachers in the same university. There is a world of difference and to compare this girl to random "traditional" spammers is silly.
i personally disagree with the idea that you can have 'freedom of speech' combined with the threat of lawsuits for said speech. if that were the case, china isn't that different. while i don't think that one should be allowed to yell at people, for example, communication between consenting parties should be allowed regardless of its content.
You disregarded a key point of what I said: If what you say hurts someone. You have freedom of speech, you can say you hated their service, you hated their donuts. YOu say they are dirty, then prove it. For those that say "its an opinion" - yea it is, one that can hurt someone. So they need to have reasonable proof that the place is dirty. Some say "big deal its an anon internet poster" - guess what, people believe what they read - maybe not slashdot, but others do.
SPAM doesn't require commercialism. If you don't believe me give me your e-mail address. I will post it on slashdot and ask everyone on slashdot e-mail you with "I love you", 50 times each. They are not using it for commercial issues - so by your reasoning (and Templetons def) it is not spam.
This does not fall under spam, imho, because the student sent an e-mail to professors on their school work e-mail (which allows students to send to professors) for the purpose of asking a professor for their input on a situation that concerns them in two ways 1) their WORK/personal schedules and 2) their students EDUCATION
That's funny. I once tracked (on purpose) poop onto my english professors carpet for giving me a 64 (the lowest possible D before an F) because he didn't agree with my position on a paper (which was a moral issue). He gave me a D because he knew i put hard work into the document but couldn't agree with my position.
Her message was fine. Composed well. Before RTFA I thought it was a whiney cry "OMG th3y r taking away our partayzzz timez" but in reality her letter was fine
Some prof was concerned how a student got her WORK e-mail address??? Geez at the universities I went to (2 of them) a professors email was their first initial, last name and the school address after the @ symbol. You could also go to each departments website and get a picture, email, phone and office address for the professor.
This is silly, and the school needs to grow up. This does not fall under the realm of spam. The message was written and targetted to professors on an issue that affects professors and students. It would be like me complaining that my bank sent me a letter, via e-mail, informing me that my statement date was changing. The info is relevant to me - it wouldn't be spam. The info is relevant to the professors - it is not spam.
Of whether the dunkin donuts was actually dirty. Has this Brodie dude even provided the court with evidence that his establishment isn't unsanitary-looking? I mean, what if these weren't just a couple trolls, but real customers who saw that this particular dunkin donuts was really nasty?
So you support someone from making disparaging remarks about an establishment and now that establishment has to prove those remarks as wrong? Isn't our society based on "innocent until proven guilty"? How about the folks who posted those comments show proof (e.g. pictures, audio recordings, etc)? If you make a comment prove it, then the defenders can refute your statements.
Freedom of speech is important and required, but with that comes responsibility. The moment you use your freedoms to hurt someone, without legitimate basis (defamation) you are wrong.
So if you want to say some shop is dirty, bad, etc - then you better offer up some proof. Otherwise you can get sued. This is nothing new - it has been going on for many years - why should the Internet be a place for people to spread malicious information without suffering the penalty? It shouldn't.
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
Flawed argument. Denying someone the right to carry a weapon is not denying them the right to self defense. She can carry a taser, learn martial arts to just name two ways.
It is worth noting that there are no serious methods of self-defense available to the physically disadvantaged other than firearms. If they are alone or with another weakened person, assailants have plenty of time to rob,/beat/snuff them.
Taser is not serious enough? Or did you mean lethal?
Not all older folks are insane, but losing of ones faculties tends to come with old age. I once saw an old person try and run a motorcyclist off the road because the cyclist was driving on the shoulder. The old person got upset and tried to hit him with his car.
Yes, we are all concerned that in 1 billion years it will get 10% hotter on the earth. Let me stock up on sun-screen in case the my local grocery store runs out.
You know, I am getting tired of people throwing the "don't be evil" phrase in their face all the time. It is old, tiring, and played out so many times in the wrong way.
I don't like racism, but in our country -and google is based in our country- our laws let people spew whatever trash they want to trash as long as it doesn't cause harm....and while racism may infuriate me, and hurt people's feelings - it does not cause actual harm (yes someone will argue it teaches young people to do stupid things, but the harm came from the young kids).
All in all, Google is correct for letting people have their free speech.
Or, not everyone finds every joke funny...which means I wouldn't expect someone to mod it to +5 funny, but at least I would expect someone to realize it was meant as a joke. Kthxbye
Yea but it fit the situation. Plus you if play wow, everyone tries to throw in the leet speak...and it is so painful when someone does it badly....even more painful when someone thinks an acronym is leet speak because (i.e. STFU, BRB, etc).
It all depends on how it's phrased, which is not something I was arguing about. Simply claiming something to be a rumor needs to be enough to mitigate any penalties - it's already admitting up front that you have no evidence, that's it's a belief and not a fact.
So, yes, it would be wrong for someone to say "gfxguy is into child porn," but for it to harm my repuation would require people believe it without proof. If someone is willing to believe something bad about me without proof then it's a failing on their part...
I have to disagree here on a few points. First most sources do not say "it is rumored to..." most of them say "this is...." Even still, in the minds eye, just even suggesting impropriety can ruin someones life. Look at politicians... every now and again a politician gets investigated for a crime...once they are exonnerated of the crime their polling numbers are worse off then it was before they were accused. Rumors can hurt, even if it is labeled as such. This is the nature of people, it is not going to change, and those who spread rumors know it. And yes it is a failing on the part of the person who believes w/o proof, but in the end, what does that matter? You still lost the business sale, the vote to get re-elected, get the dirty looks in the mall, etc.
Saying "I think GW Bush is an idiot" is far different then saying something as a matter of fact. Here I am giving an opinion. Now what if I said, "GW Bush scored a 50 on his IQ test"....now I am stating something as a matter of fact, and unless I have proof of that I potentially hurt his reputation....people will say "i am not going to vote for a guy with 50 IQ points."
I do not understand why my answers ar "yes, yes, and yes".. No I do not want to take away someone's right to call someone else a moron. No I do not think it will hurt his reputation if I call someone a moron. And no I do not think it will affect his poll ratings. Hypothetically if I was a world-reknowned psychotherapist dealing with intelligence and I said "GWB is a moron" I could hurt his reputation, and I would be liabel if I couldn't pony up some proof...but that is because I am an expert in the field. But if J. Kerry says "GWB is an idiot" nobody who likes Bush is going to care.
Do I want people right to speak be stifeled, to a point yes....people are immature and irresponsible, and they need to pay the penalty for harming other people when they say something untrue. If you say "politician X slept with 10 year old children" then you better offer some proof, because just getting those words on the news will hurt the politician.
FTA: BEIJING (Reuters) - Internet users in southwest China who spread malicious rumors online face fines of up to 5,000 yuan ($630) and possible detention, state media reported on Wednesday in the latest crackdown on dissent.
Under legislation passed in Chongqing municipality, people who post "defamatory comments or remarks, launch personal attacks or seek to damage reputations online" will receive a warning or be fined between 1,000 and 5,000 yuan, the China Daily said.
"Those whose rumors cause serious consequences could be detained for five days or even more," the paper said.
It does not sound like they are saying "if you say you don't like us we will fine you"...sounds like they are saying "if you post malicious rumors that cause harm we will fine you." I do not see a problem with this. People are entitled to their opinion..and if you want to say you hate someone - go for it - but when you post something untrue about them and this causes harm, you gotta suffer the consequences....Even in the US, freedom of speech is absolute, except when you abuse that freedom to cause harm.....It could be worse, China could have said "post malicious rumors and we will kill you".
"Tom has inceste with his sister".....Tom, who is a famous actor is spending millions of dollars fighting these rumors, and lost a recent contract in hollywood. Tom, says "hey i never had inceste with my sister, and my sister says that too...prove otherwise".
But yea, China could be a bit more harsh...then again, I would probably think China would find something that someone said, but it is what they said that I would question - not if that someone really said it. "You said we look weird...that is defamation, you are fined." the guy who said it "You do look weird, thats not a rumor"....
And that's news? Duh. We all know there's crazy people in the world, it should come as no surprise that there's crazy people on the internet as well.
Nothing wrong with repeating past knowledge, it is how we keep it fresh in our minds....and it is not like they just came out - randomly - "hey as a reminder folks, don't be stupid"....no, something tragic happend and they took that as a chance to say "hey as a reminder folks, don't be stupid, or you could be dead like this guy"...which I think helps to reinforce the point...remember people are complacent...look at the way people treat security post 9/11...their main concern, wherever they go "it's inconvenient, wahhhh".....though I guess they would prefer the alternative right?
Slashdot Mirror
i mean, does /. really have nothing better to put up on the front page than fluff pieces from The Sun? this kind of tripe might impress technologically illiterate housewives, but it doesn't belong on a site purportedly aimed at nerds.
Dude! Your killing my hopes of finally being able to get some!
So where can I buy one of these?
As /. causes a nuclear explosion on cosmosmagazine.com preventing anyone from RTFA
Pretty sure the company that sent you those e-mails didn't know your size or those belonging to the 232352351 they sent emails to. There is also no relationship between you and those companies. There is a relationship between students and teachers in the same university. There is a world of difference and to compare this girl to random "traditional" spammers is silly.
i personally disagree with the idea that you can have 'freedom of speech' combined with the threat of lawsuits for said speech. if that were the case, china isn't that different. while i don't think that one should be allowed to yell at people, for example, communication between consenting parties should be allowed regardless of its content.
You disregarded a key point of what I said: If what you say hurts someone. You have freedom of speech, you can say you hated their service, you hated their donuts. YOu say they are dirty, then prove it. For those that say "its an opinion" - yea it is, one that can hurt someone. So they need to have reasonable proof that the place is dirty. Some say "big deal its an anon internet poster" - guess what, people believe what they read - maybe not slashdot, but others do.
SPAM doesn't require commercialism. If you don't believe me give me your e-mail address. I will post it on slashdot and ask everyone on slashdot e-mail you with "I love you", 50 times each. They are not using it for commercial issues - so by your reasoning (and Templetons def) it is not spam.
This does not fall under spam, imho, because the student sent an e-mail to professors on their school work e-mail (which allows students to send to professors) for the purpose of asking a professor for their input on a situation that concerns them in two ways 1) their WORK/personal schedules and 2) their students EDUCATION
That's funny. I once tracked (on purpose) poop onto my english professors carpet for giving me a 64 (the lowest possible D before an F) because he didn't agree with my position on a paper (which was a moral issue). He gave me a D because he knew i put hard work into the document but couldn't agree with my position.
Her message was fine. Composed well. Before RTFA I thought it was a whiney cry "OMG th3y r taking away our partayzzz timez" but in reality her letter was fine
Some prof was concerned how a student got her WORK e-mail address??? Geez at the universities I went to (2 of them) a professors email was their first initial, last name and the school address after the @ symbol. You could also go to each departments website and get a picture, email, phone and office address for the professor.
This is silly, and the school needs to grow up. This does not fall under the realm of spam. The message was written and targetted to professors on an issue that affects professors and students. It would be like me complaining that my bank sent me a letter, via e-mail, informing me that my statement date was changing. The info is relevant to me - it wouldn't be spam. The info is relevant to the professors - it is not spam.
Of whether the dunkin donuts was actually dirty. Has this Brodie dude even provided the court with evidence that his establishment isn't unsanitary-looking? I mean, what if these weren't just a couple trolls, but real customers who saw that this particular dunkin donuts was really nasty?
So you support someone from making disparaging remarks about an establishment and now that establishment has to prove those remarks as wrong? Isn't our society based on "innocent until proven guilty"? How about the folks who posted those comments show proof (e.g. pictures, audio recordings, etc)? If you make a comment prove it, then the defenders can refute your statements.
Freedom of speech is important and required, but with that comes responsibility. The moment you use your freedoms to hurt someone, without legitimate basis (defamation) you are wrong.
So if you want to say some shop is dirty, bad, etc - then you better offer up some proof. Otherwise you can get sued. This is nothing new - it has been going on for many years - why should the Internet be a place for people to spread malicious information without suffering the penalty? It shouldn't.
Anyway, who's playing quake with me on NSA supercomputers tonight?
Yea, but will they run Crysis?
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
Flawed argument. Denying someone the right to carry a weapon is not denying them the right to self defense. She can carry a taser, learn martial arts to just name two ways.
It is worth noting that there are no serious methods of self-defense available to the physically disadvantaged other than firearms. If they are alone or with another weakened person, assailants have plenty of time to rob,/beat/snuff them.
Taser is not serious enough? Or did you mean lethal?
Not all older folks are insane, but losing of ones faculties tends to come with old age. I once saw an old person try and run a motorcyclist off the road because the cyclist was driving on the shoulder. The old person got upset and tried to hit him with his car.
I see you're trying to attack an insurgent stronghold. Would you like me to:
1. Call in airstrike
2. Fire machinegun
3. Wave white flag?
#3? Didn't know the French were building robotic soldiers.
Yes, we are all concerned that in 1 billion years it will get 10% hotter on the earth. Let me stock up on sun-screen in case the my local grocery store runs out.
You know, I am getting tired of people throwing the "don't be evil" phrase in their face all the time. It is old, tiring, and played out so many times in the wrong way.
I don't like racism, but in our country -and google is based in our country- our laws let people spew whatever trash they want to trash as long as it doesn't cause harm....and while racism may infuriate me, and hurt people's feelings - it does not cause actual harm (yes someone will argue it teaches young people to do stupid things, but the harm came from the young kids).
All in all, Google is correct for letting people have their free speech.
Or, not everyone finds every joke funny...which means I wouldn't expect someone to mod it to +5 funny, but at least I would expect someone to realize it was meant as a joke. Kthxbye
Yea but it fit the situation. Plus you if play wow, everyone tries to throw in the leet speak...and it is so painful when someone does it badly....even more painful when someone thinks an acronym is leet speak because (i.e. STFU, BRB, etc).
OMG. The mods today are stupid. They couldn't see the above post was a joke made to compliment the GF post making fun of some folks.
$tfu n00bz0r i @m 1337 w@rri0r, @nd w|ll p0wnz0r y0ur ugly f@ce. I mu$7 g37 my ti3r 4535252 s3t. @ll | g0tz t0 pl@y i$ 20 h0urz @ d@y n00by
It all depends on how it's phrased, which is not something I was arguing about. Simply claiming something to be a rumor needs to be enough to mitigate any penalties - it's already admitting up front that you have no evidence, that's it's a belief and not a fact. So, yes, it would be wrong for someone to say "gfxguy is into child porn," but for it to harm my repuation would require people believe it without proof. If someone is willing to believe something bad about me without proof then it's a failing on their part...
I have to disagree here on a few points. First most sources do not say "it is rumored to..." most of them say "this is...." Even still, in the minds eye, just even suggesting impropriety can ruin someones life. Look at politicians... every now and again a politician gets investigated for a crime...once they are exonnerated of the crime their polling numbers are worse off then it was before they were accused. Rumors can hurt, even if it is labeled as such. This is the nature of people, it is not going to change, and those who spread rumors know it. And yes it is a failing on the part of the person who believes w/o proof, but in the end, what does that matter? You still lost the business sale, the vote to get re-elected, get the dirty looks in the mall, etc.
Saying "I think GW Bush is an idiot" is far different then saying something as a matter of fact. Here I am giving an opinion. Now what if I said, "GW Bush scored a 50 on his IQ test"....now I am stating something as a matter of fact, and unless I have proof of that I potentially hurt his reputation....people will say "i am not going to vote for a guy with 50 IQ points."
I do not understand why my answers ar "yes, yes, and yes".. No I do not want to take away someone's right to call someone else a moron. No I do not think it will hurt his reputation if I call someone a moron. And no I do not think it will affect his poll ratings. Hypothetically if I was a world-reknowned psychotherapist dealing with intelligence and I said "GWB is a moron" I could hurt his reputation, and I would be liabel if I couldn't pony up some proof...but that is because I am an expert in the field. But if J. Kerry says "GWB is an idiot" nobody who likes Bush is going to care.
Do I want people right to speak be stifeled, to a point yes....people are immature and irresponsible, and they need to pay the penalty for harming other people when they say something untrue. If you say "politician X slept with 10 year old children" then you better offer some proof, because just getting those words on the news will hurt the politician.
FTA:
BEIJING (Reuters) - Internet users in southwest China who spread malicious rumors online face fines of up to 5,000 yuan ($630) and possible detention, state media reported on Wednesday in the latest crackdown on dissent. Under legislation passed in Chongqing municipality, people who post "defamatory comments or remarks, launch personal attacks or seek to damage reputations online" will receive a warning or be fined between 1,000 and 5,000 yuan, the China Daily said. "Those whose rumors cause serious consequences could be detained for five days or even more," the paper said.
It does not sound like they are saying "if you say you don't like us we will fine you"...sounds like they are saying "if you post malicious rumors that cause harm we will fine you." I do not see a problem with this. People are entitled to their opinion..and if you want to say you hate someone - go for it - but when you post something untrue about them and this causes harm, you gotta suffer the consequences....Even in the US, freedom of speech is absolute, except when you abuse that freedom to cause harm.....It could be worse, China could have said "post malicious rumors and we will kill you".
"Tom has inceste with his sister".....Tom, who is a famous actor is spending millions of dollars fighting these rumors, and lost a recent contract in hollywood. Tom, says "hey i never had inceste with my sister, and my sister says that too...prove otherwise".
But yea, China could be a bit more harsh...then again, I would probably think China would find something that someone said, but it is what they said that I would question - not if that someone really said it. "You said we look weird...that is defamation, you are fined." the guy who said it "You do look weird, thats not a rumor"....
OK. And in the US, you can sue someone into the ground for posting malicious rumors against you.
And that's news? Duh. We all know there's crazy people in the world, it should come as no surprise that there's crazy people on the internet as well.
Nothing wrong with repeating past knowledge, it is how we keep it fresh in our minds....and it is not like they just came out - randomly - "hey as a reminder folks, don't be stupid"....no, something tragic happend and they took that as a chance to say "hey as a reminder folks, don't be stupid, or you could be dead like this guy"...which I think helps to reinforce the point...remember people are complacent...look at the way people treat security post 9/11...their main concern, wherever they go "it's inconvenient, wahhhh".....though I guess they would prefer the alternative right?
The net doesn't kill people, axes do.... unless you strangle your victim with an ethernet cable!
Or really poor web designs.