From article 5 of the german constitution aka Basic Law:
"Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship."
Apparently they ignore it just as nicely as we do on this side of the Atlantic too, given the ban on all kinds of things having to do with Nazis, Holocaust denial, and the like. And of course now this.
To promote easy identification of sex offenders, a new bill requires "registration of the logo and design of the hat worn by the offender." Mention was not made in the bill of what happens if the offender changes hats.
Holy hell, how far can they take this false sense of security crap? If you want your kids to be safe, teach them what things to do are stupid, and how to recognize danger signals (online and offline). Then, you could, you know, always supervise them until you're reasonably sure that they've indeed gotten the point.
Or we could try tracking people by their email address. I'm sure that'll work great. imasexoffender@example.com will never think of registering 15yroldmale@example.com too!
Definitely true. Of course, some of us just couldn't care less if we infringe a copyright here or there. But that's really far less interesting-and with this whole "copyright infringement is theft!" thing that's been floating around for a while, people seem to feel they need to defend it.
To whatever monkey who learned how to use a keyboard who modded my last post offtopic, let's run down what "offtopic" means. It means "off" the "topic". Isn't that easy?
The topic is Xandros Linux. The post was about Xandros Linux. See the problem here?
This post, on the other hand, is offtopic. It is also a flame. Please feel free to moderate accordingly and properly.
Depends a lot. One would imagine that a lot of the stuff floating around currently is probably Photoshopped or the like-I suppose a few people might be stupid or insane enough to film themselves in criminal acts, but I doubt there could be possibly too many. So, sure, if it's a real person's image, that person can demand that anyone who's using it stop. Of course, the law already provides for that. As to "supply and demand"-you got to be kidding, you think people sick enough to do something like that to a kid, videotape it, and put out the video, really care if they're breaking the law or not with the last step of that process?
How about "Quit worrying if anyone looks at it, and start worrying about those who actually abuse actual children?" Seems simple enough to me. I've no interest in looking at the stuff myself, but I'm not concerned if anyone else does-I am concerned if someone causes actual harm. Unfortunately, that can't be solved with silly censorship measures, but it sure would do a lot more good.
Microsoft has recently added to the EULA of its upcoming "Vista" program, disallowing users from installing the operating system.
"We see this as a very positive move for our customers," stated Microsoft chief public relations officer Benja Overr. "While the Windows CD is perfectly safe when being used, for example, for a game of Frisbee or as a very attractive coaster, it's well-known that when most of our customers place the CD in a computer, they end up with viruses, rootkits, and all other sorts of issues. We just don't feel the Windows operating system is mature enough for the average user to be playing with on their computer."
Microsoft stated that the UltiCruftcrapGigantoNightmareRameater version will be available to actually install in a computer. Tentative pricing for this version is set at $1000.
After reading all the "But he disobeyed a cop! They should've (insert idiotic violent suggestion here) too!", I'm very glad to read that someone still has the right idea.
If you think a child is that fragile of mind, I guess you don't have kids
Except for my three daughters, nope, none at all. And I can tell you for damn sure me getting arrested would shake 'em up. Not as bad as some things, granted, but it'd not be a -good- thing.
Also I'm pretty sure they guy brought his kid along as a "shield" thinking it would make him less likely to be arrested, which is really pretty despicable even if very minor child exploitation.
People bring their children to political events all the time. I'm sure many supporters had their children there. Is there somehow another standard for dissenters?
Sure you do. And then overzelous police have a right to haul you off (public nuisance laws if nothing else),
They absolutely do not, arrest requires probable cause to believe you've committed a crime, and "public nuisance" does NOT mean "I don't like what you have to say." Freedom from false arrest is -explicitly- guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment, freedom of speech under the first. This arrest violated both. The police have no "right" to arrest anyone without such cause, and they certainly have no "right" to arrest whoever the hell they want.
Basically this guy is just blowing the incident all out of proportion because a police guy went overboard. The officer arresting should be reprimanded. But suing over it? Bad taste.
False arrest is a civil rights violation. Arresting someone with no cause is assault, at the very least. I guarantee you that in the reverse situation (the citizen assaulting the officer) the citizen will get worse then a "reprimand"! Why the double standard?
Getting arrested in front of your son will not have "lasting repercussions"? I guess we have different definitions there.
And the point here is thus: I have the right to walk up as close as the Secret Service will allow anyone to Cheney (or Bush, or Rumsfeld, or any of 'em) and tell them I think they suck in any number of ways. Now, the minute I say "I'm going to kill you", I can be arrested-as I could for a death threat against anyone. However, should I wish to say "You're wrong on Iraq, you're wrong on the economy, the PATRIOT Act is criminal, and I hope they impeach you!" this is entirely legal. I should have NO fear of arrest or anything else there, as this is a perfectly legal and specifically protected action under the Constitution (not only free speech and expression but also petition for redress of grievances).
Suppose you write a book. (Insert anything else here.) It succeeds. You make a reasonable amount of money at it. You write another one. You make another reasonable amount of money. You:
A: Blow all the money, leaving nothing for your heirs or retirement.
B: Save or wisely invest the money, leaving you prepared for retirement and your heirs provided for.
Copyright should be no longer then 5 or 10 years. Remember that copyright is not, not, not, and not for the author's benefit except incidentally and as necessary to provide a creative incentive. The absolute minimum term of copyright that will get people to create should be used. The idea is -not- to give the grandkids a monopoly on the works of a long-dead grandfather (or corporations a monopoly on the works of a long-dead man.)
How about a rational one? Terrorists are not an army-they are an international organized crime syndicate. Those have been, and would be, handled perfectly well through good intelligence and police work. Just like always.
Oh, and (mod away!) I don't particularly care that they blew up the WTC's. 3000 people? Look at the annual death toll from cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or auto accidents sometime. Where would all that money really be better spent?
Finally, not everyone who hates the Republicans loves the Democrats. We'd not have political parties at all if I had my way.
No, not solely. Their arrest without notice was what caused the violation.
Actually, if you were to read the judgment, you'll see that their arrest without notice is specifically why the arrest was without cause. The two are the same thing. Had the occupants of the park been given the order to disperse and refused to do so, they are then refusing to obey a lawful order, which in that area is a crime. At that point, the arrests would have been with cause, as the officers would clearly have observed the occupants of the park failing to disperse, and there would never have been this case. The only reason that the failure to give notice and a chance to disperse was material was to determine -if- the arrests had just cause or not.
And yes, I agree that sometimes people will act unreasonably. However, when they do so, they should be penalized and/or required to compensate the victim for their wrong action, and told in no uncertain terms not to do it again. We can't force people to be reasonable, but we can certainly say that there are penalties for harming fellow citizens. And when someone does act in violation of civil rights, our response should be that such a thing is never acceptable, not "Eh, a little won't hurt." There's been too much of that already, as evidenced by that AC post that started this whole discussion-what rights have we lost already? They're being eviscerated left and right!
While I agree in principle with some of your points...
This also had the effect of driving down pay and driving down profit margins, but it drove down costs faster than both - so people still did well.
Correction here-those who owned the factories did very well. Do you know what life was like for a 19th century industrial worker? Here's a hint: The labor strife didn't arise because safe working conditions and decent pay made life as a factory worker a desirable one.
Sorry for using two posts to respond, hit the submit button early and we all know how Slashdot likes to let you edit a post.
Your example is irrelevant. We're talking about peacefully taking photos in a public place, not about saying so much as a word.
However, to address it anyway, it depends what we are defining as "public". If we are talking about a place which is open to the public but private property, the property owner has every right to kick you out. If you refuse to leave, you are trespassing, and if the police have to remove you they are doing so because you are committing a crime, not because they're "annoyed" or just don't like you.
If on the other hand we're talking about a public street or park, it doesn't matter if you're not "wanted" there. You can stand there all day long yelling "Bush Sucks!" and no one has any right to remove you, regardless of whether or not they like you. On the other hand, your eventual loss of your voice is your own problem. Now, granted, if they should try anyway, you -are- required to obey the police at the time. However, if you do so, the arrest is without cause and courts can both grant damages (for having done it) and issue an order not to do it again, as occurred in the case I cited.
As to your assertion that it is "not possible" for people to be reasonable? Why not? I agree it doesn't occur nearly often enough, but it -is- the standard we should aspire to, regardless of how short we may fall today. A shrug of the shoulders and an "Aw fuckit" is not the answer.
No it does not. There is legal redress for arrest without cause but I defy you to show me that a US court found that arrest without cause (solely) was a violation of a civil right.
From the judgment: ""The mass arrest at Pershing Park violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of plaintiffs. .." Or in other words, false arrest (solely) was a violation of a civil right. Freedom of speech would be rather meaningless if the police could arrest you whenever you try to actually exercise it!
I do not remember the name for it offhand, but "it could be worse == the current situation is acceptable" is a fallacy. Granted, given the choice between being arrested by the cops here or shot by warlords in Sudan I'll take the former. However, neither situation is acceptable. And yes, a cop arresting you without cause does equal the government (police officers are agents of the government) violating your rights (to free speech and expression, as well as due process and many others).
Your assertion is only partially correct. Your First Amendment rights do not protect you against -anyone- calling the police, nor against the police from showing up and questioning you, that is correct. They do, however, protect you from arrest, forcible removal from the area, confiscation of your equipment, and/or a demand to stop, unless the police officers have probable cause (the Supreme Court has been very clear that a "hunch" or "bad feeling" is not probable cause, there must be quantifiable evidence) to believe that you are committing or intend to commit a crime.
Well is this unexpected? They were begging for money and consideration at the time, but they were also lobbying. In effect, they say "Oh it'll be fine, you'll see, watch what we'll give you!" Of course, since the promises weren't written into the law as a mandate, with real consequences if they went unfulfilled, what they gave us, predictably, was as little as they could get away with for as much as they could charge.
Now, in addition to tax revenue and right-of-ways, they want us to give up net neutrality. "Oh, but look what we'll give you!" I imagine they'll do just as well as last time.
Alright. You're trolling, but this is all too damn common. So, let's put you back under the bridge.
Freedom of speech has been abridged much farther than this example, though this is an example, your pulling "facts" directly out of places I'd rather not have them from aside. Annoying someone is not grounds for arrest, whether the guard was annoyed by a statement on the bag or a statement out of the mouth. Your statement annoys me, but it's not grounds to arrest you.
Besides that, you have surveillance of protest groups (chilling effect), the DMCA's prohibition on the discussion of certain types of technology (though this was pre-9/11 of course), protest zones (this abridges not only the right of free speech, but also the right to petition for redress of grievances, which you cannot do if you are forced not to be seen by those against whom you have the grievance, and also limits the common-law right to freedom of movement in public spaces), arresting people for taking photos in public spaces (you cannot communicate through photographs if you are disallowed from taking them!), and that's just the violations of the first part of the First Amendment!
Now, if you'd like to hear what other rights we've lost, especially once we start getting down to numbers 4, 5, 6, 8, and so on, we can certainly play there as well!
I will happily download games. If there's nothing in it that interests me in netplay or playing it more then once, I -won't- buy it, it's not worth it. And I don't feel a bit bad about that, if you're going to make a linear "throwaway" game you deserve no better. At least not unless you're offering it for under five bucks.
On the other hand, if it is worthwhile, I'll be on my way to the store. See how easy that is? Make decent stuff and people will buy it!
'some US music consumers could have decreased their CD purchases (prior to 2004) by about 13 percent due to Internet file sharing.'
In related news, some Congressman might now be accepting 80% more bribes, 50% of people might be below average, and 100% of statistics prefaced with "some" and "could have" are sensational bullshit. If you've got real statistics, you don't say "some might have."
This provides no information about the content on each Web page, including secure content, without which it is impossible to capture detailed transaction activity across all sites. comScore's proprietary technology captures not just clickstreams but all content, including secure content, in an elegantly simple manner that ensures the complete privacy protection of all participants.
Sorry, but that -is- spyware, and of a very nasty type. The only question is how no one is in jail yet, that's cracking.
Ah, I can see that you do not program. Or I hope you don't!
When setting something up, the defaults should be whatever the majority will use. That's the difference here. In the case of spam, the majority does not want it, so the default should be no until you explicitly sign up for a list. On the other hand, most websites do want to be indexed and cached, so the default should be you are until you explicitly say no thanks. It's no different then anything useful. Most people will want the "find" command to operate on directories recursively, so it does by default. If you don't want it to (or want to limit how far it goes) the options are there to do that. On the other hand, most people will probably -not- intend to use the "rm" command recursively, and in fact could get in pretty hot water if it does! So by default it does not, but there's an option to change that behavior too, if you'd like.
What in the world is wrong with designing for the majority while respecting the rights and wishes of the minority? The fact that a few might be too lazy or stupid to even -ask-? If their web designer isn't competent to set up a robots.txt, do they really think people can't crack in there at will anyway? We're not talking about a highly technical, time-consuming thing to set up here, we're talking about:
"User-agent: Googlebot
Deny:/"
And they've got all the "goodness" of Google leaving them completely alone. I sure hope they enjoy that!
Slashdot Mirror
From article 5 of the german constitution aka Basic Law: "Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship."
Apparently they ignore it just as nicely as we do on this side of the Atlantic too, given the ban on all kinds of things having to do with Nazis, Holocaust denial, and the like. And of course now this.
To promote easy identification of sex offenders, a new bill requires "registration of the logo and design of the hat worn by the offender." Mention was not made in the bill of what happens if the offender changes hats.
Holy hell, how far can they take this false sense of security crap? If you want your kids to be safe, teach them what things to do are stupid, and how to recognize danger signals (online and offline). Then, you could, you know, always supervise them until you're reasonably sure that they've indeed gotten the point.
Or we could try tracking people by their email address. I'm sure that'll work great. imasexoffender@example.com will never think of registering 15yroldmale@example.com too!
Definitely true. Of course, some of us just couldn't care less if we infringe a copyright here or there. But that's really far less interesting-and with this whole "copyright infringement is theft!" thing that's been floating around for a while, people seem to feel they need to defend it.
To whatever monkey who learned how to use a keyboard who modded my last post offtopic, let's run down what "offtopic" means. It means "off" the "topic". Isn't that easy?
The topic is Xandros Linux. The post was about Xandros Linux. See the problem here?
This post, on the other hand, is offtopic. It is also a flame. Please feel free to moderate accordingly and properly.
True enough. And I can refuse to go anywhere near it. Choice is good!
Depends a lot. One would imagine that a lot of the stuff floating around currently is probably Photoshopped or the like-I suppose a few people might be stupid or insane enough to film themselves in criminal acts, but I doubt there could be possibly too many. So, sure, if it's a real person's image, that person can demand that anyone who's using it stop. Of course, the law already provides for that. As to "supply and demand"-you got to be kidding, you think people sick enough to do something like that to a kid, videotape it, and put out the video, really care if they're breaking the law or not with the last step of that process?
How about "Quit worrying if anyone looks at it, and start worrying about those who actually abuse actual children?" Seems simple enough to me. I've no interest in looking at the stuff myself, but I'm not concerned if anyone else does-I am concerned if someone causes actual harm. Unfortunately, that can't be solved with silly censorship measures, but it sure would do a lot more good.
Microsoft has recently added to the EULA of its upcoming "Vista" program, disallowing users from installing the operating system.
"We see this as a very positive move for our customers," stated Microsoft chief public relations officer Benja Overr. "While the Windows CD is perfectly safe when being used, for example, for a game of Frisbee or as a very attractive coaster, it's well-known that when most of our customers place the CD in a computer, they end up with viruses, rootkits, and all other sorts of issues. We just don't feel the Windows operating system is mature enough for the average user to be playing with on their computer."
Microsoft stated that the UltiCruftcrapGigantoNightmareRameater version will be available to actually install in a computer. Tentative pricing for this version is set at $1000.
After reading all the "But he disobeyed a cop! They should've (insert idiotic violent suggestion here) too!", I'm very glad to read that someone still has the right idea.
If you think a child is that fragile of mind, I guess you don't have kids
Except for my three daughters, nope, none at all. And I can tell you for damn sure me getting arrested would shake 'em up. Not as bad as some things, granted, but it'd not be a -good- thing.
Also I'm pretty sure they guy brought his kid along as a "shield" thinking it would make him less likely to be arrested, which is really pretty despicable even if very minor child exploitation.
People bring their children to political events all the time. I'm sure many supporters had their children there. Is there somehow another standard for dissenters?
Sure you do. And then overzelous police have a right to haul you off (public nuisance laws if nothing else),
They absolutely do not, arrest requires probable cause to believe you've committed a crime, and "public nuisance" does NOT mean "I don't like what you have to say." Freedom from false arrest is -explicitly- guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment, freedom of speech under the first. This arrest violated both. The police have no "right" to arrest anyone without such cause, and they certainly have no "right" to arrest whoever the hell they want.
Basically this guy is just blowing the incident all out of proportion because a police guy went overboard. The officer arresting should be reprimanded. But suing over it? Bad taste.
False arrest is a civil rights violation. Arresting someone with no cause is assault, at the very least. I guarantee you that in the reverse situation (the citizen assaulting the officer) the citizen will get worse then a "reprimand"! Why the double standard?
Getting arrested in front of your son will not have "lasting repercussions"? I guess we have different definitions there.
And the point here is thus: I have the right to walk up as close as the Secret Service will allow anyone to Cheney (or Bush, or Rumsfeld, or any of 'em) and tell them I think they suck in any number of ways. Now, the minute I say "I'm going to kill you", I can be arrested-as I could for a death threat against anyone. However, should I wish to say "You're wrong on Iraq, you're wrong on the economy, the PATRIOT Act is criminal, and I hope they impeach you!" this is entirely legal. I should have NO fear of arrest or anything else there, as this is a perfectly legal and specifically protected action under the Constitution (not only free speech and expression but also petition for redress of grievances).
Suppose you write a book. (Insert anything else here.) It succeeds. You make a reasonable amount of money at it. You write another one. You make another reasonable amount of money. You:
A: Blow all the money, leaving nothing for your heirs or retirement.
B: Save or wisely invest the money, leaving you prepared for retirement and your heirs provided for.
Copyright should be no longer then 5 or 10 years. Remember that copyright is not, not, not, and not for the author's benefit except incidentally and as necessary to provide a creative incentive. The absolute minimum term of copyright that will get people to create should be used. The idea is -not- to give the grandkids a monopoly on the works of a long-dead grandfather (or corporations a monopoly on the works of a long-dead man.)
How about a rational one? Terrorists are not an army-they are an international organized crime syndicate. Those have been, and would be, handled perfectly well through good intelligence and police work. Just like always.
Oh, and (mod away!) I don't particularly care that they blew up the WTC's. 3000 people? Look at the annual death toll from cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or auto accidents sometime. Where would all that money really be better spent?
Finally, not everyone who hates the Republicans loves the Democrats. We'd not have political parties at all if I had my way.
Sounds good, I'm sure in for it!
No, not solely. Their arrest without notice was what caused the violation.
Actually, if you were to read the judgment, you'll see that their arrest without notice is specifically why the arrest was without cause. The two are the same thing. Had the occupants of the park been given the order to disperse and refused to do so, they are then refusing to obey a lawful order, which in that area is a crime. At that point, the arrests would have been with cause, as the officers would clearly have observed the occupants of the park failing to disperse, and there would never have been this case. The only reason that the failure to give notice and a chance to disperse was material was to determine -if- the arrests had just cause or not.
And yes, I agree that sometimes people will act unreasonably. However, when they do so, they should be penalized and/or required to compensate the victim for their wrong action, and told in no uncertain terms not to do it again. We can't force people to be reasonable, but we can certainly say that there are penalties for harming fellow citizens. And when someone does act in violation of civil rights, our response should be that such a thing is never acceptable, not "Eh, a little won't hurt." There's been too much of that already, as evidenced by that AC post that started this whole discussion-what rights have we lost already? They're being eviscerated left and right!
While I agree in principle with some of your points...
This also had the effect of driving down pay and driving down profit margins, but it drove down costs faster than both - so people still did well.
Correction here-those who owned the factories did very well. Do you know what life was like for a 19th century industrial worker? Here's a hint: The labor strife didn't arise because safe working conditions and decent pay made life as a factory worker a desirable one.
Sorry for using two posts to respond, hit the submit button early and we all know how Slashdot likes to let you edit a post.
Your example is irrelevant. We're talking about peacefully taking photos in a public place, not about saying so much as a word.
However, to address it anyway, it depends what we are defining as "public". If we are talking about a place which is open to the public but private property, the property owner has every right to kick you out. If you refuse to leave, you are trespassing, and if the police have to remove you they are doing so because you are committing a crime, not because they're "annoyed" or just don't like you.
If on the other hand we're talking about a public street or park, it doesn't matter if you're not "wanted" there. You can stand there all day long yelling "Bush Sucks!" and no one has any right to remove you, regardless of whether or not they like you. On the other hand, your eventual loss of your voice is your own problem. Now, granted, if they should try anyway, you -are- required to obey the police at the time. However, if you do so, the arrest is without cause and courts can both grant damages (for having done it) and issue an order not to do it again, as occurred in the case I cited.
As to your assertion that it is "not possible" for people to be reasonable? Why not? I agree it doesn't occur nearly often enough, but it -is- the standard we should aspire to, regardless of how short we may fall today. A shrug of the shoulders and an "Aw fuckit" is not the answer.
No it does not. There is legal redress for arrest without cause but I defy you to show me that a US court found that arrest without cause (solely) was a violation of a civil right.
As you wish.
From the judgment: ""The mass arrest at Pershing Park violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of plaintiffs. . ." Or in other words, false arrest (solely) was a violation of a civil right. Freedom of speech would be rather meaningless if the police could arrest you whenever you try to actually exercise it!
I do not remember the name for it offhand, but "it could be worse == the current situation is acceptable" is a fallacy. Granted, given the choice between being arrested by the cops here or shot by warlords in Sudan I'll take the former. However, neither situation is acceptable. And yes, a cop arresting you without cause does equal the government (police officers are agents of the government) violating your rights (to free speech and expression, as well as due process and many others).
Your assertion is only partially correct. Your First Amendment rights do not protect you against -anyone- calling the police, nor against the police from showing up and questioning you, that is correct. They do, however, protect you from arrest, forcible removal from the area, confiscation of your equipment, and/or a demand to stop, unless the police officers have probable cause (the Supreme Court has been very clear that a "hunch" or "bad feeling" is not probable cause, there must be quantifiable evidence) to believe that you are committing or intend to commit a crime.
Well is this unexpected? They were begging for money and consideration at the time, but they were also lobbying. In effect, they say "Oh it'll be fine, you'll see, watch what we'll give you!" Of course, since the promises weren't written into the law as a mandate, with real consequences if they went unfulfilled, what they gave us, predictably, was as little as they could get away with for as much as they could charge.
Now, in addition to tax revenue and right-of-ways, they want us to give up net neutrality. "Oh, but look what we'll give you!" I imagine they'll do just as well as last time.
Alright. You're trolling, but this is all too damn common. So, let's put you back under the bridge.
Freedom of speech has been abridged much farther than this example, though this is an example, your pulling "facts" directly out of places I'd rather not have them from aside. Annoying someone is not grounds for arrest, whether the guard was annoyed by a statement on the bag or a statement out of the mouth. Your statement annoys me, but it's not grounds to arrest you.
Besides that, you have surveillance of protest groups (chilling effect), the DMCA's prohibition on the discussion of certain types of technology (though this was pre-9/11 of course), protest zones (this abridges not only the right of free speech, but also the right to petition for redress of grievances, which you cannot do if you are forced not to be seen by those against whom you have the grievance, and also limits the common-law right to freedom of movement in public spaces), arresting people for taking photos in public spaces (you cannot communicate through photographs if you are disallowed from taking them!), and that's just the violations of the first part of the First Amendment!
Now, if you'd like to hear what other rights we've lost, especially once we start getting down to numbers 4, 5, 6, 8, and so on, we can certainly play there as well!
Oh I'm sorry, you wanted an admission?
I will happily download games. If there's nothing in it that interests me in netplay or playing it more then once, I -won't- buy it, it's not worth it. And I don't feel a bit bad about that, if you're going to make a linear "throwaway" game you deserve no better. At least not unless you're offering it for under five bucks.
On the other hand, if it is worthwhile, I'll be on my way to the store. See how easy that is? Make decent stuff and people will buy it!
'some US music consumers could have decreased their CD purchases (prior to 2004) by about 13 percent due to Internet file sharing.'
In related news, some Congressman might now be accepting 80% more bribes, 50% of people might be below average, and 100% of statistics prefaced with "some" and "could have" are sensational bullshit. If you've got real statistics, you don't say "some might have."
From the Comscore site you linked:
This provides no information about the content on each Web page, including secure content, without which it is impossible to capture detailed transaction activity across all sites. comScore's proprietary technology captures not just clickstreams but all content, including secure content, in an elegantly simple manner that ensures the complete privacy protection of all participants.
Sorry, but that -is- spyware, and of a very nasty type. The only question is how no one is in jail yet, that's cracking.
Ah, I can see that you do not program. Or I hope you don't!
When setting something up, the defaults should be whatever the majority will use. That's the difference here. In the case of spam, the majority does not want it, so the default should be no until you explicitly sign up for a list. On the other hand, most websites do want to be indexed and cached, so the default should be you are until you explicitly say no thanks. It's no different then anything useful. Most people will want the "find" command to operate on directories recursively, so it does by default. If you don't want it to (or want to limit how far it goes) the options are there to do that. On the other hand, most people will probably -not- intend to use the "rm" command recursively, and in fact could get in pretty hot water if it does! So by default it does not, but there's an option to change that behavior too, if you'd like.
What in the world is wrong with designing for the majority while respecting the rights and wishes of the minority? The fact that a few might be too lazy or stupid to even -ask-? If their web designer isn't competent to set up a robots.txt, do they really think people can't crack in there at will anyway? We're not talking about a highly technical, time-consuming thing to set up here, we're talking about:
"User-agent: Googlebot
Deny:/"
And they've got all the "goodness" of Google leaving them completely alone. I sure hope they enjoy that!