He hasn't committed any sort of violent crime. There's no need to remove him from society.
Prison is not just for violent criminals, it's for people who break society's laws, and can not be trusted to behave withing society's rules without some motivation.
I suppose you think all non-violent criminals should be simply asked nicely not rip people off and otherwise "stop being jerks"?
Seriously, you're either a troll or a moron. Both?
Oooo, and look right there: LOMPOC is number 8 on the list...
Given the perfect climate and time to spend outside, the bars are barely a bother as you plot your corporate comeback. Former home to Ivan Boesky and the Watergate guys, youâ(TM)ll be surrounded by a eucalyptus grove in a great wine region not far from Santa Barbara. Itâ(TM)s a pity the tennis courts were removed as a PR gesture to critics who felt guests at this luxury prison had it too easy, but (the good) life continues with the baseball field and volleyball courts.
Oh, and this: "Former inmate's description of minimum security Federal prison: sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll..."
No one escapes prison with such a short sentence left unless they have a good reason.
Happens all the time. It's related to the attitude of those that end up in prison: Many like this guy are narcissists.
US Federal Prison is a well known "cake walk", the food is not bad, the facilities modern and comfortable, with libraries and educational possibilities, and in many cases, the "inmates" can go home on weekends and for longer vacations.
Simply a fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.
I'm glad when anyone manages to escape the US incarceration system, aka "hell on earth".
US Federal "minimum security" jails are well known "cake walks", just like most European "minimum security" jails. Often the "inmates" can hold down jobs on the outside (returning to jail at night), get fed reasonably good food, and often even take weekends and more extended vacations with relatives.
Oh yeah, US Federal "minimum security" is a tough game...
This may actually be a felony. (I.e. it is arguably a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act, limiting the use of a computer to that which is authorized, IIRC).
A "felony"?
Creating sock-puppet accounts and arguing with myself? It's certainly *not* a crime for me to abuse my own computer this way, and if anything at all, a "ToS" violation is nothing more than an excuse to ban my account.
How does being the owner of something entitle you to someone else being required to provide the means to destroy it?
That's what "ownership" means. You get to control it.
If you want that capability you should have thought about that before you created it.
Without question.
But the policy at Nextdoor.com is that you own your content. If in fact you can't control aspects of access or the current state (destroy or keep), than you *don't*own it.
Uh, let's see. I write a book to which I own copyright. I then give away copies of the book to a million people.
Your scenario is unrelated to the situation the OP describes. This situation does not describe the dissemination of multiple copies of a work. The "owner" does not have to track down this copy or that, it's all in a database maintained by Nextdoor.com.
So, Nextdoor has forums and discussions. It seems fair to me that they don't retroactively delete posts from those. Therefore they need to maintain some kind of attribution to the now-deleted account. So they can't fully delete the account, in the sense of wiping any traces, but they could just make it a non-operable "deactivated" account that still has the posts attributed, but can't be used anymore.
Understood.
But if the policy explicitly tells you that your additions are your property, than this argument doesn't work.
You need to start off being more careful. Be very suspicious / paranoid about "social networks" like "nextdoor.com", they are not in it for altruistic purposes.
I am only speculating here because "IANAL" and really don't "do" social networks. But my guess is that if asking nicely doesn't work, the only real alternative is having a lawyer "ask nicely" in a letter.
In the United States, there will *never* be legislation that gives "users" the kind of rights you are asking for. The only thing these people will understand is the threat of legal action. And even then, if it interferes with their business plan in a significant way, expect to have to go the "class action" route, which few of us can afford to pursue.
In short, "your fucked", have better sense next time to NOT sign up for such silliness.
I appreciate what Snowden is saying, but perhaps fewer narcissistic platitudes and more documents on the front pages? Snowden isn't Jesus, the more he toots "It's not about me", the more it becomes about him
The porn industry will be at the forefront of this technology.
Having said that, really, it will be Google and the *rest* of the targeted advertising industry whores that will be pushing this technology, it will *not* be for the "benefit of mankind", it will be a "delivery system" for paid content.
And, it will be yet another way to exit reality and live in an imaginary world - in your mom's basement
We just happened to use the same advertising broker, that was fooled into showing malware ads earlier.
Maybe you should use a different "advertising broker", this sort of thing is something that "advertising brokers" should be very very very very very very up on not allowing to happen... You know, like number one thing...
Slashdot Mirror
THANK GOODNESS.
I was on edge all day today, wondering whether this concerned you.
Now that I have my answer, I can reset easy tonight.
You're welcome! I try! Sorry to stress you out, if only I had your phone number, I could keep you more up to date.
OK, doesn't concern me.
He hasn't committed any sort of violent crime. There's no need to remove him from society.
Prison is not just for violent criminals, it's for people who break society's laws, and can not be trusted to behave withing society's rules without some motivation.
I suppose you think all non-violent criminals should be simply asked nicely not rip people off and otherwise "stop being jerks"?
Seriously, you're either a troll or a moron. Both?
Minimum security prisons no longer as nice as you claim them to be.
Is that so?
http://www.askmen.com/fine_living/top_10/13_top_10.html
Oooo, and look right there: LOMPOC is number 8 on the list...
Given the perfect climate and time to spend outside, the bars are barely a bother as you plot your corporate comeback. Former home to Ivan Boesky and the Watergate guys, youâ(TM)ll be surrounded by a eucalyptus grove in a great wine region not far from Santa Barbara. Itâ(TM)s a pity the tennis courts were removed as a PR gesture to critics who felt guests at this luxury prison had it too easy, but (the good) life continues with the baseball field and volleyball courts.
Oh, and this: "Former inmate's description of minimum security Federal prison: sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll..."
http://boingboing.net/2012/10/23/former-inmates-description-o.html
Yeah, "Real1/1" Federal minimum security is tough business.
He obviously had a reason to escape immediately. I wonder what was happening to him.
Happening to him? In "minimum security"? Probably boredom, very unlikely any ass pounding.
No one escapes prison with such a short sentence left unless they have a good reason.
Happens all the time. It's related to the attitude of those that end up in prison: Many like this guy are narcissists.
US Federal Prison is a well known "cake walk", the food is not bad, the facilities modern and comfortable, with libraries and educational possibilities, and in many cases, the "inmates" can go home on weekends and for longer vacations.
Simply a fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.
I'm glad when anyone manages to escape the US incarceration system, aka "hell on earth".
US Federal "minimum security" jails are well known "cake walks", just like most European "minimum security" jails. Often the "inmates" can hold down jobs on the outside (returning to jail at night), get fed reasonably good food, and often even take weekends and more extended vacations with relatives.
Oh yeah, US Federal "minimum security" is a tough game...
Due for release in 2015? Not anymore.
I don't have to worry about my 2000 vintage MySpace site, no one goes there anyway.
This may actually be a felony. (I.e. it is arguably a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act, limiting the use of a computer to that which is authorized, IIRC).
A "felony"?
Creating sock-puppet accounts and arguing with myself? It's certainly *not* a crime for me to abuse my own computer this way, and if anything at all, a "ToS" violation is nothing more than an excuse to ban my account.
It's certainly *not* a felony.
How does being the owner of something entitle you to someone else being required to provide the means to destroy it?
I do not require they do it. They can give me admin access to their database, and I'll do it myself.
How does being the owner of something entitle you to someone else being required to provide the means to destroy it?
That's what "ownership" means. You get to control it.
If you want that capability you should have thought about that before you created it.
Without question.
But the policy at Nextdoor.com is that you own your content. If in fact you can't control aspects of access or the current state (destroy or keep), than you *don't* own it.
Uh, let's see. I write a book to which I own copyright. I then give away copies of the book to a million people.
Your scenario is unrelated to the situation the OP describes. This situation does not describe the dissemination of multiple copies of a work. The "owner" does not have to track down this copy or that, it's all in a database maintained by Nextdoor.com.
Sure it does.
"You agree that by submitting content to our service, you are granting a non-revokable, perpetual license to said content."
In which case you don't own it.
In the case of nextdoor.com, their privacy policy makes it clear that the user owns all of their data
If you'd like to deactivate your account altogether ...
And there's the point:
The policy says he owns the data.
Deactivation is different than deletion. If you own the data, you should be able to do what you want with it, right?
Otherwise a site should not imply of they that the user "owns" the data.
So, Nextdoor has forums and discussions. It seems fair to me that they don't retroactively delete posts from those. Therefore they need to maintain some kind of attribution to the now-deleted account. So they can't fully delete the account, in the sense of wiping any traces, but they could just make it a non-operable "deactivated" account that still has the posts attributed, but can't be used anymore.
Understood.
But if the policy explicitly tells you that your additions are your property, than this argument doesn't work.
You need to start off being more careful. Be very suspicious / paranoid about "social networks" like "nextdoor.com", they are not in it for altruistic purposes.
I am only speculating here because "IANAL" and really don't "do" social networks. But my guess is that if asking nicely doesn't work, the only real alternative is having a lawyer "ask nicely" in a letter.
In the United States, there will *never* be legislation that gives "users" the kind of rights you are asking for. The only thing these people will understand is the threat of legal action. And even then, if it interferes with their business plan in a significant way, expect to have to go the "class action" route, which few of us can afford to pursue.
In short, "your fucked", have better sense next time to NOT sign up for such silliness.
scam the public
make money
hire lawyers
throw some cash at the gubment
profit
And don't forget a gushy story on Slashdot...
Where are you getting your prices from?
Lowes has:
60W equivalent CFL 4-pak - $14.98 or around $3.75 each
The enclosed CFLs are slightly more, but $12?
Not at Lowes: http://www.lowes.com/Search=cfl?storeId=10151&langId=-1&catalogId=10051&N=0&newSearch=true&Ntt=cfl#!
Not at Home Depot: http://www.homedepot.com/s/cfl+light+bulbs?NCNI-5
LED bulbs at Lowes are closer to your quoted price: http://www.lowes.com/Search=led+bulbs?storeId=10151&langId=-1&catalogId=10051&N=0&newSearch=true&Ntt=led+bulbs#!
But still there is a 75W equivalent for $19.95.
LED bulbs, however, are "out of this world" at Home Depot: http://www.homedepot.com/s/led%2520light%2520bulbs?NCNI-5
I appreciate what Snowden is saying, but perhaps fewer narcissistic platitudes and more documents on the front pages? Snowden isn't Jesus, the more he toots "It's not about me", the more it becomes about him
I don't want to be remembered by "the Internet". I want to be remembered by my kids and grandkids...
Jesus dude, isn't it time to die? This guy has some ideas for you: http://martinmanley.org/
The porn industry will be at the forefront of this technology.
Having said that, really, it will be Google and the *rest* of the targeted advertising industry whores that will be pushing this technology, it will *not* be for the "benefit of mankind", it will be a "delivery system" for paid content.
And, it will be yet another way to exit reality and live in an imaginary world - in your mom's basement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E5NI0vDGhM
Maybe. And, maybe, sex-education sites should make more effort to not appear like porn...
It's probably a "key word" filter, maybe some generic tit's and cock pictures.
Seriously, a "sex education" web site by definition should be talking and , you know, sex? And what parts of the body are involved with sex?
Are you suggesting modern "sex education" web sites should roll it back to the 1950's?
We just happened to use the same advertising broker, that was fooled into showing malware ads earlier.
Maybe you should use a different "advertising broker", this sort of thing is something that "advertising brokers" should be very very very very very very up on not allowing to happen... You know, like number one thing...