No Identity theft involved. Drew setup the account as a fictitious persona of a minor male and posted several times (3 counts- not clear if it was 3 posts, or setting it up and 2 posts). The remainder of the posts were made by an employee (18 year old girl named Ashley Grills). Drew never wrote any of the 'bad' posts- Ashley Grills did. Drew was the 'mastermind' behind the campaign, but did not actually author them.
Needless to say, there is a lot of knee jerk reactions happening here without knowing the facts. (surprise!)
In a nutshell:
Drew broke the MySpace Terms by setting up a fake account, admin'ed a campaign to harass Megan Meier, Megan hung herself, DA where they lived could not find any crime committed, due to public uproar the FBI and a Grand Jury cot involved, and the resulting charges were filed to calm the 'think of the children' crowd.
"It's like if you're allergic to peanuts. I might be charged if I know this and sneak some into your soup in order to harm you."
No. It's more like if I was mean to you online, and YOU decided to eat the peanuts because you were psycho. I was just being mean to you. I had nothing to do with you deciding to eat the peanuts.
Lori Drew was not her gaurdian, she did not tie the noose,etc. Drew had no responsibility at all here for the psycho that hung herself. Drew did not even write the messages. Some 18 year old girl named Gillis actually was the author, and the FBI did not hold Gillis responsible. Drew just set up the account(and likely advised Gillis on what to write-Gillis was employed by Drew).
"This is about prosecuting Lori Drew correctly..." The District Court in that Missouri district did not press any charges since no crime was committed relevant to local laws. The charges come from indictments in a federal court under an FBI investigation. (there have been both local and state laws enacted in Missouri to criminalize any further actions similar to what Lori Drew and Gillis did)
"Some lawyer trying to explain the complexities of the modern internet to most American judges is tasked with the equivalent of explaining the concept of a spacecraft to a chimpanzee."
Hey, my name is Franking Proctoromiship you insensitive clod!
Well, you did kind of ask for it.:-)
BTW, where/how did you come up with Franking Proctoromiship anyway? Or has something just whoooshed over my head unnoticed?
P.S. I fully agree with your argument here and in above posts.
I think that if this sticks, it will open a Pandora's Box for our legal system. Missouri could not find anything else to charge her with. How will this impact sites that provide anonymity services online I wonder? (ie: BugMeNot, etc.)
"Personally, (though I'm being a bit idealistic here), the creators of web browsers should standardize..."
What do you think WC3 is about? That's the point parent was trying to make- there IS a standard for web developers and MS chose not to follow it to further their lock in, thus creating pure hell for compliant to standards developers.
Creators of web browsers would LOVE to stick with the already established WC3 standards! But they can't because of MS and IE. Oh, and this is far from the first time this subject has come up as you note: "Fair point, I concede. Microsoft did (and does not) make many friends in that department" Understatement of the year!
BTW, I do agree with your point on choice and all, but at least use factual/reasonable arguments in your defense of IE. (or anything else)
"...im not sure about iTunes, as I avoid it with a 10^10 foot pole, just added it because of its popularity." Because of its popularity? And another one: "...they were "going for the world record" which, I don't really seem fair... because unlike 99.9% of the other records where advertising just means people will watch, advertising this actually effects the outcome of the record, it should have been a secret, until after." Hmmm....so, advertising does not work? Ah, I see. Advertising works so you have to be against it. Gotcha. Or this one: "It was all just a marketing ploy, now they can advertise "we are the only Web browser in the Guiness Book Of World Records"... so what, I actually avoided downloading it, because of that." So, according to yor/. UID, you should avoid us with a 10^10 foot pole, just added it because of our popularity. *hint*
What a delightful and constructive post you have to add to the discussion!
It must be sad having as your only claim to fame a pseudo rebellious cause to live by. Enjoy!
Not near enough, unfortunately. And until some kind of an 'inertial compensator' can be developed (Hah! Hah!) it will likely only improve in small increments, but never be enough to be truly safe. This seems to be the major divide between real world capabilities and scifi.
I think that the Mercury program had some successful tests, but I don't think it was ever used. I think this is one reason space exploration is still able to classify astronauts as 'brave pioneers'. (and justified in my book)
We are still at the point of pushing known physics, and may be for a while.
"Which then brings up the thought, are we really over our colonial ambitions, and all the behaviors that go along with them? And will the colonization of space simply be a rehashing of the unpleasantness that has passed before, or will we be able to rise above petty human weakness?
Sadly, I can't say I'm optimistic."
I'm not sure that I can be optimistic unless there crops up some reason (probably catastrophic) for the Earth's nations can adopt a kinder and more cooperative relationship. As it stands now, it is much too a cutthroat, backstabbiing, 'hooray for me and fsck you' environment today for off world colonization to be anything more than scifi. Due to the technological, engineering, political(yes, unfortunately this will be a factor), and financial hurdles to overcome to be ready to even think about any off world colonization, I feel that the answers are still decades if not centuries away. (well maybe a century or so) My opinion is that it will take a lot of cooperation to do this, and that is not presently possible the way the world is now setup.
Maybe it comes from reading too much scifi, but to galvanize Earth (collectively) to achieve something of this magnitude may require some global disaster that changes our perception, or the 'proverbial' alien invasion. Or just lots and lots of time.
We have the capacity and the potential, but not the willingness at present.
I do however think that once we get to the point of off world colonization, we may see a marked reduction in nationalization with an increase in globalization, thus will encounter some entirely different colony based problems.
Conclusion: I think your pessimism is justified, but for different reasons. Yet there is no doubt that you have been 'paying attention' and have some knowledge of 'human nature'.
BTW, I hope to be dis proven and overly pessimistic, but I'll not wager against my views. And this is only my opinion-not subject to being correct nor relevant.
As for this: "First let me say I'm always excited to see progress in the effort to more easily put humans in space. With that being said, am I the only one who sees a bit of a correlation between early exploration of the earth and the current climate regarding space exploration?
It's currently so expensive to get into space (real space guys, not sub-orbital space) that it's almost exclusively a government endeavor. I know we're striving to change that, but that seems to be the case as of the present."
I love that part, and wholeheartedly agree with you.
What part of "This ruling came down against eBay on two fronts. The court faulted the online company for "guilty negligence," for not doing enough to prevent fake goods from being sold on its site. The court also ruled that eBay was responsible for the "illicit sale" of perfumes from the LVMH empire, which can be sold only through the brands' "selective distribution networks."' did you not get? Or this: " High-end fashion companies like LVMH make their money by selling exclusive products, and fight a never-ending battle against cheap ripoffs and alleged affronts to their trademarks.
In an earlier instance of LVMH trying to protect its brands online, a Paris court in 2005 ordered Google to pay 200,000 euros (about $260,000 at the time) to Louis Vuitton for breach of trademark. In that case, Google had to stop displaying advertisements for Louis Vuitton's rivals when Web users typed Vuitton's name into the search engine." (also FTFA!) did you not get?
Or to keep it simple enough for maybe even you, drom the summary:"Problems stem from some companies demanding that their merchandise (even legal merchandise) not be displayed nor sold as it is a violation of their 'property.'"
So yes, I ALSO tread on you, and if come back around I shall tread on you a second time!
Only 7%? Here in Oklahoma we havew to deal with an 8.75% sales tax. (at least on some categories of items-I could be wrong, but it seems to vary between 8.25% and for sure 8.75% depending on what you are buying)
"My message is simple." No, your message is simpleminded. Go away troll. Your version of what the world should be is too dystopic and defeatist to be even mildly interesting. Go back to your dark, unimaginative basement and go back to Digg or 4chan-you will fit in better there.
"...supposed to be all-inclusive..." As a Buddhist, I respectably reject your 'god' related parameters dependent on theism. That's totally a non sequitur from my perspective.
"The 2nd Amendment was put in place because of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" - any other reason is just one you're pulling out of your "hat"."
You keep repeating the same incorrect nonsense like repeating it will make it true. It is you who are pulling stuff out of your hat. Educate yourself, maybe try some research for a change. You could start by RTFA for one, and how about remembering back to high school history and civics classes and re-read 'the Federalist Papers' that the framers of the constitution wrote in support of their actions and reasoning behind the Constitution. It is spelled out clearly enough that even you should be able to understand.
Here, I'll even make easy for you and give you the link as a starting point. If you are not so biased, how about the full text of the Federalist Papers so you can see for yourself.
You might start getting into the habit of tying your legs to your chairlegs so when you do your next kneejerk you don't knock your teeth out.
I think I've made more foes today than since I registered here, and about to add you to that list just to cut down on the inane noise here.
"...powerful government with full control of the largest and best-funded standing army in the world..."
You keep making this absurd assumption over and over that the US Military would support this mythical government of yours. Frankly, I find it highly insulting to not only our military, but millions of citizens.
As a combat veteran with many friends and contacts still on active duty, I can assure you this is not the case. If the government turned totally unlawful and unconstitutional, the military would support the Constitution-not the government. We are required, sworn, and duty bound to defend the constitution against ALL enemies, both foreign AND domestic-even if that means the government which has run amok. It also ignores the fact that it is required to disobey and resist any unlawful or unconstitutional orders.
But to answer your unrealistic dreamworld question, yes it is possible, but not certain, safe, or bloodless. Freedom and liberty are not easy to keep, but worth the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
No Identity theft involved. Drew setup the account as a fictitious persona of a minor male and posted several times (3 counts- not clear if it was 3 posts, or setting it up and 2 posts). The remainder of the posts were made by an employee (18 year old girl named Ashley Grills). Drew never wrote any of the 'bad' posts- Ashley Grills did. Drew was the 'mastermind' behind the campaign, but did not actually author them.
Since TFA is down, try this for more info.
Needless to say, there is a lot of knee jerk reactions happening here without knowing the facts. (surprise!)
In a nutshell:
Drew broke the MySpace Terms by setting up a fake account, admin'ed a campaign to harass Megan Meier, Megan hung herself, DA where they lived could not find any crime committed, due to public uproar the FBI and a Grand Jury cot involved, and the resulting charges were filed to calm the 'think of the children' crowd.
"It's like if you're allergic to peanuts. I might be charged if I know this and sneak some into your soup in order to harm you."
No. It's more like if I was mean to you online, and YOU decided to eat the peanuts because you were psycho. I was just being mean to you. I had nothing to do with you deciding to eat the peanuts.
*stupid git*
"We all want the "bitch to fry"
Speak for yourself. I DO NOT feel this way.
Lori Drew was not her gaurdian, she did not tie the noose,etc. Drew had no responsibility at all here for the psycho that hung herself. Drew did not even write the messages. Some 18 year old girl named Gillis actually was the author, and the FBI did not hold Gillis responsible. Drew just set up the account(and likely advised Gillis on what to write-Gillis was employed by Drew).
"This is about prosecuting Lori Drew correctly..."
The District Court in that Missouri district did not press any charges since no crime was committed relevant to local laws. The charges come from indictments in a federal court under an FBI investigation. (there have been both local and state laws enacted in Missouri to criminalize any further actions similar to what Lori Drew and Gillis did)
"Some lawyer trying to explain the complexities of the modern internet to most American judges is tasked with the equivalent of explaining the concept of a spacecraft to a chimpanzee."
I don't think that was a good example.
Ham the chimp will be looking for you, to fling some poo!
But, yeah I get your point and agree with you.
Hey, my name is Franking Proctoromiship you insensitive clod!
Well, you did kind of ask for it. :-)
BTW, where/how did you come up with Franking Proctoromiship anyway? Or has something just whoooshed over my head unnoticed?
P.S. I fully agree with your argument here and in above posts.
I think that if this sticks, it will open a Pandora's Box for our legal system. Missouri could not find anything else to charge her with.
How will this impact sites that provide anonymity services online I wonder? (ie: BugMeNot, etc.)
With ethics like that, you should work for SCO or Microsoft in marketing.
*scumbag*
I highly recommend the kitten cannon!
Or, for those that want a 'you can try this at home version:the edutaining squirrel catapult!
Disclaimer: I do not acknowledge the concept of 'politically correct'.
You also get this, and this!
Hurray! Get vista + Ei7 and for no extra charge, dozens of exploits and more malware than you can shake a stick at!!
*stupid git*
"Personally, (though I'm being a bit idealistic here), the creators of web browsers should standardize ..."
What do you think WC3 is about?
That's the point parent was trying to make- there IS a standard for web developers and MS chose not to follow it to further their lock in, thus creating pure hell for compliant to standards developers.
Creators of web browsers would LOVE to stick with the already established WC3 standards! But they can't because of MS and IE. Oh, and this is far from the first time this subject has come up as you note:
"Fair point, I concede. Microsoft did (and does not) make many friends in that department" Understatement of the year!
BTW, I do agree with your point on choice and all, but at least use factual/reasonable arguments in your defense of IE. (or anything else)
"...im not sure about iTunes, as I avoid it with a 10^10 foot pole, just added it because of its popularity." /. UID, you should avoid us with a 10^10 foot pole, just added it because of our popularity. *hint*
Because of its popularity?
And another one:
"...they were "going for the world record" which, I don't really seem fair... because unlike 99.9% of the other records where advertising just means people will watch, advertising this actually effects the outcome of the record, it should have been a secret, until after."
Hmmm....so, advertising does not work? Ah, I see. Advertising works so you have to be against it. Gotcha.
Or this one:
"It was all just a marketing ploy, now they can advertise "we are the only Web browser in the Guiness Book Of World Records"... so what, I actually avoided downloading it, because of that."
So, according to yor
What a delightful and constructive post you have to add to the discussion!
It must be sad having as your only claim to fame a pseudo rebellious cause to live by. Enjoy!
*stupid git*
Then let's fund Wallace and Gromit[sic] and then turn them loose!
Come on! Where's your sense of adventure?!?!?!
Not near enough, unfortunately. And until some kind of an 'inertial compensator' can be developed (Hah! Hah!) it will likely only improve in small increments, but never be enough to be truly safe. This seems to be the major divide between real world capabilities and scifi.
I think that the Mercury program had some successful tests, but I don't think it was ever used. I think this is one reason space exploration is still able to classify astronauts as 'brave pioneers'. (and justified in my book)
We are still at the point of pushing known physics, and may be for a while.
"Which then brings up the thought, are we really over our colonial ambitions, and all the behaviors that go along with them? And will the colonization of space simply be a rehashing of the unpleasantness that has passed before, or will we be able to rise above petty human weakness?
Sadly, I can't say I'm optimistic."
I'm not sure that I can be optimistic unless there crops up some reason (probably catastrophic) for the Earth's nations can adopt a kinder and more cooperative relationship. As it stands now, it is much too a cutthroat, backstabbiing, 'hooray for me and fsck you' environment today for off world colonization to be anything more than scifi.
Due to the technological, engineering, political(yes, unfortunately this will be a factor), and financial hurdles to overcome to be ready to even think about any off world colonization, I feel that the answers are still decades if not centuries away. (well maybe a century or so)
My opinion is that it will take a lot of cooperation to do this, and that is not presently possible the way the world is now setup.
Maybe it comes from reading too much scifi, but to galvanize Earth (collectively) to achieve something of this magnitude may require some global disaster that changes our perception, or the 'proverbial' alien invasion. Or just lots and lots of time.
We have the capacity and the potential, but not the willingness at present.
I do however think that once we get to the point of off world colonization, we may see a marked reduction in nationalization with an increase in globalization, thus will encounter some entirely different colony based problems.
Conclusion: I think your pessimism is justified, but for different reasons. Yet there is no doubt that you have been 'paying attention' and have some knowledge of 'human nature'.
BTW, I hope to be dis proven and overly pessimistic, but I'll not wager against my views. And this is only my opinion-not subject to being correct nor relevant.
As for this:
"First let me say I'm always excited to see progress in the effort to more easily put humans in space. With that being said, am I the only one who sees a bit of a correlation between early exploration of the earth and the current climate regarding space exploration?
It's currently so expensive to get into space (real space guys, not sub-orbital space) that it's almost exclusively a government endeavor. I know we're striving to change that, but that seems to be the case as of the present."
I love that part, and wholeheartedly agree with you.
What part of "This ruling came down against eBay on two fronts. The court faulted the online company for "guilty negligence," for not doing enough to prevent fake goods from being sold on its site. The court also ruled that eBay was responsible for the "illicit sale" of perfumes from the LVMH empire, which can be sold only through the brands' "selective distribution networks."' did you not get?
Or this:
" High-end fashion companies like LVMH make their money by selling exclusive products, and fight a never-ending battle against cheap ripoffs and alleged affronts to their trademarks.
In an earlier instance of LVMH trying to protect its brands online, a Paris court in 2005 ordered Google to pay 200,000 euros (about $260,000 at the time) to Louis Vuitton for breach of trademark. In that case, Google had to stop displaying advertisements for Louis Vuitton's rivals when Web users typed Vuitton's name into the search engine." (also FTFA!) did you not get?
Or to keep it simple enough for maybe even you, drom the summary:"Problems stem from some companies demanding that their merchandise (even legal merchandise) not be displayed nor sold as it is a violation of their 'property.'"
So yes, I ALSO tread on you, and if come back around I shall tread on you a second time!
It's been as bad if not worse.
I cheered when that asshat died in 1972.
No.
Only 7%?
Here in Oklahoma we havew to deal with an 8.75% sales tax. (at least on some categories of items-I could be wrong, but it seems to vary between 8.25% and for sure 8.75% depending on what you are buying)
I think it's worth a try anyhow. All they need to do is make a football sized suppository....
Hey, it's bound to do SOMETHING!
I don't know...I mean I liked the part where 'it makes noises like the Jetson's car' bit.
Sheesh, what a pair.
"My message is simple."
No, your message is simpleminded. Go away troll. Your version of what the world should be is too dystopic and defeatist to be even mildly interesting.
Go back to your dark, unimaginative basement and go back to Digg or 4chan-you will fit in better there.
"...supposed to be all-inclusive..."
As a Buddhist, I respectably reject your 'god' related parameters dependent on theism. That's totally a non sequitur from my perspective.
Quite new? How about 1944.
All three were used by Allied forces in WW2, one you missed from that time: BOHICA:
Bend Over Here It Comes.
"The 2nd Amendment was put in place because of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" - any other reason is just one you're pulling out of your "hat"."
You keep repeating the same incorrect nonsense like repeating it will make it true. It is you who are pulling stuff out of your hat. Educate yourself, maybe try some research for a change. You could start by RTFA for one, and how about remembering back to high school history and civics classes and re-read 'the Federalist Papers' that the framers of the constitution wrote in support of their actions and reasoning behind the Constitution. It is spelled out clearly enough that even you should be able to understand.
Here, I'll even make easy for you and give you the link as a starting point. If you are not so biased, how about the full text of the Federalist Papers so you can see for yourself.
You might start getting into the habit of tying your legs to your chairlegs so when you do your next kneejerk you don't knock your teeth out.
I think I've made more foes today than since I registered here, and about to add you to that list just to cut down on the inane noise here.
Stupid git.
"...powerful government with full control of the largest and best-funded standing army in the world..."
You keep making this absurd assumption over and over that the US Military would support this mythical government of yours. Frankly, I find it highly insulting to not only our military, but millions of citizens.
As a combat veteran with many friends and contacts still on active duty, I can assure you this is not the case. If the government turned totally unlawful and unconstitutional, the military would support the Constitution-not the government. We are required, sworn, and duty bound to defend the constitution against ALL enemies, both foreign AND domestic-even if that means the government which has run amok. It also ignores the fact that it is required to disobey and resist any unlawful or unconstitutional orders.
But to answer your unrealistic dreamworld question, yes it is possible, but not certain, safe, or bloodless. Freedom and liberty are not easy to keep, but worth the cost.