He has know way of knowing that a facebook message is likely to be seen.
The same way that he has no way of knowing that an email message has been seen by the intended recipient.
Read receipts, server logs, etc, etc do not actually show the intended recipient read an email.
A web application offers no real proof.
I wasn't arguing that it did. Neither email nor Facebook offer proof.
Oh - and at the risk of dragging this convo offtopic, all three big webmail providers allow you to read your email through outlook/thunderbird/other offline mail client.
If the ISP is contacted to obtain a person's e-mail address, they can definitely provide the info, they can also match the user up with customer billing records. This information is fairly unlikely to be fake.
An ISP can provide an email address, but hardly anyone uses an ISP's email - they use one of the big webmail providers. So there's no guarantee the recipient will check their ISP provided mailbox.
However, with facebook, the target party is found by a simple search for their name and (possibly geography).
Since multiple people have the same name, even in the same area, it is unreasonable to expect you have verifiably served the right person.
Since this is slashdot, it is unreasonable of me to expect you to have read the article - so here's the relevant quote:
McCormack argued that he knew he found the right people online because they listed their birth dates, full names, and they had listed each other as friends
Also, the fact that there are many people on facebook with the same name, let alone false ones. For many of my friends I was only able to track them down with email addresses,
Yes, but if you were looking for a couple on facebook & found (as the article states):
they listed their birth dates, full names, and they had listed each other as friends,
You'd probably be pretty confident that you'd found the right people hey?
For the record - I don't think anything other than in person should be a legal way to serve, but email is not superior to Facebook.
Nonsense. As a hyperbolic example, if there's a murder, one person committed the act, another encouraged them to do it & another ten allowed it to happen, who's most responsible for the murder?
I'm guessing you'd say "Oh, multiple people! They're all equally guilty!"
That you can't see the difference is sad for you. Just because we can see that more than one person was involved, doesn't mean we can quantify percentages.
And it's sad that you're not able to quantify responsibility when there's more than one person involved.
If it can be measured and quantified with specific figures (such as "more than 50 percent," the definition of "majority"), then it's science.
Errrr no - that's not Science, that's Maths.
And really - your little display of pedantry is quite pathetic. You're willing to use a 'measured and quantified' phrase like 'not all' (less than 100% for the lazy), but complain when a reply to you uses the same loose vernacular to indicate greater than 50%.
Iâ(TM)ve been thinking about whatâ(TM)s causing this rush to the 99Â price point. From what I can tell, itâ(TM)s because people are buying our products sight unseen. I see customers complaining about how âoeexpensiveâ a $4.99 app is and that it should cost less. (Do they do the same thing when they walk into Starbucks?) The only justification I can find for these attitudes is that you only have a screenshot to evaluate the quality of a product. A buck is easy to waste on an app that looks great in iTunes but works poorly once you install it.
Why not release a free, crippled version of your app that allows people to look at it, evaluate it & decide if it's worth $2.99? Now where have I heard of that business model before?
Honestly, there's so many development restrictions on iPhone apps, why bother publicizing this non-story.
If you buy a gun, and leave it sitting in your front garden, then some criminals come along, take control of it, and kill everyone in your street, you're kind of responsible for that.
Gun? Are you mad? Slashdot is about car analogies only.
how is leaving an unprotected OS with known problems available to be hijacked by anyone who wants to do damage with it any different?
One buys a car, forgets to lock it at night & it's used for a ram raid. Is the car owner responsible for the ram raid or a victim?
Slashdot Mirror
First post on a story you submitted yourself.
Congratulation! The obsessive-refresh-click is strong in this one.
He has know way of knowing that a facebook message is likely to be seen.
The same way that he has no way of knowing that an email message has been seen by the intended recipient.
Read receipts, server logs, etc, etc do not actually show the intended recipient read an email.
A web application offers no real proof.
I wasn't arguing that it did. Neither email nor Facebook offer proof.
Oh - and at the risk of dragging this convo offtopic, all three big webmail providers allow you to read your email through outlook/thunderbird/other offline mail client.
We know Steve is going to die, someday.
Why do you hate Apple? Hater.
If the ISP is contacted to obtain a person's e-mail address, they can definitely provide the info, they can also match the user up with customer billing records. This information is fairly unlikely to be fake.
An ISP can provide an email address, but hardly anyone uses an ISP's email - they use one of the big webmail providers. So there's no guarantee the recipient will check their ISP provided mailbox.
However, with facebook, the target party is found by a simple search for their name and (possibly geography).
Since multiple people have the same name, even in the same area, it is unreasonable to expect you have verifiably served the right person.
Since this is slashdot, it is unreasonable of me to expect you to have read the article - so here's the relevant quote:
Also, the fact that there are many people on facebook with the same name, let alone false ones. For many of my friends I was only able to track them down with email addresses,
Yes, but if you were looking for a couple on facebook & found (as the article states):
You'd probably be pretty confident that you'd found the right people hey?
For the record - I don't think anything other than in person should be a legal way to serve, but email is not superior to Facebook.
Yawn - Facebook is no different to email & US courts have served via email in the past.
One crappy, lossy, non-guaranteed electronic communications medium vs another.
Since there is really no technical mechanism to kill spam, the legislation itself is ineffective.
IOW, your post doesn't advocates a:
( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam, in favour of advocating a:
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam?
they just cant put OS X ON their machines nor inform you how to do it.
The first part of your statement is yet to be tested in court. The bolded portion is simply not true.
Of course Bush is the most responsible
Well, pedantic little word games aside, we agree.
This is extremely old news - The injectable bone story was covered by the Sun two years ago....
Nonsense. As a hyperbolic example, if there's a murder, one person committed the act, another encouraged them to do it & another ten allowed it to happen, who's most responsible for the murder?
I'm guessing you'd say "Oh, multiple people! They're all equally guilty!"
That you can't see the difference is sad for you. Just because we can see that more than one person was involved, doesn't mean we can quantify percentages.
And it's sad that you're not able to quantify responsibility when there's more than one person involved.
Someone has to be slower to load than the acrobat reader plugin.
Not even Java can take that prize.
Java Joke:
Knock Knock.
Who's there?
Java!
Adobe Joke:
Knock Knock.
Who's there?
Crash.
Linux has had 64 bit java for donkeys years... *rereads summary* - oh, Java browser plugin. A piece of the 90s I was hoping we'd all left behind.
If it can be measured and quantified with specific figures (such as "more than 50 percent," the definition of "majority"), then it's science.
Errrr no - that's not Science, that's Maths.
And really - your little display of pedantry is quite pathetic. You're willing to use a 'measured and quantified' phrase like 'not all' (less than 100% for the lazy), but complain when a reply to you uses the same loose vernacular to indicate greater than 50%.
Why do you hate science?
What does science have to do with anything? This is politics - do you understand the difference?
I am not in favor of the practice. I'm against it. But I am not blind enough to say this was all Bush.
The OP did not actually say that.
Would you agree that the majority of this was Bush?
Oh - and BTW, you've posted 54 comments on this thread in a little over 5 hours. Do you enjoy abusing your editor's account privileges?
Man - you really are a fucking idiot aren't you.
Mod me down, but it has to be said.
So you are saying he is new here?
Hmmmmnm, their post contained poor grammar / punctuation, repeating an old joke (badly), offtopic & didn't read the article....
They've obviously been around long enough to absorb typical slashdot culture!
You're not a patch on the real New Here. That guy's posted exactly the same comment (and subject) over 200 times in the last 5 years.
You've done it.... twice. And you couldn't even maintain consistency for those two comments.
Pah, imposter I say. (I won't even get started on your grammar.
Why not release a free, crippled version of your app that allows people to look at it, evaluate it & decide if it's worth $2.99? Now where have I heard of that business model before?
Honestly, there's so many development restrictions on iPhone apps, why bother publicizing this non-story.
If you buy a gun, and leave it sitting in your front garden, then some criminals come along, take control of it, and kill everyone in your street, you're kind of responsible for that.
Gun? Are you mad? Slashdot is about car analogies only.
how is leaving an unprotected OS with known problems available to be hijacked by anyone who wants to do damage with it any different?
One buys a car, forgets to lock it at night & it's used for a ram raid. Is the car owner responsible for the ram raid or a victim?
It's shorthand for parses - as in "does not parse".
I wonder how they plan to get the hardware specifications for the necessary drivers from Apple.
The same way many linux drivers have been written. Reverse engineering.
Apple certainly isn't going to help - I imagine they've got the lawyer cannon trained already.
For all those thinking "Android," check this from the blog entry:
Oh, and read some of the blog comments. Man - I thought youtube comments were stupid, but this trumps even that:
and:
Oh - and the obligatory iphone linux comic