If irresponsible people can print, buy, or otherwise obtain a gun, does that mean that a responsible person should be denied the right to do the same?
"it uses public infrastructure and it is time we treat it as a public utility."
What part of "the internet" is publicly owned, outside of a few last-mile segments in municipalities that have elected to provide that service?
Last I read, the "backbone" of internet was owned by private companies. The ISPs are private companies. All of the tiers in between them are owned by private companies.
Or, is this to imply that Americans should consider all of that privately-owned property to be "public", because some foreign governments "own" the phone companies in their countries, and we can connect to them through our privately-owned infrastructure?
I have messages coming in weekly for addresses that have not been valid since I had a dial-up bulletin board system, at the dawn of consumer email systems. If the submitter has only received a couple of messages, that's just the start of the next 20 years of spam for that address!
Unfortunately for this "distinction" to have much meaning, you need to have the alleged "average" people and clerics of Islam start denouncing the actions of these "loud attention seekers" more strongly than a token, "it wasn't us."
Do a large number of these "average" people of Islam show up at the places where these "attention seekers" go, to make a shield between them and their targets, like a lot of people (both Christian and non-Christian) do at Westboro "events"?
... to allow this page to compromise your computer....
Ever since Java started down the "this isn't last week's zero-day" road, I pulled Java from my machines. Pisses the corporate types off because they want to have "net meetings" that require Java to be installed, so we can have presentations on "computer security", but I just tell them - "MY computer security policy doesn't allow Java to be installed."
I somewhat the opposite of you - I run a system that takes requests from users, and generates a shipping label for them. It is emailed to them at the address they provide. And, if that mail bounces because they're using a whitelist, or something like your "visit this URL and fill out a form so I can know who you are" system (like Earthlink), sorry. You paid for your label and refused to accept it, it's not something we really care about.
All of our systems use SPF to validate as a legitimate sender. If that isn't good enough, tough. Have a nice life.
It sickens ME that someone would call for suppressing the opinions of others simply because they don't agree with them. Rather than supply a cogent, reasoned response to those opinions, they result to name calling and demands of censorship.
Oh, wait... I forgot how Democrats campaign nowadays, and, since they won, how the rights of others are now to be subservient to the "right" to not be offended by differing opinions...
No information on when they did this, but I got a call from the outfit just two days ago, so they were still operational on Tuesday.
Or, is this like so many other things done at the administrative level nowadays? "We shut them down, by sending a strongly worded letter to the post office box listed somewhere!"
Or you could do something silly, like NOT USING THE SAME USER ID IN MULTIPLE LOCATIONS.
For me, if it relates to money or control of a system, it has a unique user ID, password, and even email address. Break into Yahoo, and you might get my Yahoo account info, but you can't use it to figure out my eBay account information. Break into eBay, and you still don't have what you need to find my PayPal account.
But people trust internet too much.
"Here in the U.S. they should be forced into at least filing a Form 1099 or something, getting the state taxes comes back to the same problem as sales tax."
But... eBay isn't GIVING the seller any money. They are CHARGING the seller for their service. Why should they file any tax forms on the seller? It is the buyer that would, potentially, issue the tax document, not eBay.
And how can they say the winning bid amount was the final sale amount, anyway? Let's say I put in a winning bid of $600 on a used Widget. I arrive at the seller's location with $600 in hand... And the Widget is damaged in a way that wasn't known/documented. The seller and I agree to a reduced price of $450. Or, I discover that he has a complete set of the accessories for said Widget, and buy $1200 worth of stuff from him, in addition to the Widget. eBay doesn't know any of that.
Even neglecting the privacy issues, it's a flawed concept.
The user's personal information should require a warrant.
However, if tweets were shared with anyone (isn't that the POINT of something like Twitter?), those should not be considered "private". Ask an attorney if you can declare attorney/client privilege if you discuss your case over a PA system at a race track...
Since v7, I've lost several add-ons of various levels of importance. They didn't with break "every release"; they were broken, and won't be fixed because the authors got fed up with chasing a moving target.
The fact that the antivirus plug-in fell behind at v7 doesn't bother me that much; I just have to disable things like Flash and Java, that DO keep up with FF releases, but DON'T keep up with security problems.
But, when the only replacements for a tool are ones that require me to belong to a service to get them to work.... I get a bit upset. Fortunately, Windows and OS/X both have built-in tools that can work around the need to "share" something with the world before I can save it locally. They're a lot less convenient, but it works.
At least, they should, until FF updates again....
I don't see why this was moderated to "funny"...
As some one else said, there are a lot of reasons why people drop out of high school. Many of the dropouts I know dropped out because they were already into criminal behavior, and school "cramped their style". Did dropping out cause their criminal activity, as these studies suggest? No, quite the opposite!
Just think - someone reports pictures, and the moderator views them. Finding them to be kiddie porn, the moderator escalates them to be reported to authorities.
But, what protects the moderator from now being arrested for viewing kiddie porn, besides common sense? We know THAT has little to do with law nowadays. Is that why they have the moderators in other countries? Countries where there might not be any legal protection for them?
I've honestly regretted allowing FF to update past 7, because every time the major version changes, another tool I have been using gets turned off. If there's an update to the add-in, there's just the time needed to install it, but... more and more of the rather limited set of tools I use are broken, with no replacement. The latest (going from 9 to 10) was a utility that the only replacements available won't save to your local hard drive - the only way to do that is to let it upload to the particular social network the tools was designed for, THEN download it to your computer. Another add-in always seems to get their update out just in time for the next incompatible update to FF...
Maybe if they actually do this "we won't break things for two years, honest, we promise!" "enterprise" version they mentioned...