You can look a little further and look for why you get spineless teachers and spineless administrators. Those with spine tend to get prosecuted when they attempt disciplinary actions by overzealous parents that most of the time won't do their part in their children's education, leaving all the burden to school.
Interesting paradox, isn't it?
Just spend all your work time on Slashdot, and keep Facebook etc for home. They'll never think of looking here.
Doritos have a lot more than fat that can make them addictive.
#1 is MSG - Monosodium Glutamate is the beginning of food science. It's the first chemical ever extracted from food (back in 1903 by a large Japanese food company who wanted to isolate the element that made seaweed so popular) and the first food additive ever used to make foods literally more addictive. MSG directly activates brain glutamate receptors.
#2 is other flavorings with properties that activate neural receptors... Doritos is as artificial as it gets. It is engineered to get the maximum response, much like MSG was over 100 years ago.
During the dispute time frame, the sea level rose a bit less than 3 inches. Had this occurred in the late 1800's the sea level would have risen a bit more than 2 inches.
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/sea-level-tidal-satellite.jpg for the first chart.
I'm Greek, you insensitive clod!!! Germany pays my bills.
It's even worse where I work. Most of the departments *have* workgroup-class laser printers (or huge copy machines with network print capability). Many of the staff just can't be bothered to get off their lazy asses to walk down a hall to their workroom to get their printouts. Yes, it's that simple...
> But, with this script, everything is happening on the user's computer, and Facebook has no jurisdiction over that.
Not everything is happening on the users' computers since the script may determine what is or is not requested from the Facebook servers.
I think the essential difference between this and WoW would be a requirement that the user must actively meet (downloading ads and other cruft) vs. a prohibition against what the user may do (run auto-aim scripts) with their computers in conjunction with the service. A good number of universities contractually require users of private computers to run anti-virus software when connected to the campus network.
If Facebook is like a publisher, they should have no control over how users retain or discard parts of the bundle (like TiVO). If Facebook is like a retailer, an argument might be that a user stripping out arbitrary content, like paying for an entire newspaper but only taking the front section, leaves the retailer with the burden of disposing of unsalable product at the retailer's expense. Users who do not receive ads or app notifications are in some ways unsalable for Facebook. Based on the almost absolute lack of amputated newspapers being left behind in unattended newspaper boxes, consumers do not appear to believe that its good practice to burden retailers or other customers in that manner.
Since Facebook is neither strictly a publisher, nor strictly a retailer, considering a broader class might be instructive.
In general, software and interfaces are designed to permit only actions which are explicitly intended, rather than denying specific actions although denying kinds of actions is common. We've accepted that terms of service should contain restrictions like "use for work-related purposes only, do not use for illegal purposes", but not exhaustive exclusions like "do not use for pornsite1..n, spamming software1..n, botnet control software1..n". This makes sense from the sysadmin perspective and need not be further argued. But as users, we may sometimes enjoy pushing the limits in the TOS and seek exceptions, but we rarely concentrate to change policies despite being afforded the opportunity to do so.
Generally, then, Facebook's position is rational and reasonable given our societal norms, as is the position to oppose Facebook's actions without seeking to materially harm Facebook.
Yeah, comparing apples to oranges is so useful.
I can't add much to it except for these comments. denyhosts works great and we use a threshold of 1 failure on unknown logins and only 3 failures on known logins. It takes attention to detail as a remote user but it really works well. We set the thing to completely shut out someone who pulls that SSH crap on us, assuming that they are a bad buy. By extension, we use our firewall to log things that shouldn't be happening and tell us about the source IP. Again we assume they are bad guys (or gurls) and simply shut em out forever. Same thing goes for POP3 scans, etc. Hey, there are only a few billion possibilities (in IP4), knock em down and coordinate your data with others to save them time.