So, now it's similar to a Facebook page. No dislike button, no matter what they put up. Okay, we (sadly) got used to that years ago.
They do provide my service, and I do love to complain, but the bottom line is that the service is better than Verizon or satellite. Whether or not I can comment on some website doesn't change that. *shrug*
Yes, but as PaulT responded, this article was quiet. I hadn't noticed an article about trolls to comment on the past month, so I put it here. Sorry to offend you.
Yes, of course I considered that before I made my statement.
The primary purpose of guns is to kill animals.
In my non expert observation, that is legal more often than it is criminal. First, hunting is more common that human conflict. Secondly, even human conflict is often legal. Thirdly, the incidence in legal military conflict outweighs the incidence of criminal activity. I might be wrong on exactness, but the primary purpose of guns is definitely not criminal.
Mistakes which I make come from drafting on the Internet. If I were a professional, it would be written offline, and proofread by an editor before it was put online.
He was too off-handed to be a professional, but I hardly mind the act of post-editing -- although I assume honesty, which is apparently lacking in this case. What he did is not the norm, but I wouldn't mind if it was, providing a mechanism to state the time of the last edit. The more time passes, the more reliable the intent of content. If you want to promote what was false or not intended, make a copy of it and do what you will. It is the Internet: A critic can copy as easily as I can edit, which we do see in this case.
But obviously this article is more about that writer rather than Internet editing. So, as much as he offhandedly states "it's just the Internet", I would merely shrug and say "he's just an Internet writer." There are far too many these days... I just noticed one at Forbes this week.
At a glance, I see a death star and the title "a long time ago", which makes me think "Star Wars". If I finish reading the cover, I even see "Star Wars". Without reading handling the book to read more than the cover, I cannot reason that it is not about Star Wars.
If the author's name were "George Lucas", I would reason it is about Star Wars. The fact that I do not, however, associate the name "Gib Van Ert" with "Star Wars" does not dissuade me to reach a different conclusion. For all I know he could be Lucas' heir.
I would probably be drawn to the book because I was curious whether it had something to do with Star Wars.
Stepping away, I assume that the intent of the publisher is to use the "Star Wars" name to market the book to me. The publisher wants to profit from "Star Wars". Does that not matter?
While I appreciate how hard a fuzzy nut may press against your face when you're trying to sleep, do we know that it's simply not the fact that it was reported as inappropriate? That's all that will matter until it's reviewed by humans, and Facebook isn't obliged to take further action, unless persons are harrassing her by repeatedly targetting her pictures to report.
Just how I thought it worked. It's an automated reporting system, I watched where it took days for them to remove child porn... since about that time, assuming the problem was a back long of report to be humanly reviewed, it propassumes guilt by default.
On the post: DailyDirt: The Flu Season Is Here...
Mummy never gets the flu
On the post: Time Warner's 'Conversation' Website Ditches All Comments; The Conversation Is Just Them To You
Not much to say.
They do provide my service, and I do love to complain, but the bottom line is that the service is better than Verizon or satellite. Whether or not I can comment on some website doesn't change that. *shrug*
On the post: Belgian Newspapers Agree To Drop Lawsuit Over Google News After Google Promises To Show Them How To Make Money Online
Re: Re: We used to not feed the trolls
On the post: Developer Of Bookmaking Software Gets Full Kim Dotcom Treatment For 'Promoting Gambling'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Precedent?
If you're going back to discuss the case, rather than this hypothetical defense, then you are not talking about the subject of this particular thread.
On the post: IBM Researcher Feeds Watson Supercomputer The 'Urban Dictionary'; Very Quickly Regrets It
Jeopardy Champion
What the fuck is Fermat's Last Theorem.
On the post: Developer Of Bookmaking Software Gets Full Kim Dotcom Treatment For 'Promoting Gambling'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Precedent?
until deer get lawyers.
On the post: Developer Of Bookmaking Software Gets Full Kim Dotcom Treatment For 'Promoting Gambling'
Re: Re: Re: Good Precedent?
The primary purpose of guns is to kill animals.
In my non expert observation, that is legal more often than it is criminal. First, hunting is more common that human conflict. Secondly, even human conflict is often legal. Thirdly, the incidence in legal military conflict outweighs the incidence of criminal activity. I might be wrong on exactness, but the primary purpose of guns is definitely not criminal.
On the post: School District Wins Suit Filed Against It By Student Who Refused To Wear School-Issued Location Tracking ID Cards
Re:
Well, As long as we get to track every civil servant from the President down, maybe it will be worth it.
On the post: CBS Sports Writer Feels It's OK To Issue 'Stealth' Corrections Because It's Just 'The Internet'
Re: It is the Internet
On the post: CBS Sports Writer Feels It's OK To Issue 'Stealth' Corrections Because It's Just 'The Internet'
It is the Internet
He was too off-handed to be a professional, but I hardly mind the act of post-editing -- although I assume honesty, which is apparently lacking in this case. What he did is not the norm, but I wouldn't mind if it was, providing a mechanism to state the time of the last edit. The more time passes, the more reliable the intent of content. If you want to promote what was false or not intended, make a copy of it and do what you will. It is the Internet: A critic can copy as easily as I can edit, which we do see in this case.
But obviously this article is more about that writer rather than Internet editing. So, as much as he offhandedly states "it's just the Internet", I would merely shrug and say "he's just an Internet writer." There are far too many these days... I just noticed one at Forbes this week.
The world sucks.
On the post: Developer Of Bookmaking Software Gets Full Kim Dotcom Treatment For 'Promoting Gambling'
Re: Not only software developers
On the post: Developer Of Bookmaking Software Gets Full Kim Dotcom Treatment For 'Promoting Gambling'
Re: Good Precedent?
The primary purpose of his software was bookkeeper.
The primary purpose of electricity, Windows products, Google products is not gambling.
The primary purpose of neither automobiles nor guns is to be used for crime.
On the post: Racist Apps In Google's Play Store Test Just How Free You Want Speech To Be
Re: Poor quality writing on techdirt.
On the post: There's A Secret Reason Why The Government Has To Keep It Secret How Many Americans It's Spying On Without A Warrant
Re: Hold the phone...
I don't see it there. Which clause you talking about?
On the post: Amazon Pulls Down Memoir Because Cover Mentions 'Star Wars'
Re: Re: I'm the moron.
On the post: Amazon Pulls Down Memoir Because Cover Mentions 'Star Wars'
I'm the moron.
If the author's name were "George Lucas", I would reason it is about Star Wars. The fact that I do not, however, associate the name "Gib Van Ert" with "Star Wars" does not dissuade me to reach a different conclusion. For all I know he could be Lucas' heir.
I would probably be drawn to the book because I was curious whether it had something to do with Star Wars.
Stepping away, I assume that the intent of the publisher is to use the "Star Wars" name to market the book to me. The publisher wants to profit from "Star Wars". Does that not matter?
On the post: Belgian Newspapers Agree To Drop Lawsuit Over Google News After Google Promises To Show Them How To Make Money Online
We used to not feed the trolls
On the post: The SHOCKING Photos That Violated Facebook's Policies!
Community
Just how I thought it worked. It's an automated reporting system, I watched where it took days for them to remove child porn... since about that time, assuming the problem was a back long of report to be humanly reviewed, it propassumes guilt by default.
All speculation and observation. *shrug*
On the post: No Porn On Port 80?
Re: Re: Dirty Tricks
On the post: DailyDirt: Stop Filling Your Brain With Nonsense
Re:
Next >>