Sure there was. She could have simply _not_ read
> the msgs, turned off the computer, logged into
> different locations, etc., etc.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. To function today, people MUST read their emails and participate in certain forums; school assignments and the like are often communicated in that manner. One just can't walk away from their computer.
Nasty insults are often sent in the SUBJECT line of emails and forum posts. That means the victim cannot escape from seeing them, even if they don't bother opening the detail; the subject line has it all.
In addition, it's very unfair to expect the victim to change their lifestyle and give up something. Shouldn't the bully be the one compelled to modify behavior?
WELL SAID! And we've been through the same thing regarding computer breakins ("you deserve to be broken into if you don't have the latest and greatest security measures"), spam ("you should sign up with a spam filter"), and to some extent even the Do-Not-Call List shows this misconception, since it requires a special action on the part of people who want to avoid being victims.
In a civilized society, the strong protect the weak. On a "frontier," only the strong are safe. On this particular frontier, we seem to have too many locksmiths and no sheriffs.
Interestingly, the historicial frontiers were actually quite peaceable places.
When the Washington Post defended Washington DC's gun ban by stating that Washington DC "is not Dodge City in the 1800s", firearms enthusiasts gleefully pointed out that during Dodge City's "wild west" heyday of
1876-1885, Dodge City had a total of 15 homicides, with the worst year being 1878 when 5 people were murdered. Washington DC, by contrast, had
169 homicides in 2006.
The reason is simple. Life on the frontier was dangerous, and required a great deal of cooperation. Far from being the mythical "rugged individualists" who survived alone, settlers on the frontiers were completely interdependent, not only on each other, but also on the local indigenous people.
What we have on the Internet today is not a frontier but rather anarchy. Some of us are once bitterly resented DARPA's (and later DCA's) control of the network during the 1970s and 1980s have come to rue the fact that we got exactly what we demanded: anarchy.
Sadly, when law and order is ultimately re-established on the Internet, the military dictatorship of the past will look like a model of benevolence by comparison. All we have to do is look at the players screaming the loudest about "Internet governance" to see what horrors the future will bring.
-- Mark --
formatting link
is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
I would question such statistics of the "wild west" in that I suspect many shootings were not classified as "homicide", but perhaps self- defense or not classified at all. I also can't help that some homicides, perhaps grudge satisfactions, were written off as self- defense depending on the influence of the shooter.
When someone pulls a gun on you, it's pretty hard to pull your own gun because the bandit will shoot you before you get it out. There's a reason they say and expect "hands up!". Accordingly, I'm not sure how owning guns helped defend a home that much. As you put it, organization helped defend people, not individual action.
Further, Dodge City was an organized city. Some of the problems of the "wild west" occured in smaller communities where there was limited law enforcement and outlaws could overpower locals.
Very true.
Exactly who are those "players" ? What military dictatorship?
I, as a private individual, want to see an end of the anarchy so I could freely surf the net without worrying that some innocent looking site is actually host of a malicious virus or spyware, or do business on the 'net without worrying that the site is a fraud.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.