If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Quartz)   Error 451: Freedom of speech not found   (qz.com) divider line 60
    More: Interesting, Herbalife, free speeches, surveillance state, George Soros  
•       •       •

5919 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Aug 2013 at 1:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-05 11:55:05 AM
Clever code number. I think it will catch on.
 
2013-08-05 12:36:50 PM
Telling the Internet not to talk about something is probably the best possible way to make sure the Internet talks about what you tried to shut down.
 
2013-08-05 01:05:58 PM
That's the last time I use a teapot as a dedicated server.
 
2013-08-05 01:16:46 PM
Will it get to be slang on its own or will it be called "Bradbury'd"?
 
2013-08-05 01:28:32 PM
I'm sad it took me a few seconds to get the reference.

Weaver95: Telling the Internet not to talk about something is probably the best possible way to make sure the Internet talks about what you tried to shut down.


There is a proper name, Sir. Pay that woman the respect she is due.
 
2013-08-05 01:47:13 PM
The hypocrisy is delicious.  Was it fair or legal for you to hack in the first place?
 
2013-08-05 02:05:40 PM

unlikely: Will it get to be slang on its own or will it be called "Bradbury'd"?



What about changing emails, post, etc.

Bradbury'd in the Boobies
 
2013-08-05 02:18:42 PM

Weaver95: Telling the Internet not to talk about something is probably the best possible way to make sure the Internet talks about what you tried to shut down.


Shh.
Type that smaller.
 
2013-08-05 02:19:38 PM
Freedom of speech? I must have missed where it was the US government shutting down their little web story.
 
2013-08-05 02:24:19 PM

Kyosuke: Freedom of speech? I must have missed where it was the US government shutting down their little web story.


British government.
 
2013-08-05 02:39:41 PM

Kyosuke: Freedom of speech? I must have missed where it was the US government shutting down their little web story.


Freedom of speech can be a thing outside the United States. Hard to believe, but it's true.
 
2013-08-05 02:51:06 PM

give me doughnuts: Freedom of speech can be a thing outside the United States.


I keep hearing about this thing called Freedom of Speech that supposedly exists here in the US.
 
2013-08-05 02:51:20 PM
possibly related

Via the http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security-technology-and- liberty/new-proposal-could-singlehandedly-cripple" target="_blank">ACLU I see that the Attorneys General of several states are asking Congress to weaken http://www.dmlp.org/section-230" target="_blank">Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Section 230 - which we have lauded here before - is crucial to freedom of expression on the internet
 
2013-08-05 02:51:35 PM

unlikely: Kyosuke: Freedom of speech? I must have missed where it was the US government shutting down their little web story.

British government.


The rules are a little different in the UK than the US. Also for Libel and Slander, IIRC.
 
2013-08-05 02:57:29 PM
Last week, the American gossip site Gawker published a piece about Rebekah Brooks, former CEO of Rupert Murdoch's News International. Lawyers for Brooks, who is facing criminal charges in the UK relating to alleged phone hacking by the News of the World newspaper, quickly slapped Gawker with a cease-and-desist letter accusing it of potentially prejudicing the outcome of the trial, which would violate UK law.

This is a thing in the UK? What the fark?
 
2013-08-05 03:04:42 PM

Diogenes: The hypocrisy is delicious.  Was it fair or legal for you to hack in the first place?


I'm lost. What are you talking about? This isn't for blocking pirated material, but for pointing out when censorship(Of all kinds) has been massaging the internet.
 
2013-08-05 03:06:13 PM

Kyosuke: Freedom of speech? I must have missed where it was the US government shutting down their little web story.


Try treading TFA, and stopping to think about what it says. All references to blocked material are being used as examples, the story is about adopting a special code for use when the gov't DOES decide to censor shiat.
 
2013-08-05 03:06:40 PM

SkittlesAreYum: Last week, the American gossip site Gawker published a piece about Rebekah Brooks, former CEO of Rupert Murdoch's News International. Lawyers for Brooks, who is facing criminal charges in the UK relating to alleged phone hacking by the News of the World newspaper, quickly slapped Gawker with a cease-and-desist letter accusing it of potentially prejudicing the outcome of the trial, which would violate UK law.

This is a thing in the UK? What the fark?


It exists to stop the media deciding the outcome of a trial before the trial has started, a la Zimmerman. When the trial is against media members, it get really nasty of rival sites or sources try to scupper the defendant.

/That said, Rebekah Brooks is as dodgy as a $4 bill.
 
2013-08-05 03:14:49 PM
Why is it that whenever  I click a Quartz link it never goes to the linked page and just goes to the first article?

/Your (Sponsored) website sucks
 
2013-08-05 03:22:09 PM

ristst: give me doughnuts: Freedom of speech can be a thing outside the United States.

I keep hearing about this thing called Freedom of Speech that supposedly exists here in the US.


I know right! It's horrible the beating you took for posting that from the US Government!
 
2013-08-05 03:24:26 PM

r1niceboy: SkittlesAreYum: Last week, the American gossip site Gawker published a piece about Rebekah Brooks, former CEO of Rupert Murdoch's News International. Lawyers for Brooks, who is facing criminal charges in the UK relating to alleged phone hacking by the News of the World newspaper, quickly slapped Gawker with a cease-and-desist letter accusing it of potentially prejudicing the outcome of the trial, which would violate UK law.

This is a thing in the UK? What the fark?

It exists to stop the media deciding the outcome of a trial before the trial has started, a la Zimmerman. When the trial is against media members, it get really nasty of rival sites or sources try to scupper the defendant.

/That said, Rebekah Brooks is as dodgy as a $4 bill.


I can imagine why it exists, but that doesn't make it any better. Also, I think the Zimmerman example is a bad one because I never got the impression he was considered innocent by the media.
 
2013-08-05 03:25:25 PM

Kiler: Why is it that whenever  I click a Quartz link it never goes to the linked page and just goes to the first article?

/Your (Sponsored) website sucks


you're lucky, whenever I click on a quartz link I get transported back to the 90s and some website with frames that have separate scroll bars and stuff.  At first I thought it was kind of cute but then I realized any second the 90210 theme could start playing and I'd be trapped there.

On topic though:  Any time a website is forced to remove content due to any sort of legal action it should be required to state why (the entire take down request word for word) and by who along with contact info for the who.
 
2013-08-05 03:31:38 PM
What is the code for "dead for legal reasons"?
 
2013-08-05 03:31:46 PM
I'm glad I live in a country that doesn't block websites, but instead sends paramilitary forces to seize and shut-down servers around the world.

USA USA USA USA
 
2013-08-05 03:34:15 PM

Mikey1969: Diogenes: The hypocrisy is delicious.  Was it fair or legal for you to hack in the first place?

I'm lost. What are you talking about? This isn't for blocking pirated material, but for pointing out when censorship(Of all kinds) has been massaging the internet.


Lady is on trial for hacking phone accounts of private individuals.  Presumably to make public juicy news scoops on behalf of her employer.  Then claims it is not fair nor legal to talk about her.  That's all I was commenting on:

TFA:   Last week, the American gossip site Gawker published a piece about Rebekah Brooks, former CEO of Rupert Murdoch's News International. Lawyers for Brooks, who is facing criminal charges in the UK by the News of the World newspaper, quickly slapped Gawker with a cease-and-desist letter accusing it of potentially prejudicing the outcome of the trial, which would violate UK law.
 
2013-08-05 03:34:44 PM

Mikey1969: Kyosuke: Freedom of speech? I must have missed where it was the US government shutting down their little web story.

Try treading TFA, and stopping to think about what it says. All references to blocked material are being used as examples, the story is about adopting a special code for use when the gov't DOES decide to censor shiat.


So, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, then. Does that special code come with a tinfoil hat?

/Did RTFA
//Did comprehend TFA
 
2013-08-05 03:36:10 PM
Ah, kooky British laws.  Do officials of the court walk around bars and restaurants and football pitches making sure people aren't talking about the case either...you know, in case they unduly influence the people sitting next to them.
 
2013-08-05 03:45:13 PM

Diogenes: Lady is on trial for hacking phone accounts of private individuals.  Presumably to make public juicy news scoops on behalf of her employer.  Then claims it is not fair nor legal to talk about her.  That's all I was commenting on:


I saw that was in the story, but it was just the example they were citing for the broader issue of censorship, as I understood it. That's what had me confused.
 
2013-08-05 03:47:54 PM

Kyosuke: So, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, then. Does that special code come with a tinfoil hat?


It doesn't particularly have to do with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and it doesn't always have to do with government censorship, however if you believe that information should be accessible, regardless of geographical location, then there is a philosophical freedom of speech component.  This isn't classified material, or PHI or even trade secrets.
 
2013-08-05 03:48:21 PM

SkittlesAreYum: r1niceboy: SkittlesAreYum: Last week, the American gossip site Gawker published a piece about Rebekah Brooks, former CEO of Rupert Murdoch's News International. Lawyers for Brooks, who is facing criminal charges in the UK relating to alleged phone hacking by the News of the World newspaper, quickly slapped Gawker with a cease-and-desist letter accusing it of potentially prejudicing the outcome of the trial, which would violate UK law.

This is a thing in the UK? What the fark?

It exists to stop the media deciding the outcome of a trial before the trial has started, a la Zimmerman. When the trial is against media members, it get really nasty of rival sites or sources try to scupper the defendant.

/That said, Rebekah Brooks is as dodgy as a $4 bill.

I can imagine why it exists, but that doesn't make it any better. Also, I think the Zimmerman example is a bad one because I never got the impression he was considered innocent by the media.


It depends what media. MSNBC was ready to throw the switch on the chair, while Fox had him up for sainthood. If a jury member watched either of those networks, they'd obviously be influenced. The only network I saw that was neutral was the BBC, but they barely refrained from calling the whole thing a circus.
 
2013-08-05 03:48:21 PM

Kyosuke: Mikey1969: Kyosuke: Freedom of speech? I must have missed where it was the US government shutting down their little web story.

Try treading TFA, and stopping to think about what it says. All references to blocked material are being used as examples, the story is about adopting a special code for use when the gov't DOES decide to censor shiat.

So, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, then. Does that special code come with a tinfoil hat?

/Did RTFA
//Did comprehend TFA


Why do you think Gawker isn't posting this information? Out of the goodness of its heart?
 
2013-08-05 03:50:35 PM

Kyosuke: Mikey1969: Kyosuke: Freedom of speech? I must have missed where it was the US government shutting down their little web story.

Try treading TFA, and stopping to think about what it says. All references to blocked material are being used as examples, the story is about adopting a special code for use when the gov't DOES decide to censor shiat.

So, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, then. Does that special code come with a tinfoil hat?

/Did RTFA
//Did comprehend TFA


It does, the freedom to inform people is being hampered, what is confusing you still? No, their "little web story" isn't being shut down, it's about the broader issue of censorship, and a new code being adopted. If all you got out of it was that someone wanted to publish some info on the phone hacking scandal, then you didn't get past the first paragraph. After that, it talks about the different internet codes, what they mean, and even shows a different example of what people post instead of what's in the headline. It also talks about other cases where this would be used, and while telling you about the other codes on the internet, gives you a link to something like 50 404 pages for different companies.

Really, the sory's relation to the phone hacking scandal is covered immediately, and the story moves on.
 
2013-08-05 03:50:53 PM

BSABSVR: Kyosuke: So, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, then. Does that special code come with a tinfoil hat?

It doesn't particularly have to do with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and it doesn't always have to do with government censorship, however if you believe that information should be accessible, regardless of geographical location, then there is a philosophical freedom of speech component.  This isn't classified material, or PHI or even trade secrets.


What does this mean?
 
2013-08-05 04:07:14 PM

SkittlesAreYum: r1niceboy: SkittlesAreYum: Last week, the American gossip site Gawker published a piece about Rebekah Brooks, former CEO of Rupert Murdoch's News International. Lawyers for Brooks, who is facing criminal charges in the UK relating to alleged phone hacking by the News of the World newspaper, quickly slapped Gawker with a cease-and-desist letter accusing it of potentially prejudicing the outcome of the trial, which would violate UK law.

This is a thing in the UK? What the fark?

It exists to stop the media deciding the outcome of a trial before the trial has started, a la Zimmerman. When the trial is against media members, it get really nasty of rival sites or sources try to scupper the defendant.

/That said, Rebekah Brooks is as dodgy as a $4 bill.

I can imagine why it exists, but that doesn't make it any better. Also, I think the Zimmerman example is a bad one because I never got the impression he was considered innocent by the media.


Actually, that makes it an even better example given the standard of proof required for convicting someone of a crime in the US.   Would it really be fair to get a jury that is convinced the defendant is guilty before the trial even starts based on media coverage?

It may make it more difficult to find a jury not prejudiced by media coverage in the US, but I think it's good that we allow coverage - even very biased coverage in the US.
 
2013-08-05 04:07:57 PM

Moopy Mac: BSABSVR: Kyosuke: So, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, then. Does that special code come with a tinfoil hat?

It doesn't particularly have to do with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and it doesn't always have to do with government censorship, however if you believe that information should be accessible, regardless of geographical location, then there is a philosophical freedom of speech component.  This isn't classified material, or PHI or even trade secrets.

What does this mean?


That to many  "freedom of speech" means more than just preventing government censorship, but avoiding corporate or media censorship as well.  Many of the people who were originally into torrents, warez, Wikileaks etc. had the philosophy that if information exists, it deserves to be available to everyone who wants it.  "Information wants to be free" was something I have heard more than once.
 
2013-08-05 04:11:01 PM

BSABSVR: Moopy Mac: BSABSVR: Kyosuke: So, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, then. Does that special code come with a tinfoil hat?

It doesn't particularly have to do with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and it doesn't always have to do with government censorship, however if you believe that information should be accessible, regardless of geographical location, then there is a philosophical freedom of speech component.  This isn't classified material, or PHI or even trade secrets.

What does this mean?

That to many  "freedom of speech" means more than just preventing government censorship, but avoiding corporate or media censorship as well.  Many of the people who were originally into torrents, warez, Wikileaks etc. had the philosophy that if information exists, it deserves to be available to everyone who wants it.  "Information wants to be free" was something I have heard more than once.


Mostly by people with no understanding of the concept of 'earning' something.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna go shout "He's got a gun!" in a movie theater.
 
2013-08-05 04:13:55 PM

Moopy Mac: BSABSVR: Kyosuke: So, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, then. Does that special code come with a tinfoil hat?

It doesn't particularly have to do with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and it doesn't always have to do with government censorship, however if you believe that information should be accessible, regardless of geographical location, then there is a philosophical freedom of speech component.  This isn't classified material, or PHI or even trade secrets.

What does this mean?


It means the philosophical basis for freedom of speech which exists independently of governmental entities and their laws?  Which stretches back to the Greeks and Romans.  Kind of like how the liberal/rationalist philosophies of the founding fathers held that everyone everywhere in the world had rights like Freedom of Speech and Religion and such (though mostly not being allowed to exercise them), despite the fact that they weren't covered by the US Constitution and its laws.
 
2013-08-05 04:14:03 PM

SkittlesAreYum: r1niceboy: SkittlesAreYum: Last week, the American gossip site Gawker published a piece about Rebekah Brooks, former CEO of Rupert Murdoch's News International. Lawyers for Brooks, who is facing criminal charges in the UK relating to alleged phone hacking by the News of the World newspaper, quickly slapped Gawker with a cease-and-desist letter accusing it of potentially prejudicing the outcome of the trial, which would violate UK law.

This is a thing in the UK? What the fark?

It exists to stop the media deciding the outcome of a trial before the trial has started, a la Zimmerman. When the trial is against media members, it get really nasty of rival sites or sources try to scupper the defendant.

/That said, Rebekah Brooks is as dodgy as a $4 bill.

I can imagine why it exists, but that doesn't make it any better. Also, I think the Zimmerman example is a bad one because I never got the impression he was considered innocent by the media.


A fair trial is a fundimental human right. What happens when my freedom of speech impacts your right to a fair trial?

In America freedom of speach trumps all

In Britian a fair trial is important enough to limit speech while the trial is ongoing. After the trial the limit is off.

In the real world human rights conflict and a balance has to be struck

/now back to the derp
 
2013-08-05 04:25:51 PM
"The Internet is broken here because some arsehat authoritarian wrote a law to break it"

Makes sense to me.
 
2013-08-05 04:29:57 PM

Norfolking Chance: SkittlesAreYum: r1niceboy: SkittlesAreYum: Last week, the American gossip site Gawker published a piece about Rebekah Brooks, former CEO of Rupert Murdoch's News International. Lawyers for Brooks, who is facing criminal charges in the UK relating to alleged phone hacking by the News of the World newspaper, quickly slapped Gawker with a cease-and-desist letter accusing it of potentially prejudicing the outcome of the trial, which would violate UK law.

This is a thing in the UK? What the fark?

It exists to stop the media deciding the outcome of a trial before the trial has started, a la Zimmerman. When the trial is against media members, it get really nasty of rival sites or sources try to scupper the defendant.

/That said, Rebekah Brooks is as dodgy as a $4 bill.

I can imagine why it exists, but that doesn't make it any better. Also, I think the Zimmerman example is a bad one because I never got the impression he was considered innocent by the media.

A fair trial is a fundimental human right. What happens when my freedom of speech impacts your right to a fair trial?

In America freedom of speach trumps all

In Britian a fair trial is important enough to limit speech while the trial is ongoing. After the trial the limit is off.

In the real world human rights conflict and a balance has to be struck

/now back to the derp


Well, freedom of speech is somewhat limited for the jury during a trial.  They're not allowed to discuss the case with anyone, not even themselves while hearing a case.  During deliberations they can only discuss it amongst themselves with no outside influences.

Very few cases are going to be so overwhelmingly publicized that you can't find anyone who hasn't been unreasonably tainted by media influence.  Even in Britain, I doubt you can successfully keep everyone in the dark about a case before it goes to a jury.
 
2013-08-05 04:48:22 PM

BSABSVR: Moopy Mac: BSABSVR: Kyosuke: So, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, then. Does that special code come with a tinfoil hat?

It doesn't particularly have to do with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and it doesn't always have to do with government censorship, however if you believe that information should be accessible, regardless of geographical location, then there is a philosophical freedom of speech component.  This isn't classified material, or PHI or even trade secrets.

What does this mean?

That to many  "freedom of speech" means more than just preventing government censorship, but avoiding corporate or media censorship as well.  Many of the people who were originally into torrents, warez, Wikileaks etc. had the philosophy that if information exists, it deserves to be available to everyone who wants it.  "Information wants to be free" was something I have heard more than once.


With respect to the dispersement of information, what is the free speech issue if there are not governmental restrictions?
 
2013-08-05 04:50:08 PM

LrdPhoenix: Moopy Mac: BSABSVR: Kyosuke: So, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, then. Does that special code come with a tinfoil hat?

It doesn't particularly have to do with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and it doesn't always have to do with government censorship, however if you believe that information should be accessible, regardless of geographical location, then there is a philosophical freedom of speech component.  This isn't classified material, or PHI or even trade secrets.

What does this mean?

It means the philosophical basis for freedom of speech which exists independently of governmental entities and their laws?  Which stretches back to the Greeks and Romans.  Kind of like how the liberal/rationalist philosophies of the founding fathers held that everyone everywhere in the world had rights like Freedom of Speech and Religion and such (though mostly not being allowed to exercise them), despite the fact that they weren't covered by the US Constitution and its laws.


What are real world examples of this, particularly as they may apply to the 451 movement.
 
2013-08-05 05:11:29 PM

Kyosuke: Meanwhile, I'm gonna go shout "He's got a gun!" in a movie theater.


Not a crime, which is why you won't get into trouble if there really is someone with a gun, or someone onscreen has a gun, or whatever.

Starting a panic without cause, though? That's a crime. Freedom of speech won't shield you from that. That's what the limits really are. Just like the Second Amendment won't shield you if you commit a crime with a gun, the First Amendment won't protect you if you commit a crime with your speech.
 
2013-08-05 05:20:09 PM

Norfolking Chance: A fair trial is a fundimental human right. What happens when my freedom of speech impacts your right to a fair trial?

In America freedom of speach trumps all

In Britian a fair trial is important enough to limit speech while the trial is ongoing. After the trial the limit is off.

In the real world human rights conflict and a balance has to be struck

/now back to the derp


Prohibiting news stories about a topic definitely infringes on free speech.

Allowing full discussion of the topic might infringe on the right to a fair trial, or it might not: it depends on how much the jurors read.

I'll take the former.
 
2013-08-05 05:21:39 PM

P. J. O'Rourke -

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
 
2013-08-05 05:22:46 PM

Millennium: Kyosuke: Meanwhile, I'm gonna go shout "He's got a gun!" in a movie theater.

Not a crime, which is why you won't get into trouble if there really is someone with a gun, or someone onscreen has a gun, or whatever.

Starting a panic without cause, though? That's a crime. Freedom of speech won't shield you from that. That's what the limits really are. Just like the Second Amendment won't shield you if you commit a crime with a gun, the First Amendment won't protect you if you commit a crime with your speech.


You don't think that phrase would start a panic?
 
2013-08-05 05:39:48 PM

SkittlesAreYum: Norfolking Chance: A fair trial is a fundimental human right. What happens when my freedom of speech impacts your right to a fair trial?

In America freedom of speach trumps all

In Britian a fair trial is important enough to limit speech while the trial is ongoing. After the trial the limit is off.

In the real world human rights conflict and a balance has to be struck

/now back to the derp

Prohibiting news stories about a topic definitely infringes on free speech.

Allowing full discussion of the topic might infringe on the right to a fair trial, or it might not: it depends on how much the jurors read.

I'll take the former.


Unless someone is bouncing from echo chamber to echo chamber in his/her reading, I'd think the well-read juror is one who is most likely to enter the trial with an objective spirit.  There are plenty of newsheads out there who crave the details and the angles but are too busy with the rest of their lives to care about casting a concrete opinion on the matter.
 
2013-08-05 05:52:06 PM

SkittlesAreYum: Norfolking Chance: A fair trial is a fundimental human right. What happens when my freedom of speech impacts your right to a fair trial?

In America freedom of speach trumps all

In Britian a fair trial is important enough to limit speech while the trial is ongoing. After the trial the limit is off.

In the real world human rights conflict and a balance has to be struck

/now back to the derp

Prohibiting news stories about a topic definitely infringes on free speech.

Allowing full discussion of the topic might infringe on the right to a fair trial, or it might not: it depends on how much the jurors read.

I'll take the former.


News stories are not prohibited. The press are free to report on facts all they like it's just the sensationalised yellow journalism that has to be dialled back before and during a trial. It's the difference between "A man was interviewed by police today in connection with a murder" to "sick perverted murderer arrested today". That's not a full and open discussion of the facts.

Now in this case its just a solicitor for Brookes over stating the law hopeing to scare off any negative publicity.
 
2013-08-05 05:52:29 PM

Moopy Mac: BSABSVR: Moopy Mac: BSABSVR: Kyosuke: So, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, then. Does that special code come with a tinfoil hat?

It doesn't particularly have to do with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and it doesn't always have to do with government censorship, however if you believe that information should be accessible, regardless of geographical location, then there is a philosophical freedom of speech component.  This isn't classified material, or PHI or even trade secrets.

What does this mean?

That to many  "freedom of speech" means more than just preventing government censorship, but avoiding corporate or media censorship as well.  Many of the people who were originally into torrents, warez, Wikileaks etc. had the philosophy that if information exists, it deserves to be available to everyone who wants it.  "Information wants to be free" was something I have heard more than once.

With respect to the dispersement of information, what is the free speech issue if there are not governmental restrictions?


A) I am not a "hacktivist" type and don't think I can answer any deeper than that, as I will be coloring the ideas through my own filter that would not match up with theirs. Since I don't fully agree with all of the "all information should be available everywhere" mindset, I can't honestly give an answer that I would consider persuasive.

B). I hear the Google is on computers now.
 
2013-08-05 05:56:45 PM
Too bad the 451 error is already in use:

451 Redirect (Microsoft)
Used in Exchange ActiveSync if there either is a more efficient server to use or the server can't access the users' mailbox. The client is supposed to re-run the HTTP Autodiscovery protocol to find a better suited server.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report