Slashdot Mirror
Texas Bill to Filter Highway Rest Stop Internet
girlchik writes "HB 3314, up for hearing in the Texas House State Affairs committee on Monday, would require the state to filter wireless internet access at highway rest stops. This bill mandates filtering at any state-provided wireless network on public property.
Since last May, the Texas Department of Transportation has offered wifi access at state rest stops. There is also wifi access at some Texas state parks provided in partnership with Tengo Internet.
This bill protects truckers at highway rest stops and campers in their RVs at campsites from adult content.
Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional."
Are they subject to filtering soon too?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Smokey on my IP Log, Bandit.
I guess truckers need to learn how to use web proxies now?
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
So they plan to filter filesharing? even those running on port 80? /didnt RTFA....
Wasteful, definately. I don't know about unconstitutional though. The state's constitution definately allows it to provide public services like this. I would think that filtering would just be providing less of a service (eg not full internet access).
The biggest problem is that this filtering stuff is pretty much totally ineffective. It blocks a lot of decent stuff that I actually need (sysadmin tools for example), and the pr0ns people still find ways to get the waving wangs through the filters.
funny munging
Does muni WiFi still sound like a good idea?
Sounds like they're afraid of people using rest-stop connections for drive-by kiddie-porn downloads/uploads. That's the only real use for this filtering that I could see.
It's these fellows who have been lobbying so hardcore for filtering on reststops. Think about it, no free internet PORN = a garunteed purchase by male truckdriver/camper/12 year old of a 10 dollar titty mag.
ARG. worst. cockblock. evar.
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
but then again, they ARE offering FREE access, so it's hard to complain... it's not like the truckers and people are paying for it, so it's not like they're entitled to have access to adult content.... maybe..
I realize censorship is quite unpopular here (and frankly I generally disagree with it myself), but why don't they have the right to filter conent? I see nothing that would make it unconstitutional. If you don't agree with it, you still have the right to (ideally) speak with your votes.
Maybe to prevent walking by a car and seeing some pervert jacking off? I know I don't want to walk by a car and notice some girl being screwed by a horse while some weird looking guy smiles politely and acts like he's not doing anything...
I like muppets.
I think by limiting who can get access, it can get rid of many issues like hackers using the open network, and allow the state to worry less in terms of liability because of offering internet access.
And, I still can't see why it's unconstitutional. It's like if I don't punch you at your request, I'm limiting your rights as a US citizen.
for truck stop prostitutes!
Those willful men can crack ANY internet cyber-code system, and bring Texas lawmen to their knees.
I suggest you read Slashdot
I was just thinking about why America is an empire on its downfall, but now I believe it is rather obvious: expensive political micromanagement on a scale that is unfathomable and hardly in line with what the founding fathers ever had in mind for this new, great nation.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/articles/cn 000100.html
Here are the main sections of the Texas state constitution.
I can't find anything about requiring access to the entire internet if you provide access to some of the internet.
Sec. 1 - FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE
Sec. 2 - INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Sec. 3 - EQUAL RIGHTS
Sec. 3a - EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW
Sec. 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
Sec. 5 - WITNESSES NOT DISQUALIFIED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS
Sec. 6 - FREEDOM OF WORSHIP
Sec. 7 - APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES
Sec. 8 - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS; LIBEL
Sec. 9 - SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Sec. 10 - RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
Sec. 11 - BAIL
Sec. 11a - MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS; DENIAL OF BAIL
Sec. 12 - HABEAS CORPUS
Sec. 13 - EXCESSIVE BAIL OR FINES; CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT; REMEDY BY DUE COURSE OF LAW
Sec. 14 - DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Sec. 15 - RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY
Sec. 15-a - COMMITMENT OF PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND
Sec. 16 - BILLS OF ATTAINDER; EX POST FACTO OR RETROACTIVE LAWS; IMPAIRING OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS
Sec. 17 - TAKING, DAMAGING, OR DESTROYING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES
Sec. 18 - IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
Sec. 19 - DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, ETC.; DUE COURSE OF LAW
Sec. 20 - OUTLAWRY OR TRANSPORTATION FOR OFFENSE
Sec. 21 - CORRUPTION OF BLOOD; FORFEITURE; SUICIDES
Sec. 22 - TREASON
Sec. 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Sec. 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
Sec. 25 - QUARTERING SOLDIERS IN HOUSES
Sec. 26 - PERPETUITIES AND MONOPOLIES; PRIMOGENITURE OR ENTAILMENTS
Sec. 27 - RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY; PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
Sec. 28 - SUSPENSION OF LAWS
Sec. 29 - PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE
Sec. 30 - RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS
Sec. 31 - COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME FUND; COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME AUXILIARY FUND; USE OF FUND MONEY
How long do you give it before someone finds their way around this and publishes their method? My school has a firewall, and the site blocking is slightly overzealous, and it took me all of about 10 seconds to get around the URL-based system.
There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
VPfuckinN? thats all I got to say about that...
My legalese is not that great, but it looks like they will only prohibit access to porn, etc, at correctional facilities. They MAY prohibit access at others sites, and will have (it looks like one person) someone to help these other sites implement filters if they want them.
The article as posted certainly seems like flamebait to me. There is no requirement that the state of texas provide net access to anyone. If certain locallities want to implement porn filters, I don't see how that's a bad thing at all. If you want your net porn, go buy it.
Last I checked, my local library doesn't stock hustler - though they do have people mag. Is that also an attack on my 1st amendment rights?
Who do you think is going to be more clever & resourceful... The person trying to hide pr0n, or the person trying to find it?
... Caesar controls.
Of course, this seems to open the possibility that obscene materials could also be banned in email. Or am I misreading things?
I like this section;
(e) This section does not apply to a university system or
institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003,
Education Code.
So at least college kids can still look at porn and med students won't have the breasts filtered out of their diagrams.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Unconstitutional? How is this unconstitutional? Last time I checked the US Bill of Rights, I don't remember a guarantee of access to free porn.
If there is free access provided then I would suggest that they are perfectly within their rights to restrict it in some ways.
This bill protects truckers...adult content.
Don't make me laugh.
On a more serious note, how much protection does any adult need? Further, howbout making it so this protection is opt out? Yeah, I didn't think the Texas state legislature would have satisfactory answers to either question.
Why is filtering a state-provided service unconstitutional? If the government chooses to filter a service they provide for the public, shouldn't they be allowed?
It's not censorship to filter pornographic material on a free service. Now if they were blocking some political party's website, or someone's blog, or any other general info site, you can cry foul. But it's reasonable to expect that a service available to a general audience will be filtered. You don't open it up to the lowest common denominator of filtering; you try to pick a fair medium that will allow access to most material while not to material that a lot of people would find offensive. (especially if you know that kids could access this, which, given the fact that families pull into rest stops all the time, is quite possible)
From the story submission:
"Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional."
Yep, sounds like a big waste of money. They should make people pay for it (preferably by a non-government outfit), then the whole censorship thing would be a complete non-issue. They should have done that in the first place.
Whoes standard do they use. Decency laws are supposed to be set by community standard, but a rest stop isn't a community. Whoes standard will they use. And isn't it the parent's responsibility to make those decisions, not the state? This sounds more like China than the US, wait Texas, nevermind. But it is a free hotspot, but since it is provided by the government this is subject to the laws 1st amendment. The problem with this is that it will never make it to court because it isn't important enough to go to jail for so it won't be struck down in court.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
- opens the possibility that obscene materials could be banned in email if that email were read at a correctional facility or truck stop.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Are you normally this dumb or are you just having a blonde moment? Wouldn't clues have more room to fit in your head if you got rid of some of the gobbledygook in there? Reading your post makes blindness a wonderful thing to look forward to. I am reminded of something relevant that Benjamin Disraeli said: "He was distinguished for ignorance - for he had only one idea and that was wrong."
Reading your post is less interesting than watching paint dry. If wit was spit, your mouth would be drier than a shallow well in an African heat wave. Looking at you, Darwin would NOT be pleased to see how inefficiently evolution sometimes works. Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if you didn't have an intellect rivaled only by the Village Idiot's stupider brother; if your weren't so fat that your clothes come in three sizes: Extra Large, Jumbo, and Oh-My-God-It's-Coming-Towards-Us!, or if you didn't have a face like a bulldog chewing a stinging nettle while taking a constipated dump in a heat wave. Who am I kidding? You would.
In closing, I offer these heartfelt words: Go suck on a frozen pineapple, asshole.
What, like political discussion about free speech?
Do you feel comfortable letting you Congressman decide what is or isn't acceptable for you to view on the Internet?
In my opinion, government should have a light touch, only doing what they absolutely need to do. They shouldn't be going around making laws based on moral reasons.
Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional.
Since when do we have the right to a free internet connection? Not only that, but the right to do whatever the heck we want on a connection that is by no means ours. Come on, that's taking it a bit far. I'm all for individual's rights, and not letting the man go too far, but it seems like people are quick to cry unconstitutional sometimes, which is a shame, becuase it dilutes the impact of similar, legitimate claims.
Finally! Now I'll be protected from all that p0rn getting onto my hard drive. And I'm certain those lonely truckers will be extra grateful for the protection. This is a win-win, folks!
Do I smell an automated flame generator?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
i meant god bless america
lets show 'em and and do it better ourselves!
Please do. Instead of the usual nasty battles over the political pie, just do it without the government. While you may dislike the Christian fundamentalists, they're one one group out of dozens lobbying the government to legislate morality at an ever increasing rate.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
While this is certainly a disturbing development the constitutionality of it is unclear and quite interesting.
On the one hand the first ammendment certainly does not require libraries to provide pornographic magazines or otherwise provide some unbiased representation of viewpoints. In general the first ammendment does not restrict the government from providing some content but not others (except when this infringes on the establishment clause).
However, while library filtering has been deemed constitional the supreme court has also ruled that libraries must allow adults to bypass the filters. In other words apparently the supreme court has recognized that internet filtering is significantly different than buying library books. The library has legitimate financial constraints in what books it provides but does not in internet filtering.
So the question becomes very unclear in the case of truck stops. Since these are entierly automated they can't very well demand a librarian turn the filtering off. Still, since one does need to be at least 16 to drive and because of the real possibility that by providing enough government internet access filtering could stifle free speech I imagine it would be declared unconstitutional but it is a tough call.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
It is important to protect truckers from adult content. You know how sensitive they can be! The last thing that I would want to see after a long drive, at the end of the day, would be a naked woman doing something sexual. Instead, it would be far better for me to read Slashdot, or something of that nature.
You know what delicate flowers truckers can be!
It's municipal. Naturally, it's subject to filtering.
They filter the water, don't they? The analogy is perfect. Perhaps I want mercury and lead in my tap water. Is the municipality trampling my rights by filtering the water supply? Surely, they are actively depriving me of something which is available (water contaminants).
What's the difference?
Voting is now a branch of game theory, where one must attempt to find the best possible outcome, rather than a method of expressing opinion. Complaints like this are what is needed to make a difference. I doubt that an issue like this would make an issue to the majority at a vote, but to those who care about freedom on the internet (or porn) it is important. Also, a precedent set in Texas could affect other areas. Speaking with votes won't make a difference, but communication like this will.
I have freaks! I did something right...
Did anyone think to ask the truckers if they wanted to be "protected"?
But I agree, think of a 10 day trip across the country, with wifi at every truck stop. Some poor dude opens the truck doors at the end and is just washed away by a river of semen.
(idea shamelessly stolen from Adam Corolla)
This bill protects truckers at highway rest stops and campers in their RVs at campsites from adult content.
Who would you want to protect from adult content?
* Children
* Video game players
* Campers (not the video game type)
* Yourself
* Truckers
Yeah, that's right. I'd vote to save the truckers from adult content. Truckers are just so vulnerable and are easily influenced.
Then again, the article itself doesn't even have the word "protect" in it. As for blocking obscene material, I don't see any actual problem with that. Just because the state decides to provide a public service, doesn't mean they have to give you an open pipe. Is it considered socially acceptable to download porn at a public library? At work? At school? Probably not.
-------------
Please help save the truckers! Donate today!
To date, no filtering software can successfully filter out pornographic or obscene materials. We simply haven't developed the AI that can distinguish between benign (or even educational) content and unacceptable content.
When the government starts putting stock in these filtering packages, it opens them up to two types of problems.
1. Lawsuits from organizations that produce otherwise perfectly acceptable content that are mistakenly labeled as obscene and blocked by the filters. We haven't seen this happen en masse yet, but I suspect liable suits will eventually become quite common.
2. Lawsuits from individuals who are exposed to obscene content, and claim that the government was being remiss in its implied promise that the content would be safe "I only let my kids surf the web at the rest-stop because the state told me naughty websites wouldn't be allowed to get through. The government failed to do this, and now my kids have been exposed to naked women pooping on puppies".
I am not a lawyer, so I may be missing something, but I'm really surprised the above two things haven't been happening more often with libraries and schools using filtering.
Meanwhile, I'm just pissed off that when I'm away from home, so many of the websites I frequent are blocked. And not all of those websites are porno.
The Internet is generally stupid
Will somebody please think of the truckers?
Leave your access access points set to SSID "default".
Actually, no, you do that and I'll keep my network secure, thanks. I don't exactly feel like having everyone leech my bandwidth to get into all sorts of trouble that would be traced back to me.
This bill protects truckers at highway rest stops and campers in their RVs at campsites from adult content.
[sarcasm]
Oh yeah, truckers. I'm so sure that truckers at a rest stop in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night need to be protected from seeing internet porn.
[/sarcasm]
If I were looking to start a business, I'd think about machines at rest stops offering internet access, lotion, and packs of tissues.
My other first post is car post.
For everyone upset at the state providing free internet access, remember that government at various levels provides free access to books. Although they don't usually spend rescources on porn, there is general resistence to the idea of someone else deciding what you and I can view via library provided Internet.
Classic example, is it ok to do research on breast cancer?
In the case of print material, libraries providing porn costs more.
In the case of Internet filtering, providing porn (not filtering) costs less.
I say spend less, and let the truckers have their porn.
Likely the politicians don't know how to access internet pr0n, and misery loves company.
"A puritan is someone who is deathly afraid that someone, somewhere is having fun."
i suspect you're being a little generalised here. christian fundamentalist majority? what stats do you base that on? when you talk about democratic networks aren't you implying that the majority determines what is appropriate to view? surely if you're listening democratically to the majority then you need to just allow the due process to let the 'christian fundamentalists' rule this decision. you aren't talking about democracy, you're talking about anarchy...your free access points also subvert parental control (which is the one concession most make to filtering for minors). your need for free porn is not shared by everyone...
Way to not trust your neighbors.
You realize this is why America sucks so much, right?
Ted's therapist: You know rest areas are homosexual hangouts. Ted: hmm? Ted's therapist: Highway rest areas, they're the bath houses of the 90's for many, many, many, many gay men.
perhaps they should also make all open WiFi routers illegal. Data will always find some way to get through, and the best thing to do is find those who abuse children, rather than sweeping them under the proverbial rug. Of course, then people get angry.
I have freaks! I did something right...
Yes to PrOnfilters!
We also need a law that forbids truckers from spending too much time away from their wives.
...And give truckers free Kellog's corn flakes.
And let's keep those hands where we can see them.
The bill was not well thought out, and eventutally dropped.
This bill is just as well thought out. They don't define obscene, and it is impossible to filter out obscene materials. Though the issue OS compatibility does not apply the issue of what is obscene and how do keep up with the changes on the web still exist.
Fight Spammers!
Back in my day, truckers were just about the main demographic keeping the printed porn industry alive, at least as far as one could tell from a) the pin-ups in the backs of their cabs, b) the fact that truckstops seemed to stock a hell of a lot more of it than the average newsagent, and c) the number of stories from truckers published in the letters pages (allegedly).
If truckers want to not get internet porn at truckstops, they can take a very simple measure - don't look for it!. I think for many that could be like asking them to stop breathing. What's next, forcing them to eat salads instead of bacon, sausage and egg on fried bread?
Anyways, as to the constitutionality of pornography: Last I'd known, the Supreme Court's ruling on pornograhy was that it was not covered under "Freedom of Speech." This is why laws controlling pornographic sales are constitutionally legal.
Under those same tenates, doesn't a community (be it a small town, or a state-wide effort) have the right to determine what should be provided over publicly accessible mediums? As long as pornography is not covered under the 1st Amendment, then why shouldn't a community have the right to ensure that little Billy doesn't stumble on to some kinky German fetish site while he's playing around on his laptop while his parents are using the bathrooms at a rest stop?
As much as people talk about the seperation of Church and State these days, it seems that many forget that our founding fathers were big fans of State vs Federal seperation. If Texas wants block pornography from public WiFi spots, fine. And, if San Francisco wants to dedicate their homepage to Gay and Lesbianism, that is their right, as well. And, it's your right to bitch about if you don't like it. That's what makes this country great.
/dev/random
Ohh yeah and PORN IS NOT FUCKING ILLEGAL!!!
;)
It might be illegal fucking, however.
Let's all leave our front doors unlocked, too. And our keys in our cars.
This is in no way unconstitutional. They are providing a service, and are obviously allowed to limit said service in any way they please. Also, I'm sure that they make you agree to some sort of EULA/TOS/AUP before getting online. They don't want to be responsible for allowing flow of illegal content. Grow up, people.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
If I were a jealous wireless service provider, I would sponser such bills. If I couldn't stop Texas form providing wireless, make if expensive for them to operate.
I know this is going to get modded down, but I have to say this. I don't quite understand why the Slashdot editors allow submissions with lines like "Sounds both unconstinutional and wasteful" on the site. It's just bad journalistic practice. Even if Slashdot "isn't trying to be a news outlet" and it's just "exposing the voice of the people", practices like this do nothing but give the so-called geek culture and image of childish, adolescent elitism. The thing that bothers me most however, is that Commander Slashdotter feels no remorse for tearing FOX News a new one for projecting Bush the winner (when, given the amount of votes left and the history of the unreported counties he was clearly going to win) because this shows some sort of "bias", you have no qualm with having your own news stories served to you on a silver platter of editorialism. Sure, if FOX News had said, "Thank God Bush is about to win, we beat the fag Kerry", I would be bothered if no outrage was raised, but when the same sort of thing is passed off as legitimate by an agency even trying to pass itself off as half-credible, I'm going to call them out on it. And just one more note: there's no way to fully understand the ramifications of complex political matters just by RTFA.
I don't really know many truckers that would want to be protected from pornography! Mabye the campers but camping gets boring to me as i'm not an outdoors person, so a little porn would make it more intersting I suppose.
If you pay your taxes you support terrorism!
Here is your new reading assignment.
I know. filter the content and then provide adult content for verified adults. They can verifiy with a credit card. I really don't see the issue here.
This is a state deciding to block access on a service they provide. Normally I'm against this sort of censorship but it seems limited to the state-run wifi networks, so.. they can really do whatever they want. If you don't like it, they're not forcing you to use their service. I would hope porn would be blocked in city parks, etc. as there are many people (and children) around and honestly, if you need porn, the park/rest stop is probably not the best place anyway. They're just dictating the terms of use of their service though, and the state is free to legislate this sort of thing. In fact, it's their job.
Browsing porn sites or browsing /. Both take bandwidth.
The pipe doesn't care whether the bits are naughty or not. They all cost the same.
Why, exactly, are truckers, campers, etc getting free pr0n^H^H^H^H wifi access?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The problem isn't the neighbors, the problem is the same people who want filtering at truckstops. It's their fault that the concept of "illegal information" exists.
I'd love to offer free internet access to everyone, and I'd love it if everyone else did too. But there's too many un-American, anti-free-speech assholes* with too much power over the courts to make it feasable. Sorry.
*Ironically, these are the same people who flaunt their alleged "patriotism" while letting the "ter'rists" win by cowering behind Freedom-killing laws.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Straw Man.
Thank you, please drive through.
Come back when you can debate the actual points.
"We're an apex predator with the fecundity of a base level herbivore... We're a virus with shoes..." RazorJAK
Fuck Cock Shit Balls Bitch. Now I've protected you from using the free trucker wifi to connect to slashdot. You're welcome. :)
Gravity Sucks
Please do. Instead of the usual nasty battles over the political pie, just do it without the government. While you may dislike the Christian fundamentalists, they're one one group out of dozens lobbying the government to legislate morality at an ever increasing rate.
That would be nice, but the people in charge of the political pie just legislate against anyone who tries to do it themselves.
The GP makes a good point in the last part of his/her post.
WTF is your problem?
NM. I can see by your extensive posting history that you're a dick.
Not only is the filtering unconstitutional, but public wi-fi as well as all public roads, or anything by the government is unconstitutional. So let's work to abolish anything that's unconstitutional.
If a state does offer WIFI then would they allow a 3d party to offer private (pay) access?
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Why is this a surprise to anyone?
With all the recent activity with municipalities scrambling to provide wifi in their cities here, and here amongst others.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, imho. As more and more cities jump on the "municipal wifi" bandwagon, censorship will closely follow once the authorities have control of your Internet.
Since the state has no obligation to provide the service in the first place, it's entirely legal for them to do it in any half-assed way they choose.
What we should be asking, is whether this is a reasonable thing to do with tax money at all.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So, as I see recent events, a major cellular player thinks community WiFi is bad and Texas wants to block WiFi in certain areas. When's the all-out ban coming? Am I missing something? WTF?
Kevin
Irrational Diversions
All his posts on slashdot are, word for word, all over internet boards everywhere... are these isolated incidents, or is this some sophisticated plot to pollute the internet beyond any usefullness; weakening it, so that he, in that moment of weakness, may take over!
I think the search results speak for themselves.
Dont be fooled! This is really a complex scheme to take over the internet!
Lets stop bitching about how our plutocratic lords won't give us wireless internet, and lets show 'em and and do it better ourselves!
I, for one, welcome our plutocratic overlords.
Sounds like they're afraid of people using rest-stop connections for drive-by kiddie-porn downloads/uploads. That's the only real use for this filtering that I could see. ... because no one wants to see porn involving only adults to be outlawed.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
You can take your "but think of the children!" bullshit and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
the pr0ns people still find ways to get the waving wangs through the filters.
Oh great, thanks a lot! Now I won't ever be able to look at filtered cofee the same again!
You can't take the sky from me...
I am reminded of an article in the San Francisco chronicle some years ago about gays using rest-stops for anonymous sex rendezvous points. Given that, I can definitely see why the Texans would want to filter wireless at these sites...
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Set up an HTTPS site outside Texas providing access to pr0n for a small subscription fee. Merely forward the content from existing pr0n sites, charge 9.95 a month.
First of all, it's important to read the bill and the background - it began as "The bill prohibits wireless access to obscene materials at a correctional facility." - preventing prisoners in state prisons from viewing porn.
/ committees/cmtembrs.d2w/report?LEG=79&SESS=R&CMTEC ODE=C450&CHAMBER=H&CTYPE=House
It looks like if part (b) was struck from the bill, it would apply only to prisons, but somewhere in the process someone complained about prisoners being singled out, I bet, so they reworked the bill to include this provision.
The hearing of the House State Affairs Committee is scheduled for 8AM in room E2.010 of the Texas State Capitol. This is a public hearing, so I'd urge anyone who's in the Austin area to attend.
The committee's website is available at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/db2www/tlo
This site also links to a page with each representative's contact information. That second page links to their "personal" page on the Texas House of Representatives which has an "email me" form at the bottom, so you can easily email each representative on the committee about this bill.
i appreciate you thinking of my sexual comfort, but i decline with sincere regret. that's naive. parents aren't lazy if their kids are smarter on the computers than they are. computer literate children can and will subvert their parents, so don't give me 'it's the parents responsibility.' there's only so much they can do. but you're missing the point entirely. i'm not saying 'think of the children' i'm saying that there is a double standard here. read before you write...
Hence why we need to get rid of the lobbyists. Here's how, I think...
You need a 30,000 per legislator ratio, or something in that regard. Anything bigger prevents grassroots campaigning. When you have a huge ratio of people per legislator, I think that results in candidates resorting to lobbyists for campaign finances, which they'll have to bend to their wishes if they want any future "donations".
Let me put it another way. Laws that are based on morality rather than safety infringes on people's liberties. This includes censorship of all types, such as banning people from wearing t-shirts in public that contain obscene words or pictures. This includes censoring the Internet in libraries. This includes banning women from divorcing while pregnant. This includes banning people from calling women bad names, but it's okay to call men bad names.
As for library Internet censorship, there's a better way. Have a sign on top of the computer that says, "For educational purposes only, not entertainment. Students have priority. Librarians have discretion on this matter."
... exactly how many truckers need WiFi access to get information about the local tourist attractions? And wouldn't most people have a guidebook or a map - or even a GPS device? Why do they need Internet access?!?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Tom DeLay pushes to have Democratic National Committee websites marked as "Adult Content"...
Who is this guy anyway?
The dumbass christian fundementalists majority is just too powerful a voting block.
Actually the dumbass christian fundamentalists are a small minority. It's just that they are smart enough to actually get out and vote and vote the same way.
If the dumbass freedom-loving liberals would get off their collective asses and make it to the ballot box, most polls show the majority of people who could vote favor liberal social policies.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
It's not a matter of kids "being smarter on the computers" than their parents. Its a matter of parenting. If your kid outwits you regularly and accesses things he knows he shouldn't, you ground the little shit and ban him from the computer. Don't want him going to a truck stop to download porn? Don't buy him a laptop!
FFS, were you one of the people behind Cookie Monster's sudden dietary change too?
It's hardly a spectator sport, really.
If a parent fails -- for any reason -- to imbue some concept of morality into its offspring, it should be held *extremely* liable for such *illegal* acts as such child should commit. This concept should be above most law.
However, the problem is: who decides what is moral?
Here in the USA, we (almost sorta try to) separate religion from law. It does not work now (in particular because of "W"'s religious beliefs), but *has* worked when those in power actually understood the difference between morals and law.
I don't expect it to work ever in my lifetime, and I don't expect to live in the USA for much longer: Non-Christian/Judaic people are not acceptable to the USA government (and even Judaic folks have a *special* sort of tolerance).
If you *think* I am not 100% correct, please comment here (as a non-AC) as to *any* governmental act that shows tolerance to such people.
I expect that as a result of this post, I will become "missing", as should all respondants. Nonetheless, do post (as a non-AC), as our absense will *eventually* be noticed -- even here on Slashdot.
There is no freedom *from* religion here in the USA: all of our government requires belief in *a* supreme being, one by the name of "God" (you should pay particular attention to the words inscribed on the paper currency you use daily).
I heartily plea: get your religion out of my government!
RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
If you think supervising your kids in this way is unreasonable, may I suggest getting yourself spayed/neutered?* Think of the children!
*yes, I'm using the "animal" terms on purpose.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Finally Texas is going to do something about the Goatse guy.
Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
Preciousss, preciouss bandwith! Musst getz the leecherssss outtt.
what exactly are you reacting to? what parent do you know is going to look over the shoulder of their kid (let alone kids) all the time? besides what kind of parenting is that? that was also very clever how you implied i'm an animal : your powers of observation and your wit leave me trembling in awe. now if there were dialogue here (which clearly there isn't because i'm an asshole and an animal--and i'm sure you wouldn't want to be conversing with either of those and yet strangely you are) if you had read my original response, you would notice that my issue is that difference between democracy and anarchy is blurry. can you make comment on that? or are you actually unable to talk about anything other than your knee jerk reactions?
They don't want truckers to use state provided bandwidth to download porn. What's wrong with that? Some people might consider the use of state funds to provide pornographic content somewhat . . . wasteful.
"I mean, what program has the government ever successfully implemented? "
Ever hear of the TVA? That was the fed gov, and it was a success. Also electrification of the rural areas can be credited to Fed Gov.
Someone who gets it!!!!
I'd mod the parent up, but alas, I've posted and cannot use my last mod point.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Truck stop gloryholes!
There're already laws against that. So that cannot be a justification.
You are falling for this argument: (a) might lead to (b) which is illegal, therefore (a) should be illegal. It is already used to justify the criminalisation of mild drugs, as they may lead to less mild drugs. By that stupid argument, being born leads to sex crime, so we'd better mandate abortion for the good of the children.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
A lone trucker stops at a rest-stop for a few hours. He pulls out his laptop (an unlikely thing it seems for a trucker to have) and logs onto Texas Wifi. He tries to check some titty, but the damn filters block it. Frustrated, he checks his email. He notices an email about login information for some website called Slashdot. Must be his son's. Out of boredom due to lack of porn, he click the link to Slashdot just for kicks. It isn't blocked. Suddenly his screen is full of grey and dark green with a white background. He sees new, strange words...Linux, Oracle, IT, BSD...iPod?... His mind is blown by the influx of information. He is no longer the ignorant truck driving hick that he was. He is reborn. He quickly becomes a Slashdotter...addicted. He finds himself compelled to check the site every 13 seconds in attempts to get the elusive first post. He finds himself making jokes about Soviet Russia, overlords, and beowulf clusters. He developes an interest in computers and the internet. He goes to college and gets a degree in computer science. He quits his trucking job and becomes a system admin. He goes from $25k per year to $65k. He buys a new car. He takes the wife on a vacation. He loses weight. The kids can go to college.
And all because Texas blocked porn and not Slashdot.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
I think the original poster was confused about the difference between "democracy" and... "federalism" (for lack of a better term). When he was talking about the christian fundamentalist voting bloc, he was talking about democracy (i.e., mob rule). When he was talking about wifi collectives and co-ops and said "democratic", he actually meant taking the issue into your own hands, and working out something for the local community instead of waiting for the larger government to handle it. He should have called it a "republican" (in the Res Publica sense, not the political party) thing to do, not "democratic."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I made this post warning against censhorship by municipal wi-fi, and the post was ridiculed moderated into oblivion. I used pornography as the most obvious exaple. This article proves I'm right.
/.) doesn't have to be pro-governmnet. It the case of government provided internet access -- the cure is worse than the disease.
An anti-corporate culture (like here on
Software Wars
I wonder why the state is providing internet access anyway - the payphones were put in place bu the phone companies, CB radio makes sence for public safety reasons, but public internet? Whewn the schools have to decide weather to cut music or sports, why are we making municiple broadband wireless a priority?
If you didn't link to some crappy-christian-merchandise.com site, your post might have been funny. Thing is, I bet you're being half-serious in the whack belief that blocking access to "sinful" porn pays blessed dividends. But do correct me if I read you wrong, Thumper.
Power to the Peaceful
Protects truckers from adult content??? The largest personal collections of porn I have ever seen have all been in the cabs of cross-country truckers!
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
Last time I was anywhere near a wifi point, masses of porn material literally bombarded me, and I wasn't even carrying a wifi device, so I think wifi should be banned and even people should have to pay SCO licenses!
In Soviet Russia WiFi Filters You!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
But for a given location, such as a rest stop, it's my understanding that there can be only one WiFi provider -- the dreaded "natural monopoly" of the wired era. As I've long said, WiFi is like the 56k modem of 1997. People didn't even know what DSL was back then, except for the select few who had the service available to them. Everyone was going hog-wild over 56k modems. Just like today, everyone is going wild over WiFi instead of EVDO, which is based on cell phone technology and thus allows competition.
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that guarantees citizens access to unfiltered Internet on public properties?
I agree completely that filtering Internet access is a Bad Thing, but it's not unconstitutional. I'm assuming that the submitter implied that filtering Internet access on public properties would be infringing the Constitution's protection of free speech. Would the government's refusal to provide ANY Internet access constitute a violation of the Free Speech Clause? Of course not. So why would the government providing partial access to the Internet pose a question of Constitutionality?
Why is Texas providing free internet at taxpayers expense anyway? The truckers can pay for their own porn. They need to concentrate on providing a CLEAN reststop instead. Texas must have some of the worst reststops in the country.
Everyone on slashdot loves the idea of the government providing "free" WiFi (free, provided you pay 80% of your income in tax), but things like this show what a bad idea it is.
There is nothing that any type of government does, that isn't politicized. So anything run by the government is going to be censored, controled, and manipulated by politics.
Now, this WiFi access is only accessable by people at rest-stops (i.e. people driving on freeways, most likely across state lines). By its very nature, it is only going to be accessable by adults, or children driving with their legal guardians in plain view. If the government doesn't trust grown adults to access uncensored internet in a public place where people are the least likely to be viewing pornography, political websites, etc., then do you really thing that wonderful municipal or state run WiFi network accessable in schools and homes are going to be uncensored?
But I guess we need to have the government provide WiFi, because otherwise how are poor people going to access the Internet on their Powerbooks when they are out having a capiccino?
It's not about whether or not the truck drivers should be able to watch porno - it's about whether or not the government should PROVIDE the porno for them.
fatigue is a factor in 1.5 percent of all crashes, anything we can do to get people to pull off the road and take a break is going to make our highways safer.
Now if we could just deal with the 98.5% of crashes that are beer induced....
He never has sex again. Thanks a fucking lot, Texas.
A wonderful piece of pre-emptive legislation. Think how many accidents it will prevent and lives it will save, once the truckers get WiMax. It'll stop them driving left-handed...
Oh wait, laptops have a HDD don't they?
It's actionable when government makes laws abridging the freedom of speech. Filtering a "public service" in such a way as to restrict free speech (and its complement, the freedom to hear said speech if you so choose) is an abridgment, by law. Calling it a "public service" or "public utility" and claiming a constitutional exemption just won't cut it. (the US Constitution trumps the TX one in this regard)
The US Constitution does NOT hamper the ability of a content provider to censor the content they provide. Under your argument the FCC itself would be unconstitutional. So would filters in libraries.
Regulating the content which people choose to access on a taxpayer funded information highway is an altogether different thing - an unconstitutional, draconian, totalitarian one.
Where in this story did it say they're regulating the internet? They're NOT - they're regulating access at THEIR WAPs.
The 1st provides for Freedom of Press - it does NOT require that all government presses be free. Similarly, 1st amendment doesn't require that all WAPs be free, just that you have the right to BUY YOUR OWN. What, do you think all government printing presses are free too? Can I go into a government press with a pamphlet and make them print it for me? No.
If they are providing such a service on the taxpayer's dime, it must be usable by every taxpayer in whatever manner they so choose.
That's factually incorrect. Speed limits on highways, to go with your example, prove you wrong. Not to mention that would be freaking stupid.
If you're a troll, that was well crafted, hats off. If not, actually read what the laws say and mean before spouting off about things "Draconian" there Chicken Little.
If you provide a service, you should be allowed to define acceptable use of it.
Basically it will also prevent bandwidth waste and save money.
I'm from Texas and I like this rest stop wi-fi project.
However I don't think citizens of Texas should foot the bill some people can download oh say, kiddie porn or use the states wi-fi for file sharing.
Only a small group of people would do it but I can easily imagine "sickos" (see:child porn) who live close by to these spots trecking over there for the free high speed.
On the other foot I don't think the state of Texas wants the RIAA to sue them because they found gigs and gigs of music are being moved over their networks at road side stops.
Many things to consider here.
"Freedom and Justice for All" is a registered trademark of The United States Govt Inc. Not available in all areas.
I do not want Texas to be paying for porn delivery. The purpose of the rest stops access is information, email and etc.
Get a free ipod.
Wait.. Wait... Wait....
Where am i supposed to learn all my profanity now?
"Pornography" is legally meaningless. It covers a great deal of material that does have first amendment protection. It's usually used as a rhetorical device to imply that the material in question has no social value, and that anyone who defends it must be depraved.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
like the /. alarmists are at it again.
Sounds like it's truely analogous to natl. TV and RADIO airwaves, since they are operated by the govt. and are right to be held by the same standards.
Let em get private access if they want it. The govt. shouldn't be providing porn to TRUCKERS, sooner than later one of em will decide the pictures aren't good enough and will start seeking it out in the flesh - whether the second half of the equation concents or not.
The Munis should not be in the business of providing me access.
You can still get cellphone internet, hook that up to your laptop/pda/just use the cellphone, and browse all the porn you want.
The only thing that's being limited is the government's service of providing wifi at trucker rest spots. If the trucker wants to surf porn, he can buy a cellphone.
Now that that's out of the way, this is a dumb idea because the implimentation will never work; truckers will surf porn with proxies so that they can get some late nigh-wanking in before they go to sleep, and children in RVs won't be able to do research projects on the breeding patterns of the praying mantis; it's how these filters allwase end up working. So, it's a useless waste of money put together to attempt to garner votes from soccer moms with needless 'were thinking of the children' responces.
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
I know this is slashdot and filtering is evil etc. But filtering software a la websense or surfcontrol marginally protects web surfers from spyware and malicious web code, and it also stops http worms from spreading. It doesn't sound like that's the goal here, but some level of filtering on public internet connections is not necessarily a bad thing.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
Next thing you know, the Lone Star State will have a little mosque built in downtown Austin, ajoining the capital.
Texas is the "What the hell?" state.
This sounds to me like a sneaky dodge to force the state to add expensive and trouble-prone filtering that simultaneously drive up the cost to the state and reduce the value of the service to travelers.
What do you want to bet that the people really behind this measure are not the bluenoses, but rather telecom services that would like to undermine public WiFi so that they can offer a similar product for a fee (with no filtering, naturally).
"He quits his trucking job and becomes a system admin. He goes from $25k per year to $65k. He buys a new car. He takes the wife on a vacation. He loses weight. The kids can go to college."
You don't seem to realize that truckers make more money than the vast majority of Slashdot.
Remember pornography is NOT covered under free speech rights, according to the supreme court.
While *citizens* may think its unconstitutional, their opinion doesn't really matter.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Basically nothing. But if there's a legit reason - and I'm not saying there is - then it's that they probably don't want a bunch of truckers looking at porn at rest stops frequented by other people, which might include women traveling alone. Probably wouldn't be the safest thing. I know I don't want my wife having to stop for a piss at a rest stop filled with a bunch of truckers who are by that point...frustrated.
So I don't buy the moral angle, and I don't buy the money angle, but I might buy the safety one. But bottom line, it ain't unconstitutional in any case. So some people around here need to get a grip.
...watching gay animal-sex with robo-dildo, creamed-corn wrestling while I wait for the guy in the crapper to hoist his pants so I can prop up a leg.
Real men bang it on the edge of the bowl.
__________________________________________
...are scrambling to write to their legislators in support of the bill.
-paul
Yeah, the pimps got upset about Truckers having wireless pr0n, it was taking away from their prostitue sales. They lobbied the texas lawmakers to make sure that they'll stay in buisness for years to come under the "save the children at rest stops" campainge.
There is a difference between censoring privately controlled communications and media (unconsitutional) and public communications and media (constitutional).
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
let's get over a few of these preconceptions. When I was in school some time back I didn't have internet where I lived, okay, I didn't even have electricity. Anyways, I spent a ton of time at the local truckstop since it offered reasonable dialup (25 cents unlimited) and strong coffee (65 cents unlimited). I'd bring my laptop and work on code, surf the net, etc.
Everyone there knew me and I got to know a good deal of truckers. Many had laptops even back then. I am sure these days with laptops being as cheap as a dvd player it's standard equipment.
Now mind you, you probably think I am an ignorant hick, but I found the people at the truck stop to be generally quite intelligent. I even got to know a driver whose brother was one of the top engineers at Nortel. And some actually read Slashdot.
I would even go so far as to posit that most truckers have more of a hacker mind than most deskjockies. Further, this is why the internet bubble crashed -- there was not enough of a hacker community to create an anthem as compelling as Convoy . I would even go so far to say that Texas doesn't want an internet version of Convoy so they are trying to put the kaibosh on all of that with the excuse of porn when they realized truckers used the net more than tourists in caravans.
And yes, most experienced truck drivers would be taking a pay cut to become Network Admins and where did you get the idea that becoming an admin would help you loose weight...face it, physically, driving a computer is about the same thing as driving a truck.. nonstop sitting and snacking
The constitution does not guarantee a person the right to internet access. When an organization, public or private, provides public access to the internet, it is provided as a service. We have no rights as to exactly how that service must be provided, it is at the whim of the provider. If we don't like how they provide it, we can petition for change or vote differently in the next election to get in guys who will set things up the way we want it. But to call it a constitutional violation when public internet is filtered? That is ridiculous.
I love my sig.
Truckers could build their own network. Each truck serves as hub, very much like HAM radio. Ham meat in the back, ham radio in the cab. Add a few access points spread over the country, like phone, satellite, fixed AP's. That should keep our truckers happy on their way to the Texas reps with a truck load of adult material. Is there software that can do it? How about installations from home-to-home?
adult content. They are paying for it.
Furthermore, there is a solid argument that the public square should have community standards applied to it. The 1st amendment is primarily concerned with content of speech, esp. political speech.
Adult content doesn't really fit into that.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Neither Municipal or Private business will be immune from calls for restrictions. The real answer is to change the publics attitude about free speech, and freedom of information.
Thanks for putting on the feedbag. Thanks for going all out. Thanks for showing me your Swiss Army knife.
At the point where you use filtering to promote or discourage certain values and opinions. Let me answer with two examples of my own this time:
1) Imagine the access points block every second site at random. This would be rather stupid but not censorship, because there is no bias in the blocking.
2) Imagine the access points "generously" allow access to pro-abortion web sites but not to anti-abortion websites (opposite of what I would really expect from conservative texans).
This would be censorship because internet users get to see the arguments of one group but not the arguments of the other. Or maybe you would prefer to call it "state sponsored propaganda", if you insist on the point that access is added instead of taken away.
Either way, it does not mix with the idea that a democratic country should not try to tell its citizens what to read and view.
C - the footgun of programming languages
A quick trip down the I-75 I made last summer proved that there is much more to be done. After places entitled 'We Bear All' every 20 miles or so, it really had us wondering... Of course, I'm sure the truckers only use those for the FREE SHOWERS and 24-hour buffet.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Now, there's some parts of Texas I do love...but this ain't one of 'em. Consider that this is the state that so "terrified" of HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY IN BATHROOMS (horrors!) that they don't have doors on the stalls in the men's bathrooms on Interstate rest stops.
No sh*t.
mark, naturalized Texan
The point wasn't about porn, it was about Slashdot.
And thanks for the tip about the URL. Kinda was wondering why my posts were getting modded down for no reason...seems to be heavy anti-religious bias on Slashdot I should have taken into account.
And yes, I am a christian, but I don't particularly care what anyone else does. I have my opinions about the way things should be, just as anyone else...but I'm not going to force myself on anyone.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
yeah, great bill. :rolleyes:
Nuke Texas. If Saddam's Iraq couldn't be allowed to exist, neither should Texas.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
All it sounds like they will achieve is protecting lonely truckers from getting some stimulation for a much needed jerk-off. I guess they will have to resort to their old tactics of bringing along a porno mag...
P.S.
I wasn't yelling at the previous poster, the angry tone was directed at congress for the reason I described.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Have you ever seen a lot lizard?
Not everything is the man trying to hold you down. I think the proper way to look at this is the public service model. The city/county/state might provide you a public bathroom. Rest stops along the highway are a great example. They provide you a place to go to the bathroom. Sorry though, they don't usually provide showers, bathrobes, your favorite magazine or even those comfortable cushioned toilet seats. Should they have to? No. The city/county/state wants to provide you some internet connection in a public place. You'll want to be able to check your email and zip over to the news. Do they need to give you a chance to view porn or do something that many taxpayers would find objectionable? (ie against community standards) Heck no. When I'm going down the freeway and I see that Rest Stop coming up I say thank goodness there's a bathroom coming up. I don't say curses- no cushioned toilet seats - *&%# the man! If they have WiFi I'm going to say woo hoo- check the email and check the weather conditions - not *%#$ the man! He's not letting me go to truckerhostanks.com!
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Of alamist posts about proposed legislation. At least wait until a committee has approved it. Right now, it doesn't even have a name. Even if it passed, the ACLU would tie it up for years.
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
Since when did it become necessary to protect truckers against pornography????? If anything, we should be handing it to 'em on a silver platter... gotta have some way to keep 'em away on the road!
I think we're all pretending that porn is a neutral medium- that it doesn't affect us, either as individuals or as a society. That's just wrong. Sexual imagry has temendous power. Contolling power. If it were not so then why is sex all over advertising?
Let not pretend that porn is no different than the evening news.
>> No constitutional right for government to give you adult content. They are paying for it.
And who is paying for the government?
...is that the worse it gets, the more good Texans leave, so the worse it gets. I suspect it would occur with the U.S. and Canada except that plenty of us like warm weather. Whereas for Texas, there are plenty of other places with comparable climate.
Public Rest Areas are the most common area that sexual abductions occur. Most sexual predators are addicted to pornography. It doesn't take a genius or evil Christian to figure out that you don't want rapists lurking in rest areas looking at porn and waiting for victims to assault or kidnap.
Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional."
What amendment says that the states have to provide free and open access? Oh, must be the same one that you think lets you browse kiddie porn.
Whatever - the state is being responsible, and providing a service at no cost to the user. In the end, they should have every right to say what people can and can't do with it - after all, they aren't MAKING you use their connection. There's other options if you wanna browse your own stuff.
Woo hoo!
Of all the dangers of Internet Abuse, Texas has chosen to address downloaded porn. Not identity theft. Not spam. Not DDOSs. Not even the serving of port. Just the downloading of porn.
Terrific priorities.
Eh.
:-/
I don't really know if I care for the stereotype that truckers are all hicks. It seems as though life has a way of taking us all down various roads.
I had a summer job running amusement park rides, now I'm a CS grad student.
As for Slashdot fostering ones academic interests... I think that that used to be true, but not so much anymore. Also, many posters know quite little about which they speak.
Also, on the topic of becoming a sysadmin. Most admin jobs don't really seem to require a degree in computer science anymore. I would say a couple of quick certs and you could run an NT network. A couple Linux certs and you could run a Linux network. As for other machines... I took care of a number of Solaris and HP-UX machines, as well as a few more exotic OS such as VxWorks. That was all strictly in the territory of the programmers.
If you get a degree in CS, unless you research, or do something outside the field, you'll probably program.
Also, $65K starting is a bit high. The mean salary of students who have completed their Masters of Engineering degree (starting that is) is in the neighborhood of $70k. I've known seniors software engineers who made only a bit more. When I was looking for jobs, the reported salary for a software engineer (starting) was around $45
Fuck Texas and their child-friendly, Jesus-friendly, anti-intellectual, anti-freedom laws. Seriously.
If they want to make their state into child-safety Jesusland, let them. Maybe if the home state of most of the Federal assholes of the month becomes perfect, they'll all go back and leave those of us descended from people in states that actually fought for freedom and the bill of rights, alone.
just because something is constitutional means nothing. this is a document and set of laws that have existed and evolved for a couple hundred years. big deal.
...all of this was constitutional, too.
The USA once had legal prostitution, legal marijuana and white slavery was commonplace.
Honestly they are on the roads for hours alone they cant drink so what else is left , smoking and porn.
They could also do several other constructive things like:
Learn a foreign language via audio.
Listen to an audiobook.
Listen to their favorite music for hours on end via mp3 based audio CD-Rs and players.
Listen to commercial-free satellite radio.
Or, they can listen to standard, ad-clogged commercial radio or (relatively ad free) public radio.
Then I supposed they could watch TV if somebody perfects a suitable 'Heads-Up display' for it....
No wireless porn at rest stops?
Looks like men at rest stops'll hafta get their jollies the old fashioned way -- sucking each other's dicks when nobody is around.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I think this is a bad thing, not because of the questionable free speech situations, but because it means my state will be spending my taxes on a useless service.
Even if I wanted these wifi spots to be filtered, I couldn't get it. Companies like Secure Computing claim that their products do things that are absolutely impossible. For example, they claim that the URL list for Smartfilter is "Built by our team of multi-lingual Web Analysts who look at thousands of Websites everyday to ensure accurate categorization and comprehensive global coverage." Who among the tech-savvy on Slashdot can read that and not call bullshit?
As far as I'm concerned, these products are scamware designed to take advantage of people who don't know computers well enough to know how intractable real internet filtering is. Why should we legislate money to them?
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
The taxpayers who through their duly elected representatives set the groundrules for what they pay for.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.