No, you got it wrong. You can post whatever you want, full stop. Which part of "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" you don't understand?
Every aspect of the Bill of Rights comes with a big ole asterisk. (Freedom of Speech/*Hate Speech, Right to Bear Arms/*Fully Automatics, etc. etc.)
I almost buy your post. The problem is that a sign alone isn't enough. The owner would actually have to confront the "trespasser" and tell them they are not welcome on the private property. The sign does not automatically cover the owner. What DID happen is Google went on private property (knowingly or unknowingly, doesn't matter) and took pictures. THEN the owners complained (rightfully so) and then Google took them down (rightfully so). That's how it should and did work. Had the owners come out of their house and said "leave now and don't take any pictures" then Google did anyway, THEN I might buy the "illegal" line.
So if somebody came knocking on their door, say to ask if they'd like their lawn mowed, they are trespassers? I think not. I think the burden is on the home owners to tell any "trespassers" they are not welcome and they have to leave. A sign saying "Our special private drive" does not suffice, nor would even a "No Trespassing" sign. It is clear in most jurisdictions that you can't just throw up a sign and then arrest the first guy who comes along without telling them they aren't welcome.
I hope I get 'jailed' by you someday. I'll sue your ass off for false-imprisonment, as a sign in your yard doesn't justify you arresting me. If you ask me to leave, and I don't, that's a different story.
Maybe you missed the post above that talks about "reasonable expectation of privacy"...as in it is reasonable to expect the inside of your house to be private but the outside, as long as it is in a public place (like you don't own your own island country), not so much.
I only stated "IN" as a response to the parent post saying "I don't want you in my house". That's the problem with slashdot lawyers...they don't RTFA and they make their assumptions. Besides, didn't Google already take it down because of the complaint? That makes this a non-issue in my book, and the "damages" are bogus.
And just how far does this magic bubble ("the law") extend to protect somebody's private property from public view? I'm a huge fan of laws. I'm not a fan of slashdot lawyers.
Good thing they weren't actually IN anybody's house. Why let little details like that get in the way of an otherwise decent slashdot discussion though.
Driving up to someone's house on their "private property" (err, driveway) should never be illegal. Google is welcome to photograph the outside of my house as much as they like, since I don't consider it to be private, since there's no way for me to hide it from public view.
You can take pictures on military installations AND the NSA if you want...just not inside restricted areas within. I have an entire photo album of stuff when I worked at those places.
So, I guess by your logic Republicans are whats wrong with the Congress, and the country in general?
By my logic, there are more Democrats in Congress than Republicans. What's your point? I prefer not to editorialize when I am trying to make factual observations.
Well stated. Whenever I see a really fat guy at the gym, all I can think is "good for you buddy!". Those guys are totally motivating. I've even said as much to one guy, as I've noticed he's dropped quite a few pounds over the past 6 months. I hope my little words of encouragement help him stick to it.
Unless you've got the luxury of a huge amount of space,
With these 8 linux boxes, these 2 WinNT servers, these five routers, 8 CRT monitors, 16 keyboards and 42 mice, I'll NEVER find a place for all this exercise gear!
30 minutes at 8mph (4 miles). Burns approx 450-500 calories.
WHAT???? I think your treadmill is off. I burn that many calories in about half that time (at 190lbs). I run 15-30 miles per week and run various 10k and half-marathons. I can assure you that people involved in this thread (hint, the ones who see little benefit in exercise) can't run 8mph for two minutes let alone FOUR MILES!!! I've been running 3-5 times a week now for the past four years and 8mph on a treadmill is tough for me past 2 miles. Even if you meant 8 min/miles, that's still REALLY fast.
So as not to discourage those on here who may think of taking up running, here's some advice. Get a heart-rate monitor and keep your heart rate in the fat-burning zone. The main reason people don't lose weight when they run is because they run too fast, getting out of fat-burning, into cardio-building zones. Running slowly, especially when you are new to it, not only burns more fat, it also doesn't discourage you from keeping up the habit.
2 hours? I suggest no out-of-shape geek on slashdot try this at home without fear of death. No wonder you guys try working out once then give up forever.
I work out 3-5 days a week at the gym and run 10ks and half-marathons (as a hobby, not competitively). The LONGEST I ever work out is 45 minutes. A couple times a year I do a long run to prep for a half-marathon (10 miles max, 90 minutes).
Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in, or both
Hmm...my fuzzy equals circuit is trying to tell me that caving in is somehow equivalent to sanctioning...
I see. I hastily chastised the summary as appearing to be biased against Republicans, which wasn't my intent. I should have kept going to the second part. You excellently point out the second instance of biased summary here as well. In other words, the assumption is that this is some sort of MESS and that Democrats don't REALLY support it--they just are "caving in". Maybe this ISN'T the mess some of the more passionate civil rights advocates think, and maybe some of those Democrats voting for it really DO support it and aren't merely caving in. This really is a case of slashdot summarizing an article that appeases the slashdot-mentality crowd. The law probably has DRM in it and probably runs on Linux too;-)
I feel sorry for you as well. You seem to be incapable of removing yourself emotionally from the conversation at hand and resort to (incorrect) personal attacks.
Since your response was such an incredibly emotionally charged (incorrect) assumption about me, let me recap my position. My Fuhrer, The President, doesn't write laws, Congress does. That is the whole point of this. A Republican President does NOTHING without the majority support of the Congress (except veto). I don't have a political party, so I can't have blind faith to my political party. This telecom bill has support from BOTH sides of the aisle, so it is neither a Republican or a Democratic issue, regardless if EVERY Republican voted for, and only a few Democrats did. They STILL DID and the law STILL PASSES.
I think you mean to say that biased writing isn't necessarily factually wrong. You can be biased and still be correct, that isn't what I'm debating here. What I AM debating is that slashdot isn't doing anybody any favor by using biased language, other than to feed the typical slashdot frenzy that is guaranteed to ensue. Point in case:
Some things are worth getting sensationalist over, like violations of fundamental constitutional rights and the granting of immunity to corporations that enabled it.
The assumption that everyone thinks the way you do and your choice of words makes your point worthless by any academic standard.
What makes the language biased is that there is an underlying assumption that EVERYBODY sees this telecom immunity bill the same way--as if it were some sort of awful injustice. Maybe it is, but it isn't as cut-and-dried as THIS article summary opines.
No, I'm finding bias in the headline-grabbing sensationalist language used in the slashdot "summary". Just because I agree with some of the findings, doesn't mean it couldn't be reported in a more unbiased way. You mention "caving in" which is also biased (the other way). In other words, just your typical slashdot summary--there to incite, pander, and feed the tin-foil hats. The real irony is that regular joe-slashdotter was able to point out the reality of the situation in his reply to my post than was the slashdot summary, which is kind of my whole point.
Don't try to confuse him with facts, he's busy engaging in Big Lie Republicanism.
It's not very often that slightly left of center Democrat-leaning realists like myself engage in your so-called Big Lie Republicanism. Interestingly enough, it still isn't happening. Just because I happen to agree with NOT tanking the telecom industry by opening them up to stupid liability litigation doesn't make me a Republican.
Ok, that I can concede...the creation of the mess lies in the hands of Republicans. However, the SANCTIONING of said mess lies fully in the hands of the Congress, who created and approved this bill. So I stand by my assertion that the article summary is biased. Such inclusion just cheapens an otherwise decent argument. It's funny how slashdot threads are often better stated than the slashdot articles. Maybe slashdot should get some new editors.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you got it wrong. You can post whatever you want, full stop. Which part of "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" you don't understand?
Every aspect of the Bill of Rights comes with a big ole asterisk. (Freedom of Speech/*Hate Speech, Right to Bear Arms/*Fully Automatics, etc. etc.)
Murdering a wife and providing wireless service are not related.
I almost buy your post. The problem is that a sign alone isn't enough. The owner would actually have to confront the "trespasser" and tell them they are not welcome on the private property. The sign does not automatically cover the owner. What DID happen is Google went on private property (knowingly or unknowingly, doesn't matter) and took pictures. THEN the owners complained (rightfully so) and then Google took them down (rightfully so). That's how it should and did work. Had the owners come out of their house and said "leave now and don't take any pictures" then Google did anyway, THEN I might buy the "illegal" line.
So if somebody came knocking on their door, say to ask if they'd like their lawn mowed, they are trespassers? I think not. I think the burden is on the home owners to tell any "trespassers" they are not welcome and they have to leave. A sign saying "Our special private drive" does not suffice, nor would even a "No Trespassing" sign. It is clear in most jurisdictions that you can't just throw up a sign and then arrest the first guy who comes along without telling them they aren't welcome.
I hope I get 'jailed' by you someday. I'll sue your ass off for false-imprisonment, as a sign in your yard doesn't justify you arresting me. If you ask me to leave, and I don't, that's a different story.
Maybe you missed the post above that talks about "reasonable expectation of privacy"...as in it is reasonable to expect the inside of your house to be private but the outside, as long as it is in a public place (like you don't own your own island country), not so much.
I worry about those who are arguing that it is indeed legal, and that there is nothing we can do about that.
I worry about people who think just posting a "Private Drive" sign has any legal merit.
I only stated "IN" as a response to the parent post saying "I don't want you in my house". That's the problem with slashdot lawyers...they don't RTFA and they make their assumptions. Besides, didn't Google already take it down because of the complaint? That makes this a non-issue in my book, and the "damages" are bogus.
And just how far does this magic bubble ("the law") extend to protect somebody's private property from public view? I'm a huge fan of laws. I'm not a fan of slashdot lawyers.
Good thing they weren't actually IN anybody's house. Why let little details like that get in the way of an otherwise decent slashdot discussion though.
Driving up to someone's house on their "private property" (err, driveway) should never be illegal. Google is welcome to photograph the outside of my house as much as they like, since I don't consider it to be private, since there's no way for me to hide it from public view.
You can take pictures on military installations AND the NSA if you want...just not inside restricted areas within. I have an entire photo album of stuff when I worked at those places.
So, I guess by your logic Republicans are whats wrong with the Congress, and the country in general?
By my logic, there are more Democrats in Congress than Republicans. What's your point? I prefer not to editorialize when I am trying to make factual observations.
Well stated. Whenever I see a really fat guy at the gym, all I can think is "good for you buddy!". Those guys are totally motivating. I've even said as much to one guy, as I've noticed he's dropped quite a few pounds over the past 6 months. I hope my little words of encouragement help him stick to it.
Unless you've got the luxury of a huge amount of space,
With these 8 linux boxes, these 2 WinNT servers, these five routers, 8 CRT monitors, 16 keyboards and 42 mice, I'll NEVER find a place for all this exercise gear!
30 minutes at 8mph (4 miles). Burns approx 450-500 calories.
WHAT???? I think your treadmill is off. I burn that many calories in about half that time (at 190lbs). I run 15-30 miles per week and run various 10k and half-marathons. I can assure you that people involved in this thread (hint, the ones who see little benefit in exercise) can't run 8mph for two minutes let alone FOUR MILES!!! I've been running 3-5 times a week now for the past four years and 8mph on a treadmill is tough for me past 2 miles. Even if you meant 8 min/miles, that's still REALLY fast.
For reference, here's a link to a Navy Seal forum about "trying" to run that fast: http://www.navyseals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146220
So as not to discourage those on here who may think of taking up running, here's some advice. Get a heart-rate monitor and keep your heart rate in the fat-burning zone. The main reason people don't lose weight when they run is because they run too fast, getting out of fat-burning, into cardio-building zones. Running slowly, especially when you are new to it, not only burns more fat, it also doesn't discourage you from keeping up the habit.
Who would have EVER guessed that a slashdot discussion on exercise would involve martial arts!
2 hours? I suggest no out-of-shape geek on slashdot try this at home without fear of death. No wonder you guys try working out once then give up forever.
I work out 3-5 days a week at the gym and run 10ks and half-marathons (as a hobby, not competitively). The LONGEST I ever work out is 45 minutes. A couple times a year I do a long run to prep for a half-marathon (10 miles max, 90 minutes).
I find weight lifting, jogging around tracks and the like to be incredibly monotonous.
I find grinding in Stranglethorn Vale to be incredibly monotonous too, but I gotta get to level 40!
How Do Geeks Exercise? Two words buddy: Speed Typing
Article summary said -
Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in, or both
Hmm...my fuzzy equals circuit is trying to tell me that caving in is somehow equivalent to sanctioning...
I see. I hastily chastised the summary as appearing to be biased against Republicans, which wasn't my intent. I should have kept going to the second part. You excellently point out the second instance of biased summary here as well. In other words, the assumption is that this is some sort of MESS and that Democrats don't REALLY support it--they just are "caving in". Maybe this ISN'T the mess some of the more passionate civil rights advocates think, and maybe some of those Democrats voting for it really DO support it and aren't merely caving in. This really is a case of slashdot summarizing an article that appeases the slashdot-mentality crowd. The law probably has DRM in it and probably runs on Linux too ;-)
I feel sorry for you as well. You seem to be incapable of removing yourself emotionally from the conversation at hand and resort to (incorrect) personal attacks.
Since your response was such an incredibly emotionally charged (incorrect) assumption about me, let me recap my position. My Fuhrer, The President, doesn't write laws, Congress does. That is the whole point of this. A Republican President does NOTHING without the majority support of the Congress (except veto). I don't have a political party, so I can't have blind faith to my political party. This telecom bill has support from BOTH sides of the aisle, so it is neither a Republican or a Democratic issue, regardless if EVERY Republican voted for, and only a few Democrats did. They STILL DID and the law STILL PASSES.
Some things are worth getting sensationalist over, like violations of fundamental constitutional rights and the granting of immunity to corporations that enabled it.
The assumption that everyone thinks the way you do and your choice of words makes your point worthless by any academic standard.
What makes the language biased is that there is an underlying assumption that EVERYBODY sees this telecom immunity bill the same way--as if it were some sort of awful injustice. Maybe it is, but it isn't as cut-and-dried as THIS article summary opines.
No, I'm finding bias in the headline-grabbing sensationalist language used in the slashdot "summary". Just because I agree with some of the findings, doesn't mean it couldn't be reported in a more unbiased way. You mention "caving in" which is also biased (the other way). In other words, just your typical slashdot summary--there to incite, pander, and feed the tin-foil hats. The real irony is that regular joe-slashdotter was able to point out the reality of the situation in his reply to my post than was the slashdot summary, which is kind of my whole point.
Don't try to confuse him with facts, he's busy engaging in Big Lie Republicanism.
It's not very often that slightly left of center Democrat-leaning realists like myself engage in your so-called Big Lie Republicanism. Interestingly enough, it still isn't happening. Just because I happen to agree with NOT tanking the telecom industry by opening them up to stupid liability litigation doesn't make me a Republican.
Ok, that I can concede...the creation of the mess lies in the hands of Republicans. However, the SANCTIONING of said mess lies fully in the hands of the Congress, who created and approved this bill. So I stand by my assertion that the article summary is biased. Such inclusion just cheapens an otherwise decent argument. It's funny how slashdot threads are often better stated than the slashdot articles. Maybe slashdot should get some new editors.