Try to work for any of the companies or agencies that support the U.S. Department of Defense. You'll find much the same thing.The NDA is the commercial equivalent of a security clearance.
It could be worse than simply signing an agreement to keep your mouth shut. You could be asked to submit to a 15-year background investigation, urinalysis and polygraph tests.
That said, I don't think you can make a legal argument. In the defense industry, potential employees are informed of the security requirements and agree to comply before they are hired. That agreement is binding. I may find urinalyis to be objectionable, but I'm stuck with it. Anyone who refuses to comply is locked out.
I don't see the point. To add "You & I & I" to the CD in MP3 format and not make it playable as a standard CD audio track just seems gimmicky. "Look fans! We support other formats!" Big deal.
Then again, adding the 3+ minutes of dead air to the 13th track, "You Won't Be Mine" doesn't make any sense to me either and seems like an overused gimmick.
IANAA (I am not an artist), so maybe I don't understand the symbolism.
As for Metallica... I used to really like them until they started imitating Korn.
...but I need to reiterate that you do not have a first ammendment right to use a library computer
I'm curious. Is there a court decision to support this or is it your personal opinion? Please don't take this question the wrong way. You could be a Supreme Court justice for all I know. It just seems to me that as one that is providing my share of the taxes, I might have some rights to use a publicly owned computer at the library.
Once you have eradicated all the real threats, create some more and eradicate them also. It's not important that they be real threats. Funding is what is really important.
Would the drug war have lasted this long were it not so lucrative for law enforcement?
As a practical issue, I don't see how the community can do it. Therefore, most communities will simply forfeit control to the software manufacturer.
As an idealistic issue. I don't trust the majority. There's a quote I've read here on/. and I wish I had it handy. The gist of the quote is that squashing individual rights in the name of the majority is a poor use of democracy.
The position I advocate? Let the libraries use any filter software they want under one condition. That is to disable the filter for ANYONE that asks. The advantage is that children probably won't ask because they are embarrased and the squeamish can be protected from random acts of pornography.
I admit, the position has holes in it. But it allows some protection for those that want it without stomping on the 1st Amendment rights of those that don't.
They are not shutting these sites down, and they are not trying to stop you from using your own computer to get at them. If they were, for example, requiring all ISP's to install these filters, that would be censorship.
In this country, there is still a rather large percentage of the population that has no access to the internet other than that provided by the public library. By installing this software, the library is in fact censoring them.
If a public library doesn't have a particular book in stock, you can always get it ordered and delivered from other public libraries. Will the libraries also disable this filter whenever asked? By anyone?
If not, the library is restricting access to information and that is censorship, IMHO.
This is a case of the what a library does with its resources. There is no room for debate about whether they are allowed to control what they make available... they are. The only debate that matters is whether they should use these filters or not.
Therein lies the point. By using software such as CP or NetNanny, the library is giving control of their content to yet another organization, a private corporate organization.
How does the community decide what is acceptable? Do they put the software under some sort of configuration management? Does the community get to vote on what sites and subjects are inappropriate or do we simply accept what CP and NetNanny says? Do we trust these corporations to look out for what's best in our community? I think not. I don't trust the majority and I have no interest in having some bureaucrat impose his/her opinions of decency on me or my children.
Here's a morsel for the zealots:
Matthew 5:29 - And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Exactly. Moody is a true troll if I ever read one. He's like Dvorak(sp?). He will take a totally extreme point with little facts just to get people angry, hence more hits to the site he rights for.
So what else did you expect from a mainstream journalist? Sensationalism sells.
I guess it depends on who you ask regarding good and evil. In the United States, we are "one nation under god". If you ask Iran/Iraq, we are the "great satan". Who's right and who's righteous? I guess that really depends on who ultimately wins the conflict.
I believe that most if not all people are generally good and don't wish to harm others. Most people will find the prospect of killing another human to be horrific and unimagineable. So, how do you send these good people to fight your war?
Give them sanction. Convince them that they fight (and kill) for the greater good. Slogans like, "God and country" have a purpose. A soldier with a conscience can't possibly be as effective as one without. If fighting for your government is not enough motivation, declare the conflict to be Jihad or holy war. Nothing can possibly be as liberating as fighting for your god when death is considered the ultimate prize.
As for adding hyperlinks to my messages, I don't care. I don't see it as being much different than what AskJesus does to websites.
As for opting out, well, I'm not opting out of hundreds of messages one by one. That's not an opt-out policy, that just an excuse of an opt-out policy.
Agreed. Deja should give you the ability to remove all of your messages in one fell swoop.
Having journalists who are unafraid to dig into the private lives of politicians means that there is a far greater chance of scandal and corruption being uncovered and exposed, something which can only benefit society in the long run - who wants corrupt leaders?
One day, we may find a perfect leader, a man (or woman) that has never erred in judgement and never made a mistake or acted inappropriately, an enviable example of what is best in human beings and what is attainable in a civilized society.
I hope I'm there when they nail his wrists to the cross and crucify him.
Gimme a break. It's one thing to worry about abuses of power that injure children or violate the rights of others. It's an entirely different issue if the president has consensual sex with an adult female outside of his marriage. Somewhere, there is a balance. Until we find a system that will accept human frailties and weaknesses, we will be left with politicians that are forced to do whatever it takes to maintain the illusion of sainthood.
If you feel violated, you can remove your posts from Deja.
http://www.deja.com/forms/nuke.shtml
Simple as that.
Sure , today they're only adding links, but on the basis of all the arguments saying Deja.com is doing an OK thing, what's to stop them from doing more?
Right... and teenage smoking leads to crack babies. It's a damn hyperlink. Big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Try to work for any of the companies or agencies that support the U.S. Department of Defense. You'll find much the same thing.The NDA is the commercial equivalent of a security clearance.
It could be worse than simply signing an agreement to keep your mouth shut. You could be asked to submit to a 15-year background investigation, urinalysis and polygraph tests.
That said, I don't think you can make a legal argument. In the defense industry, potential employees are informed of the security requirements and agree to comply before they are hired. That agreement is binding. I may find urinalyis to be objectionable, but I'm stuck with it. Anyone who refuses to comply is locked out.
If this post is meant as a joke, great. I got a few chuckles.
If it's not, then it's scary.
I don't see the point. To add "You & I & I" to the CD in MP3 format and not make it playable as a standard CD audio track just seems gimmicky. "Look fans! We support other formats!" Big deal.
Then again, adding the 3+ minutes of dead air to the 13th track, "You Won't Be Mine" doesn't make any sense to me either and seems like an overused gimmick.
IANAA (I am not an artist), so maybe I don't understand the symbolism.
As for Metallica... I used to really like them until they started imitating Korn.
...and why do we drink incessantly?
Because the U.S. government will not decriminalize the use of anything other than alcohol, nicotine and caffeine.
Mexican beer isn't bad if you use it as a chaser for tequila.
I'm curious. Is there a court decision to support this or is it your personal opinion? Please don't take this question the wrong way. You could be a Supreme Court justice for all I know. It just seems to me that as one that is providing my share of the taxes, I might have some rights to use a publicly owned computer at the library.
Of course, I may be completely wrong... IANAL.
cheers.There is no job security like security.
Once you have eradicated all the real threats, create some more and eradicate them also. It's not important that they be real threats. Funding is what is really important.
Would the drug war have lasted this long were it not so lucrative for law enforcement?
Actually, I'm advocating neither.
As a practical issue, I don't see how the community can do it. Therefore, most communities will simply forfeit control to the software manufacturer.
As an idealistic issue. I don't trust the majority. There's a quote I've read here on /. and I wish I had it handy. The gist of the quote is that squashing individual rights in the name of the majority is a poor use of democracy.
The position I advocate? Let the libraries use any filter software they want under one condition. That is to disable the filter for ANYONE that asks. The advantage is that children probably won't ask because they are embarrased and the squeamish can be protected from random acts of pornography.
I admit, the position has holes in it. But it allows some protection for those that want it without stomping on the 1st Amendment rights of those that don't.
This is misleading in the extreme. If you read the opensecrets page deeper, you'll find how they define "individuals".
INDIVIDUALS: All contributions from individuals, both large and small.
Is a $1000 contribution considered to be large?
They are not shutting these sites down, and they are not trying to stop you from using your own computer to get at them. If they were, for example, requiring all ISP's to install these filters, that would be censorship.
In this country, there is still a rather large percentage of the population that has no access to the internet other than that provided by the public library. By installing this software, the library is in fact censoring them.
If a public library doesn't have a particular book in stock, you can always get it ordered and delivered from other public libraries. Will the libraries also disable this filter whenever asked? By anyone?
If not, the library is restricting access to information and that is censorship, IMHO.
This is a case of the what a library does with its resources. There is no room for debate about whether they are allowed to control what they make available... they are. The only debate that matters is whether they should use these filters or not.
Therein lies the point. By using software such as CP or NetNanny, the library is giving control of their content to yet another organization, a private corporate organization.
How does the community decide what is acceptable? Do they put the software under some sort of configuration management? Does the community get to vote on what sites and subjects are inappropriate or do we simply accept what CP and NetNanny says? Do we trust these corporations to look out for what's best in our community? I think not. I don't trust the majority and I have no interest in having some bureaucrat impose his/her opinions of decency on me or my children.
Here's a morsel for the zealots:Matthew 5:29 - And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
If that's the case, I wish we had a president like Clinton when I was in school.
Exactly. Moody is a true troll if I ever read one. He's like Dvorak(sp?). He will take a totally extreme point with little facts just to get people angry, hence more hits to the site he rights for.
So what else did you expect from a mainstream journalist? Sensationalism sells.
Good point and counter-point.
Anonymity does not suit you, IMHO.
Oh gawd... that is funny. Somebody moderate this up.
Wasn't The Long Walk published in the Bachman Books?
I guess it depends on who you ask regarding good and evil. In the United States, we are "one nation under god". If you ask Iran/Iraq, we are the "great satan". Who's right and who's righteous? I guess that really depends on who ultimately wins the conflict.
I believe that most if not all people are generally good and don't wish to harm others. Most people will find the prospect of killing another human to be horrific and unimagineable. So, how do you send these good people to fight your war?
Give them sanction. Convince them that they fight (and kill) for the greater good. Slogans like, "God and country" have a purpose. A soldier with a conscience can't possibly be as effective as one without. If fighting for your government is not enough motivation, declare the conflict to be Jihad or holy war. Nothing can possibly be as liberating as fighting for your god when death is considered the ultimate prize.
He said that Apple is not a operating system provider at all, and instead is a manufacturer of proprietary computer systems.
Which just goes to prove how little Judge Jackson knows...
As for adding hyperlinks to my messages, I don't care. I don't see it as being much different than what AskJesus does to websites.
As for opting out, well, I'm not opting out of hundreds of messages one by one. That's not an opt-out policy, that just an excuse of an opt-out policy.
Agreed. Deja should give you the ability to remove all of your messages in one fell swoop.
Having journalists who are unafraid to dig into the private lives of politicians means that there is a far greater chance of scandal and corruption being uncovered and exposed, something which can only benefit society in the long run - who wants corrupt leaders?
One day, we may find a perfect leader, a man (or woman) that has never erred in judgement and never made a mistake or acted inappropriately, an enviable example of what is best in human beings and what is attainable in a civilized society.
I hope I'm there when they nail his wrists to the cross and crucify him.
Gimme a break. It's one thing to worry about abuses of power that injure children or violate the rights of others. It's an entirely different issue if the president has consensual sex with an adult female outside of his marriage. Somewhere, there is a balance. Until we find a system that will accept human frailties and weaknesses, we will be left with politicians that are forced to do whatever it takes to maintain the illusion of sainthood.
Hmmmm... Flamebait... Must've struck a nerve. Score this as redundant then.
IMNSHO, it can't possibly be "massive" if I had the fix installed BEFORE I even heard of the security hole.
Of course, YMMV.
I have not been trolled. I have not lost. Have a nice day.
Hmmm... my install went flawlessly. YMMV, I guess.
Bad choice man... Have you ever tasted the pizza? It's horrible. :-)
If you feel violated, you can remove your posts from Deja.
http://www.deja.com/forms/nuke.shtml
Simple as that.
Sure , today they're only adding links, but on the basis of all the arguments saying Deja.com is doing an OK thing, what's to stop them from doing more?
Right... and teenage smoking leads to crack babies. It's a damn hyperlink. Big deal.