The upfront cost is $500 a head. But students do plenty of illegal shit online. Harassment, mp3 trading, warzing... How much does it cost a college to lose a student because he's gone to jail? At least a semester of lost tuition and / or the cost of over-enrolling students on the expectation that some will get pinched. A drop in the number of applications because the ratings have fallen, because the graduation rate is lower. And who knows what else!
Now, multiply that by a couple dozen or in the case of a large, highly-wired school maybe a thousand or so.
Wrong. They're smart and know very well what they're doing. The problem are the uninformed, uneducated masses who rush to vote for them as soon as any proposed new law has either "terrorism" or "children" attached to it.
I wasn't alive back in the 60's, but the Congressman from my hometown basically invented the un-germane rider. And now everyone does it. Back in the Gingrich days, they tried to stop riders to big appropriations bills, but I guess either the initiative failed or people found a loophole. Anyway, maybe our legislators need to pull a page from this playbook. Imagine a "Safeguarding Liberty for Our Children Act" that, y'know, pushes back on stuff like USAPATRIOT. I mean, it'll result in the Anti-Terrorism Drought Relief Act of 2442... but it looks like we're headed down that road anyway.
Now if only we had some legislators of our own.
Well, I guess we have Boucher... and it only takes one to introduce a bill. But you need more than that to get it passed.
I'd hate to be the guy who worked from 8:00 until 5:00 the next morning. But if I rolled in at 13:00, I wouldn't have to work at all... possibly get fired, I guess.
I have young students that occasionally search for school-related things using Google. Some of the sites that come up are questionable at best.
I call bullshit.
Back in 2000 when the library filters case was winding its way through the courts, there was this urban legend that if you searched for chocolate chip cookie recipes, there'd be a porn site in the first page of results. Yet nobody when put on the spot could come up with a search string on any website that would return recipes for chocolate chip cookies and porn on the same page of results.
How young are these kids?
What are they researching?
What "questionable" sites come up?
For that matter why are young (I'm presuming this means elementary school) kids being allowed to cite stuff from Teh Intarweb? Through high school, college and law school (the web scarcely existed when I was in 8th grade) the refrain has always been: show them how to do dead-tree research first.
It's not manpower and muskets. It's the tanks, fighter jets, the training, and what happenes when your one-in-ten rebellion gets between Starbucks, Wal*Mart and the other nine out of ten.
Why are the children at risk online in an unsupervised environment?
You wouldn't leave your kids alone with free access to guns or alcohol.
You wouldn't leave your kids alone a room with a dangerous animal.
You wouldn't drop your kids off in the middle of a sex trade region.
But I thought the Internet was supposed to be safe as a mall! Or a city park!
I thought the boring, machine-readable stuff (i.e., not just headlines) was supposed to be in metadata. No need to do a hatchet job on a descriptive or witty title. Of course, I just may be an old codger in Internet time.
What's more, I thought the whole point of Pagerank was to make your page associated with what others think your page is about... that if your obituary about Gene Pitney is entitled "Tulsa star: The life and career of much-loved 1960's singer." it'll show up in a search for Gene Pitney because (hopefully) that string will be indexed from the page body and that as other people associate your page with Pitney — irrespective of the <title> that obituary will float towards the top. And if they use your witty title, not only will you get more popular for "Gene Pitney", but also "Tulsa Star" as well.
But there are unwashed masses that do use other search engines, but I thought the last people to rely absolutely on metadata were Alta Vista and WebCrawler.
One wonders where the public will draw the line. Reminds me of the recent Boston Legal monologue from the epsidoe "Stick It" where the lawyer (who gives the following monologue) is defending a woman against tax evasion charges. I find it very apt:
Silly! The only conclusion you can draw is that if you didn't experience the bone loss and muscle atrophy, then you didn't sleep with your head at the ass-end of the bed.
Sorry, I just aced a blogthings logic quiz without meaning to.:-)
There's probably someone who left me an in I could reply to, but I haven't found it yet.
This smacks of ego to me — that she's trying to sate a desire to be the center of attention WHERE'S MY SPOTLIGHT!!! and not to communicate — because unless the evaluation system is broken, grades should show who mastered the material and who didn't. If taking notes by laptop was a perceived hindrance to mastering the material, students would dump them of their own accord.
Plus, this is LAW SCHOOL... if she thinks someone isn't rapturously lost in her nuanced delivery of the part of Law Professor, she should humiliate them in front of the whole class Paper Chase or Legally Blonde style.
My point is, that under strict scrutiny, unless the government can keep almost all porn in.xxx almost all the time and doesn't redirect a non-pornographic website from abroad to.xxx, it won't meet the requirement of narrow tailoring. A software solution would risk false positives (unconstitutional for overbreadth); a human solution wouldn't leave too much porn in the rest of the Net (unconstitutional for underinclusion).
I doubt this would come up in the context of an foreign non-porn website operator suing because his website got placed in.xxx by mistake. (I don't know that they'd have standing to make a First Amendment claim for blocked speech originating outside U.S. territory) But if a porn website operator, who either gets fined for not moving or can credibly show lost business: all he has to do is show the law doesn't work as advertised to get it overturned.
The current definition of speech left unprotected by the Constitution as obscene is
appeals to the prurient interest in sex... full stop
lacks serious political, scientific, artistic, or literary value... full stop
against prevailing community standards... full stop
Even if it's not void for vagueness, it's a content-based regulation of protected speech (and gratuitous violence will be constitutionally protected until the show's run by Stevens and Ginsburg, not Scalia and Thomas) that would be subject to strict scrutiny. If Congress says there's a compelling government interest in keeping babies away from Dead or Alive Topless Lesbian Ulama and Aztec Sacrifice... then there is one. But is the law narrowly tailored? It can't keep out foreign porn in the.com domain (unless they plan on buying a Great Firewall of China from Google)... so no.
It's not about moralism. Last time this came up, the consesus was it was about protecting brick & mortar casinos in the U.S., who can't open online operations without forcing a re-write of U.S. banking and wire-transfer laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Money talks? It gets even better.
The upfront cost is $500 a head. But students do plenty of illegal shit online. Harassment, mp3 trading, warzing... How much does it cost a college to lose a student because he's gone to jail? At least a semester of lost tuition and / or the cost of over-enrolling students on the expectation that some will get pinched. A drop in the number of applications because the ratings have fallen, because the graduation rate is lower. And who knows what else!
Now, multiply that by a couple dozen or in the case of a large, highly-wired school maybe a thousand or so.
Does this mean that EA's going to publish Spore for the Wii?
I wasn't alive back in the 60's, but the Congressman from my hometown basically invented the un-germane rider. And now everyone does it. Back in the Gingrich days, they tried to stop riders to big appropriations bills, but I guess either the initiative failed or people found a loophole. Anyway, maybe our legislators need to pull a page from this playbook. Imagine a "Safeguarding Liberty for Our Children Act" that, y'know, pushes back on stuff like USAPATRIOT. I mean, it'll result in the Anti-Terrorism Drought Relief Act of 2442... but it looks like we're headed down that road anyway.
Now if only we had some legislators of our own.
Well, I guess we have Boucher... and it only takes one to introduce a bill. But you need more than that to get it passed.
I'd hate to be the guy who worked from 8:00 until 5:00 the next morning. But if I rolled in at 13:00, I wouldn't have to work at all... possibly get fired, I guess.
True. But you can probably still patent it.
I call bullshit.
Back in 2000 when the library filters case was winding its way through the courts, there was this urban legend that if you searched for chocolate chip cookie recipes, there'd be a porn site in the first page of results. Yet nobody when put on the spot could come up with a search string on any website that would return recipes for chocolate chip cookies and porn on the same page of results.
For that matter why are young (I'm presuming this means elementary school) kids being allowed to cite stuff from Teh Intarweb? Through high school, college and law school (the web scarcely existed when I was in 8th grade) the refrain has always been: show them how to do dead-tree research first.
No signs of exposure, eh? Look at this picture and tell me it's not an oatmeal-mutant!
But!!! But iPhoto isn't integrated into the Operating System like Vista picture editing!!!
'course... maybe that's a good thing.
Friday night is prime time for SWG? No wonder they have no subscrubers left.
It's not manpower and muskets. It's the tanks, fighter jets, the training, and what happenes when your one-in-ten rebellion gets between Starbucks, Wal*Mart and the other nine out of ten.
Drink Sprite. Play again.
But I thought the Internet was supposed to be safe as a mall! Or a city park!
Oh.
I thought the boring, machine-readable stuff (i.e., not just headlines) was supposed to be in metadata. No need to do a hatchet job on a descriptive or witty title. Of course, I just may be an old codger in Internet time.
What's more, I thought the whole point of Pagerank was to make your page associated with what others think your page is about... that if your obituary about Gene Pitney is entitled "Tulsa star: The life and career of much-loved 1960's singer." it'll show up in a search for Gene Pitney because (hopefully) that string will be indexed from the page body and that as other people associate your page with Pitney — irrespective of the <title> that obituary will float towards the top. And if they use your witty title, not only will you get more popular for "Gene Pitney", but also "Tulsa Star" as well.
But there are unwashed masses that do use other search engines, but I thought the last people to rely absolutely on metadata were Alta Vista and WebCrawler.
As far as defenses go, that's more or less the same as pleading guilty.
Silly! The only conclusion you can draw is that if you didn't experience the bone loss and muscle atrophy, then you didn't sleep with your head at the ass-end of the bed.
Sorry, I just aced a blogthings logic quiz without meaning to. :-)
But we know the Britannica article on this is better because... well, they say so.
There's probably someone who left me an in I could reply to, but I haven't found it yet.
This smacks of ego to me — that she's trying to sate a desire to be the center of attention WHERE'S MY SPOTLIGHT!!! and not to communicate — because unless the evaluation system is broken, grades should show who mastered the material and who didn't. If taking notes by laptop was a perceived hindrance to mastering the material, students would dump them of their own accord.
Plus, this is LAW SCHOOL... if she thinks someone isn't rapturously lost in her nuanced delivery of the part of Law Professor, she should humiliate them in front of the whole class Paper Chase or Legally Blonde style.
My point is, that under strict scrutiny, unless the government can keep almost all porn in .xxx almost all the time and doesn't redirect a non-pornographic website from abroad to .xxx, it won't meet the requirement of narrow tailoring. A software solution would risk false positives (unconstitutional for overbreadth); a human solution wouldn't leave too much porn in the rest of the Net (unconstitutional for underinclusion).
I doubt this would come up in the context of an foreign non-porn website operator suing because his website got placed in .xxx by mistake. (I don't know that they'd have standing to make a First Amendment claim for blocked speech originating outside U.S. territory) But if a porn website operator, who either gets fined for not moving or can credibly show lost business: all he has to do is show the law doesn't work as advertised to get it overturned.
The current definition of speech left unprotected by the Constitution as obscene is
Even if it's not void for vagueness, it's a content-based regulation of protected speech (and gratuitous violence will be constitutionally protected until the show's run by Stevens and Ginsburg, not Scalia and Thomas) that would be subject to strict scrutiny. If Congress says there's a compelling government interest in keeping babies away from Dead or Alive Topless Lesbian Ulama and Aztec Sacrifice... then there is one. But is the law narrowly tailored? It can't keep out foreign porn in the .com domain (unless they plan on buying a Great Firewall of China from Google) ... so no.
But tell the senators thanks for playing.
I went to the bar and ordered a Guinness, but you're right: thems elves went and grabbed the glass out of my hand and ran off god knows where.
It's not about moralism. Last time this came up, the consesus was it was about protecting brick & mortar casinos in the U.S., who can't open online operations without forcing a re-write of U.S. banking and wire-transfer laws.
My SWAG: Some sort of interface with the DS, ala the GCN / GBA system link.
It's all our fault!
Actually, the trend over the last few decades has been to de-classify homosexuality as a pathology.
A moderation for deliberately wrong stuff? Try "Troll".
Oh... wait... *head implodes*
:-)