Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-----
We've already established that filtering out pornography in public libraries doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court has established that the First amendment doesn't apply to "obscenity" (which actually is redefined every year), as it is not considered to be either speech or symbolic speech. This is what allows the FCC to regulate what is broadcast over the air, and what allows the press to be regulated in such a manner also. Yes, folks, pornography filtering is constitutional, and it's been going on for a very long time.
Someone please explain to me why we are having this discussion?
Sheesh I can't believe it. What are we turning into, a mob? Think logically, folks. You don't go to the university. You have no connection to it. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what the IT department has done (read my other post: http://slashdot.org/comme nts.pl?sid=00/01/29/1837209&cid=78). And yet someone says, "Hey, let's spam the President of the school" (albeit through snail mail) and everyone jumps aboard, moderating his points up to 5?!!
This is ridiculous. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
There is no issue here on constitutionality. What amendment does it break? The 1st? The 4th? It breaks none of these. When you sign a housing contract -- be it with a university, apartment complex, whatever -- you explicitly agree to all the conditions therein. Now, I go to a university (Cal Poly) that is extremely lax in its network usage policies, yet to live on-campus, I still had to sign a contract that said I would abide by them. I suspect all universities have an "unnecessary bandwidth usage" clause that gives them plenty of breathing room. Wake up, folks; This isn't an "outrage", this is business, and while I think that's probably taking it a bit to the extreme, it's perfectly within their right -- and best interest -- to enstate such a policy. Now, having said that, I for one am still glad I live on a campus that gives us T-3 access, Mountain Dew, and long-distance for $.11 a minute.
Actually, it is. All electromagnetic radiation is easily pinpointable to a certain star, or cluster, or galaxy. But there was always a universal background radiation. Before now, everyone thought that the cosmic background radiation was heat (and EM radiation) left over from the big bang, still in the process of dissipation.
I'm not an astronomer; anyone know what the ramifications this has on the Big Bang theory? My guess is that it doesn't disprove it. But it sure takes a big chunk out of it...
Well, there actually was a reason for the law. To quote Mr. Perens:
" There was a logical reason to pass this law in the 1920's. Military stations needed a way to order the hams off of the air if the country went to war, or if the hams were interfering with the military stations during peacetime. Since the military didn't have any voice radios, they required the hams to learn Morse Code so that they'd understand when they were given government orders. Another reason for having the hams know Morse was that the government wanted telegraphers for communication during wartime. It took a long time to train a telegrapher, so it was easier to just draft a ham who had already learned the code. "
Since the law is etched in international treaty, the requirement for Morse apparently can't be repealed by Congress, only slackened (as it just has been). Some see this as a way to let more people into the field of amateur radio, most hams I've spoke to though just think it's neat (kind of like programming, I guess), plus it turns their hobby into an exclusive club. One guy I know says he usually likes to just sit there and do morse code instead of talk because it's easier.
I recommend reading Mr. Perens' article at http://perens.com/Morse.html , it gives a good background on the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-----
We've already established that filtering out pornography in public libraries doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court has established that the First amendment doesn't apply to "obscenity" (which actually is redefined every year), as it is not considered to be either speech or symbolic speech. This is what allows the FCC to regulate what is broadcast over the air, and what allows the press to be regulated in such a manner also. Yes, folks, pornography filtering is constitutional, and it's been going on for a very long time.
Someone please explain to me why we are having this discussion?
Ryan Kirk
http://topflight.net
Sheesh I can't believe it. What are we turning into, a mob? Think logically, folks. You don't go to the university. You have no connection to it. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what the IT department has done (read my other post: http://slashdot.org/comme nts.pl?sid=00/01/29/1837209&cid=78). And yet someone says, "Hey, let's spam the President of the school" (albeit through snail mail) and everyone jumps aboard, moderating his points up to 5?!!
This is ridiculous. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
There is no issue here on constitutionality. What amendment does it break? The 1st? The 4th? It breaks none of these. When you sign a housing contract -- be it with a university, apartment complex, whatever -- you explicitly agree to all the conditions therein. Now, I go to a university (Cal Poly) that is extremely lax in its network usage policies, yet to live on-campus, I still had to sign a contract that said I would abide by them. I suspect all universities have an "unnecessary bandwidth usage" clause that gives them plenty of breathing room. Wake up, folks; This isn't an "outrage", this is business, and while I think that's probably taking it a bit to the extreme, it's perfectly within their right -- and best interest -- to enstate such a policy. Now, having said that, I for one am still glad I live on a campus that gives us T-3 access, Mountain Dew, and long-distance for $.11 a minute.
Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" is a classic.
Actually, it is. All electromagnetic radiation is easily pinpointable to a certain star, or cluster, or galaxy. But there was always a universal background radiation. Before now, everyone thought that the cosmic background radiation was heat (and EM radiation) left over from the big bang, still in the process of dissipation.
I'm not an astronomer; anyone know what the ramifications this has on the Big Bang theory? My guess is that it doesn't disprove it. But it sure takes a big chunk out of it...
Ryan Kirk
rkirk@calpoly.edu
http://topflight.net
" most hams I've spoke to though just think it's neat (kind of like programming, I guess),"
(meaning, they think Morse code is neat, not the new law)
Ryan Kirk
Well, there actually was a reason for the law. To quote Mr. Perens:
" There was a logical reason to pass this law in the 1920's. Military stations needed a way to order the hams off of the air if the country went to war, or if the hams were interfering with the military stations during peacetime. Since the military didn't have any voice radios, they required the hams to learn Morse Code so that they'd understand when they were given government orders. Another reason for having the hams know Morse was that the government wanted telegraphers for communication during wartime. It took a long time to train a telegrapher, so it was easier to just draft a ham who had already learned the code. "
Since the law is etched in international treaty, the requirement for Morse apparently can't be repealed by Congress, only slackened (as it just has been). Some see this as a way to let more people into the field of amateur radio, most hams I've spoke to though just think it's neat (kind of like programming, I guess), plus it turns their hobby into an exclusive club. One guy I know says he usually likes to just sit there and do morse code instead of talk because it's easier.
I recommend reading Mr. Perens' article at http://perens.com/Morse.html , it gives a good background on the topic.
(Sorry, Bruce, I got here first...)
Ryan Kirk