"speech": oral communication "press": printed communication "free": exempt from external authority
The 1st amendment explicitly and precisely exempts all oral(audio) AND printed(visual) communication from external authority
Since it is free, that means that THE AUTHOR, not you, is free to do whatever he likes with it, in any way he likes (so he can say only left handed people can read it, for example).
If all the bank, energy, media, communications, etc. mergers are any indication, I would say the customers are right. We certainly don't need any more "too big to fail" scenarios.
The cockpit crew on the next generation shuttle will consist of a pilot and a German Shepherd. The dog's purpose is to bite the pilot's hand off if he reaches for the controls.
The moon? There's lots more in the sun. Just stick a big straw into it and drain it out. Just don't let BP do it. They'll blow out a big hole and the thing will fly off like a balloon.
For your edification: This unexpected development makes me wonder if Barnaby Jack's previously thwarted demonstration will actually take place at this year's Black Hat USA taking place later this month.
It's not illegal to speak or publish your thoughts.
It's not illegal to take pictures either, but people are still being harassed for it. Those rights are regularly violated, and not enough people stand up to it to take notice. Our rights don't mean much if nobody will defend them.
Why would he be in trouble?
Precedence. People have been arrested for revealing exploits. And several conferences have been canceled in the states over these issues in the past also.
The safest bet by far is to remain anonymous. The information is more important than the guy's ego.
No, I'd rather hold the bank responsible for any loss. They should have to replace the money. With that kind of incentive, they might actually try to make their systems a bit more secure. An important step in this direction would be to quit using cheap commodity systems in their networks.
No government nor corporation has a right to muzzle our mouths.
No they don't, but they did and they do... And the public couldn't care less. If he put it on piratebay, he can still get in trouble. His name is all over it. Only anonymous disclosure can remedy this.
I shouldn't have to, but I repeat, On regular mass media... You know, major networks, New york Times, FOX... The places where the vast, vast majority still get their info. The influence of the internet beyond the echo chamber is still insignificant to non existent.
...According to the law as I understand it, your right to free speech/expression ends in cases of slander, libel, national security, copyright violation, threats, child pornography, and others.
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.
I posted the law here for your convenience. Can you show where it stipulates any limits on free speech? See, because I understand "no law" to mean no law. Yeah, I understand the judges disagree with me, but I believe they are mistaken.
So, you're saying the media is covering that up? I haven't seen a single story where they speak on those issues. On regular mass media, not a blog that might have 40 readers or so. Because if they really are for the repeal of prohibition, the legalization of prostitution, etc., they're not getting the point across very well.
You went beyond your initial point when you implied it's best to leave BP management in charge of the operation when clearly that is not the case. The is no "Bond movie conspiracy" That's merely your out of hand dismissal to marginalize those who want the truth. Yes they really are doing that crap. Read the documents already released that illustrate the corner cutting.
Gee, on that note, you'd think they would take a closer look at the controlled substances act, and the patriot act, free speech zones, etc. No, they really don't believe in obeying the constitution nearly as much as obeying the bible.
Slashdot Mirror
"speech": oral communication
"press": printed communication
"free": exempt from external authority
The 1st amendment explicitly and precisely exempts all oral(audio) AND printed(visual) communication from external authority
Since it is free, that means that THE AUTHOR, not you, is free to do whatever he likes with it, in any way he likes (so he can say only left handed people can read it, for example).
Balderdash!
President Hayward asked congress today to pass his new budget before the summer recess
...Apple would be quite as happy to sell you a rotten banana peel as they are to sell you an iPod.
Ah yes, I can see the fanbois now... Telling you that iPeels are the best
If all the bank, energy, media, communications, etc. mergers are any indication, I would say the customers are right. We certainly don't need any more "too big to fail" scenarios.
The cockpit crew on the next generation shuttle will consist of a pilot and a German Shepherd. The dog's purpose is to bite the pilot's hand off if he reaches for the controls.
The moon? There's lots more in the sun. Just stick a big straw into it and drain it out. Just don't let BP do it. They'll blow out a big hole and the thing will fly off like a balloon.
Could get messy. The Styrofoam might melt.
When the pipes start leaking, it won't pee all over the board
When did IBM switch over to AMD?
...Just toss them whatever equipment they request and an occasional sandwich...
:-) You didn't RTFA!
For your edification: This unexpected development makes me wonder if Barnaby Jack's previously thwarted demonstration will actually take place at this year's Black Hat USA taking place later this month.
HTH...
It's not illegal to speak or publish your thoughts.
It's not illegal to take pictures either, but people are still being harassed for it. Those rights are regularly violated, and not enough people stand up to it to take notice. Our rights don't mean much if nobody will defend them.
Why would he be in trouble?
Precedence. People have been arrested for revealing exploits. And several conferences have been canceled in the states over these issues in the past also.
The safest bet by far is to remain anonymous. The information is more important than the guy's ego.
in the USA?? I would not recommend that at all. Just put it on the net from a secure location..
you'd rather your bank was burgled?
No, I'd rather hold the bank responsible for any loss. They should have to replace the money. With that kind of incentive, they might actually try to make their systems a bit more secure. An important step in this direction would be to quit using cheap commodity systems in their networks.
No government nor corporation has a right to muzzle our mouths.
No they don't, but they did and they do... And the public couldn't care less. If he put it on piratebay, he can still get in trouble. His name is all over it. Only anonymous disclosure can remedy this.
I shouldn't have to, but I repeat, On regular mass media... You know, major networks, New york Times, FOX... The places where the vast, vast majority still get their info. The influence of the internet beyond the echo chamber is still insignificant to non existent.
Not the camera... the battery.. It's a bomb!
Or order them from memorizing everything.
No problem. Just install a flashy thing at all the exits...
Let's start using those little bitty spy cams. Wireless, so they can't steal and destroy the evidence.
...According to the law as I understand it, your right to free speech/expression ends in cases of slander, libel, national security, copyright violation, threats, child pornography, and others.
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.
I posted the law here for your convenience. Can you show where it stipulates any limits on free speech? See, because I understand "no law" to mean no law. Yeah, I understand the judges disagree with me, but I believe they are mistaken.
I really cannot see the remotest chance of that happening.
I doubt I'll ever let you be my bookie. You just aren't looking very hard
So, you're saying the media is covering that up? I haven't seen a single story where they speak on those issues. On regular mass media, not a blog that might have 40 readers or so. Because if they really are for the repeal of prohibition, the legalization of prostitution, etc., they're not getting the point across very well.
You went beyond your initial point when you implied it's best to leave BP management in charge of the operation when clearly that is not the case. The is no "Bond movie conspiracy" That's merely your out of hand dismissal to marginalize those who want the truth. Yes they really are doing that crap. Read the documents already released that illustrate the corner cutting.
Forget it, man. You're just being obstinate.
I know it's illegal. That has nothing to do with wrong.
Gee, on that note, you'd think they would take a closer look at the controlled substances act, and the patriot act, free speech zones, etc. No, they really don't believe in obeying the constitution nearly as much as obeying the bible.