That should be the function of an unfettered marketplace, not a tyrannical government of nanny bureaucrats and busybodies that take pleasure in dictating lifestyle choices to others.
The marketplace doesn't and shouldn't care about what I do with the electricity I buy... just as long as I pay for it. As supplies become scarce, prices go up... AS THEY SHOULD.
I don't need the goddamned government coming into my private home and telling me what I should or should not do with the energy I choose purchase with my hard-earned money from my hard work. They can stay out of my business.
If you believe it is OK for government to tell people how to live, how to eat, and how to take a shit, perhaps North Korea is more your type of country.
The Green Police will monitor your power usage and fine you for "excess". You think cap and trade is only for "greedy corporations"? No no no no no... this will hit consumers even harder. If you have 5 TVs when others only have 2 or 3 and you use 10 kwh per month than the rest of your neighbors, you'll be branded socially irresponsible by government bureaucrats and hauled before some board to explain yourself, before being ordered to cut a check to make amends for your abuse of the planet. Oh, and that extra mini-fridge you have in your home-office, basement, man-cave or garage? That's very anti-Green so it will just have to go.
And Intel is playing along since they can turn a buck on this, but they are being exploited by government as a "useful idiot" to get them what they've been wanting all along.
Does this technology have some good uses? Absolutely! But when placed in the wrong hands, this, like any technology, can and will be used to achieve ulterior motives as well.
First of all, I did not threaten violence, but you better believe I would threaten legal action, because to enforce something as stupid as this brings permanent psychological harm to a child in my view.
But there is an easy solution: stop adopting and implementing such ridiculous, nonsensical policies.
This is EDUCATION we are talking about. Start using some of that education and THINK about what's right and what's wrong here.
Is it RIGHT to give a detention to a 3rd grader over a piece of hard candy?! Forget who wrote what regulation! IS IT RIGHT?!
Sorry, but this is not just a matter of "well, that's the rule so we have to follow it". I don't think so.
Not if a "rule" is so far out of the realm of common sense that it's enforcement has done damage to the child. Not when so-called "authority" has abused it's power, and has abused those it was put in charge to serve.
In this case, it has brought harm to this child. She is going to be harmed for the rest of her life. She will always distrust people in positions of authority even moreso than what any reasonable person normally should.
And really, I don't see any reasonable defense of any so-called "professional" who would enforce something like this. It's insane as as far as I'm concerned.
THEY have already failed any kind of attitude test, common-sense test, and sanity test when they pull this kind of bullshit.
What the hell has happened to our schools when they expel kids for carrying a plastic butter knife to cut the food thier mom packs for them; or suspend them for possessing a piece of - gasp - hard candy... or - and this absolutely puts me into a "vitriolic rage" when they tell kids they have to go home for wearing the image of an American flag on a T-shirt?
If this EVER happend to my kid, I would be down at this principal's office, telling him to shove thier policy up their ass sideways and my son would absolutely not be serving any detention over a friggin' piece of candy.
They want to press? I'll be pressing buttons on the phone for my lawyer and the local newsmedia myself. Legal nightmare, PR nightmare, financial nightmare... they'll have all of that for sure.
Clearly, he has plenty of time to piss and moan about what people choose to do with their leisure time, and it's much more important to lecture us on that rather than focus on the oil spill in the gulf, or the wars overseas, or our hemmhoraging job market, or any other less important thing in this country.
IANAL but I'd tell the ASCAP flunky that the music's ALREADY LICENSED to start with. Otherwise it wouldn't even make it to the GH machine in the first place, right?
Sounds like an attempted shakedown of a small business that's not legally bound to pay anything in this instance.
Perhaps ASCAP need to be introduced to a different acronym: RICO.
Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.
> I didn't think the FCC had much authority over the internet. It's not like its radio waves here. The FCC can't regulate mail or bulletin boards. What statute gives them authority to do this?
If the FCC was able to make such a case of oversight, they gave that up last week when it was announced that the ICANN/US Dept. Of Commerce agreement was coming to an end.
IANAL, but even a layman can see that there's so many legal holes in the FCC's assertion, it's practically a black hole.
Don't link (or provide a reference) to something, simply because it's copyrighted material?
I see... so what's next? How about: don't recommend a book, since that's a verbal or printed "link"? Don't point to a painting? Don't share a photo? Don't let someone read a newspaper you're finished with? Don't play a CD in the car?
Ban all libraries?
I don't care that this guy is a judge. I don't care about any so-called "legal" angle to this... this is plain and simple common sense that's being defied here.
Afraid not... the law and/or my free choices trump thier business model. A business deal is not dictated to by them... I have to AGREE to play thier game (which I don't), AND it has to be compliant with prevailing laws in whatever jurisdiction in which they are doing business.
In a number of situations I have offered up my Drivers License number instead of my SSN and it's been accepted for a few of them (granted, not all). I always say I don't give out my SSN due to identity theft concerns. If they still insist, I tell them "no deal".
Michigan state law has restricted use of SSNs to the last 4 in a number of situations, and has outright forbid employers from using them as employee ID numbers.
No piece of techology is worth handing over the keys of your kingdom. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
That should be the function of an unfettered marketplace, not a tyrannical government of nanny bureaucrats and busybodies that take pleasure in dictating lifestyle choices to others.
The marketplace doesn't and shouldn't care about what I do with the electricity I buy... just as long as I pay for it. As supplies become scarce, prices go up... AS THEY SHOULD.
I don't need the goddamned government coming into my private home and telling me what I should or should not do with the energy I choose purchase with my hard-earned money from my hard work. They can stay out of my business.
If you believe it is OK for government to tell people how to live, how to eat, and how to take a shit, perhaps North Korea is more your type of country.
This will ultimately be about control.
The Green Police will monitor your power usage and fine you for "excess". You think cap and trade is only for "greedy corporations"? No no no no no... this will hit consumers even harder. If you have 5 TVs when others only have 2 or 3 and you use 10 kwh per month than the rest of your neighbors, you'll be branded socially irresponsible by government bureaucrats and hauled before some board to explain yourself, before being ordered to cut a check to make amends for your abuse of the planet. Oh, and that extra mini-fridge you have in your home-office, basement, man-cave or garage? That's very anti-Green so it will just have to go.
And Intel is playing along since they can turn a buck on this, but they are being exploited by government as a "useful idiot" to get them what they've been wanting all along.
Does this technology have some good uses? Absolutely! But when placed in the wrong hands, this, like any technology, can and will be used to achieve ulterior motives as well.
First of all, I did not threaten violence, but you better believe I would threaten legal action, because to enforce something as stupid as this brings permanent psychological harm to a child in my view.
But there is an easy solution: stop adopting and implementing such ridiculous, nonsensical policies.
This is EDUCATION we are talking about. Start using some of that education and THINK about what's right and what's wrong here.
Is it RIGHT to give a detention to a 3rd grader over a piece of hard candy?! Forget who wrote what regulation! IS IT RIGHT?!
Sorry, but this is not just a matter of "well, that's the rule so we have to follow it". I don't think so.
Not if a "rule" is so far out of the realm of common sense that it's enforcement has done damage to the child. Not when so-called "authority" has abused it's power, and has abused those it was put in charge to serve.
In this case, it has brought harm to this child. She is going to be harmed for the rest of her life. She will always distrust people in positions of authority even moreso than what any reasonable person normally should.
And really, I don't see any reasonable defense of any so-called "professional" who would enforce something like this. It's insane as as far as I'm concerned.
THEY have already failed any kind of attitude test, common-sense test, and sanity test when they pull this kind of bullshit.
What the hell has happened to our schools when they expel kids for carrying a plastic butter knife to cut the food thier mom packs for them; or suspend them for possessing a piece of - gasp - hard candy... or - and this absolutely puts me into a "vitriolic rage" when they tell kids they have to go home for wearing the image of an American flag on a T-shirt?
Yes. Arrest my ass. I f***ing dare them to.
If this EVER happend to my kid, I would be down at this principal's office, telling him to shove thier policy up their ass sideways and my son would absolutely not be serving any detention over a friggin' piece of candy.
They want to press? I'll be pressing buttons on the phone for my lawyer and the local newsmedia myself. Legal nightmare, PR nightmare, financial nightmare... they'll have all of that for sure.
Clearly, he has plenty of time to piss and moan about what people choose to do with their leisure time, and it's much more important to lecture us on that rather than focus on the oil spill in the gulf, or the wars overseas, or our hemmhoraging job market, or any other less important thing in this country.
This, coming from a guy hooked on a Crackberry.
Nothing. Not one damn thing.
What good does filtering out .xxx sites do for sites that reside under every other TLD on the 'net?
How about the ones that purposely evade filters? Drop malware payloads? Engage in a host of other nefarious behaviors?
This is a useless exercise in time-wasting par excellence.
I've got a bad feeling about this...
Just ban everyone from airplanes altogether. Problem solved.
(It seems as if we're heading down that road, really...)
Stupid fucking disrespecting-my-goddamn-freedom-of-speech assholes.
IANAL but I'd tell the ASCAP flunky that the music's ALREADY LICENSED to start with. Otherwise it wouldn't even make it to the GH machine in the first place, right?
Sounds like an attempted shakedown of a small business that's not legally bound to pay anything in this instance.
Perhaps ASCAP need to be introduced to a different acronym: RICO.
IMHO both companies's customer service are horrible, so it's irrelevant to me how good or bad their respective networks are.
They may "hear me now"... but neither has been willing to LISTEN.
Or fear of bad airline food? Or fear of having a screaming kid on board? Or fear of being stuck next to a passenger with hygiene issues?
Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.
I do wish her well, though...
I misread. It's FTC. My bad.
> I didn't think the FCC had much authority over the internet. It's not like its radio waves here. The FCC can't regulate mail or bulletin boards. What statute gives them authority to do this?
If the FCC was able to make such a case of oversight, they gave that up last week when it was announced that the ICANN/US Dept. Of Commerce agreement was coming to an end.
IANAL, but even a layman can see that there's so many legal holes in the FCC's assertion, it's practically a black hole.
> The cost to taxpayers: up to $58,000. Why aren't they running a product like Websense?
Why isn't someone in charge telling the guy he's fired?
Shit happens.
I don't think anyone is going to challenge Scotland's copyright of haggis.
HELL NO.
Am I reading this correctly?
Don't link (or provide a reference) to something, simply because it's copyrighted material?
I see... so what's next? How about: don't recommend a book, since that's a verbal or printed "link"? Don't point to a painting? Don't share a photo? Don't let someone read a newspaper you're finished with? Don't play a CD in the car?
Ban all libraries?
I don't care that this guy is a judge. I don't care about any so-called "legal" angle to this... this is plain and simple common sense that's being defied here.
Afraid not... the law and/or my free choices trump thier business model. A business deal is not dictated to by them... I have to AGREE to play thier game (which I don't), AND it has to be compliant with prevailing laws in whatever jurisdiction in which they are doing business.
In a number of situations I have offered up my Drivers License number instead of my SSN and it's been accepted for a few of them (granted, not all). I always say I don't give out my SSN due to identity theft concerns. If they still insist, I tell them "no deal".
Michigan state law has restricted use of SSNs to the last 4 in a number of situations, and has outright forbid employers from using them as employee ID numbers.
No piece of techology is worth handing over the keys of your kingdom. Period.
Michigan has very strict SSN disclosure laws, and while IANALNPOOTV, I have to wonder if this requirement is even lawful.
[...] which, for the layman, means [...]
A layman wouldn't know what anything on this website would mean, much less TFA.