Exactly what, specifically, is "irrelevant nonsense" that only proven US citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections?
Exactly what, specifically, is "rational" about letting non-US citizens vote in US elections?
And exactly what "guys" do you believe I have "had [my] chances with"?
If you think for one nanosecond it is "more rational" to allow outsiders to vote in elections for which they have no residence, citizenship or any other attachment, I would respectfully submit that you have something between your own ears that needs to be sorted out.
How about "it's fraud" if there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOCUMENTATION WHATSOEVER TO PROVE CITIZENSHIP?
I don't know about you, but I don't want, and our country doesn't need to allow for the possibility of non-citizens voting in our elections.
I don't care if they MAY be citizens... "MAY" ain't good enough. We as citizens have a right to demand proof positive of ourselves in order to protect the integrity of our elections.
That issue aside, let's say hypotetically the person can be established as a US Citizen, but homeless. Voting for president or VP is not an issue in that case.
But every other ballot question STILL IS. How can a homeless person be allowed to vote for e.g. governor of a state if it cannot be established that he/she is a resident of that state? How can he/she vote on ballot initiatives for a given district, or location, when it is not established as to whether he/she is a resident of that area?
I can hear it now: "well... it's not fair... the person oughta be allowed to vote for something". Maybe, but to have a fair election, there has to be some minimum basis as to how to facilitate those elections.
But it didn't happen in the school. It happened outside the school.
That's irrelevant, in my view. The student is making these comments about her own principal. It does not matter where or when the comments are made, and as far as I'm concerned, the context is also irrelevant (and I mean whether it's a joke or not).
Even putting aside the libel/slander aspect of these comments - to allow students to be disrespectful of school officials is unacceptable, as it surely leads to a breakdown of discipline and order (yes, I did say "order") in the school.
That right of a school to preserve discipline and order is necessary for it to function; and that, in my opinion, trumps a student's so-called "rights" to free speech.
This whole idea of allowing grade school kids be able to do anything and everything they please and be disrespectful of community institutions, just because "it falls outside of business hours" and happens to take place "away from the premises" is utter nonsense.
The parents should be ashamed of themselves (in my opinion), for having their child behave in this fashion to begin with. Secondly, they should be ashamed for contributing to the disruption of their school by defending this behavior, which is not only indefensible, but doubly destructive to the school: first, it exacerbates the problem of being disrespectful of school officials (and staff); second, it forces the school to waste valuable time, tax dollars and other resources in dealing with this in court.
Since when did the First Amendment stop becoming the legal means to respect everyone's common rights to free expression within reasonable common-sense limits, and instead become a legal weapon to destroy our long-established institutions?
I love free speech as much as the next Yankee, BUT...
Let's ask this question: what would happen to a school kid if he/she directed the same kind of provocative language at the principal or a school teacher, IN PERSON, either in the hallway or in a classroom?
How long would it take to slap down a suspension? It would probably happen before you or I could finish saying the word "suspension".
For right or for wrong, pure "free speech" in this case is going to take a back seat to order and discipline. It's a necessity IMHO, in order to allow a school to carry out it's primary mission of teaching kids the classic "three R's".
Putting comments out on the web, whether on a blog or social site or a standalone web site, as far as I am concerned, is no different than uttering the words in person. What point does this kind of disrespectful behaior have, other than to disrupt the educational process? And don't give me this "harmless prank" nonsense - accusing a professional of criminal activity online, even if "joking" about it - there's nothing funny about it whatsoever.
I'm neither a lawyer or a teacher, not even a parent, but you can bet I would support a schools suspension of any student who pulls this kind of stunt.
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.
Did I miss something here?
Not that I want a security system compromised, because I don't... but the 1st Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall... abridge free speech in instances where a subway system is hacked".
I don't like these machines either, and am glad they're gone.
But before you all go out into the street to dance, let me remind everyone that those paper ballots aren't exactly hand counted... those too are counted by... say it with me: ELECTRONIC machines. They have software. They are connected to a network. They have to store their results on media at some point.
It doesn't make one "bit" of difference whether a vote is tallied as a bit, or a missing (or hanging) chad... the integrity of an election, ANY ELECTION, is dependent SOLELY UPON the integrity of the people who carry it out.
Considering that the enemy gleefully hijacks our own airplanes and fly them into our own buildings and watches us die; and celebrates that with dances in the street and firing Kalashnikovs into the air... I don't think any President would have a problem with this.
And in fact... I absolutely agree with your notion that military service; of which engaging an enemy force, defeating an enemy force or at the very least, deterring enemy forces from engaging us is the definining mission thereof... should be a mandatory experience in holding the office of President.
One of the two major-party candidates for President already has that experience. The other, does not.
Let me also remind you that the United States has had the technology to kill from halfway around the world for nearly half a century... ever heard of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile?
As for "shrinks" for drone pilots... I too believe this is a good idea. Like their counterparts on the battlefield in person, those brave folks who we refer to as "boots on the ground"... who also witness directly effects of firing weapons on enemy targets... they should also receive counselling, and should receive all the help they can.
They are legal when they bother to get a judge to sign a warrant. It's only when they don't get a warrant that they're illegal. It's only illegal if someone (or an entity) gets caught, you're able to prove it court, are able to get a ruling in your favor in court, and are able thereafter to enforce remedial action.
The more complex the software releases become, the more complex and insidious the exploits of them become also.
Re:Senators? Political reps?!!
on
Dealing With Dialup
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Wasn't the so-called "Universal Access Fee" or whatever the hell it's called, supposed to address this issue? Wasn't this fee supposed to make Internet access "universally" available for *everyone*?
Oh, that's right, collection of taxes (yes I know that these were "fees", but a tax by any other name...) is the business of the government and not of us "little people", how rude of me to question the government... please don't execute me.
I just discontinued their service for good two months ago.
I don't trust them. I don't believe them. My personal "experience" with their service has been a horrible one.
As a Cable TV provider, they used their local monopoly status in my area and offered only two base packages: either the locals + public access filler for $16, which prices got jacked up nearly every single month; or, you could get an "everything except Premium or PPV" package for far too much (65+ at last check), which also kept going up every month. Both were out of line IMHO.
It's also my observation and opinion that as an ISP, they are among the most shadiest of "providers". Better watch out - will they define that 250GB cap as most hard drive manufacturers do, as 250 billion... or will it be the more technically correct 250 * (1024 ^ 2)?
Will there be other restrictions in the fine print (like banning WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE P2P outright, regardless of the actual source) which make even acheiving 250GB impossible?
For those of you happy with this outfit, more power to you. I believe, however, they're not the most upstanding of companies. Call up customer service and get a $2 "agent fee" on your next bill?! Ridiculous! Make a payment in person and get the same thing?! Asinine. Service goes down... do you get a credit? Nope.
When I decided to disconnect, I had to call two additional times to make sure they actually did disconnect, and wouldn't try to charge me for continued service even after I requested cancellation. Two weeks later I got a call asking me to "return their modem and other Comcast-owned equipment". Problem was, the modem I used belonged to me, and I never had any other set-top boxes or other hardware of theirs.
I Don't Care What They "Announce". They can say they cured the common cold for all I care... I'll never do business with them again.
They suck... in my own personal opinion, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only was this expensive and preventable (erm, *tether*, anyone?)...
...the ramifications could be huge.
Which satellite is going to take the hit for this? Which future orbital mission?
Or... will the ISS itself get smacked, later on?
Exactly what, specifically, is "irrelevant nonsense" that only proven US citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections?
Exactly what, specifically, is "rational" about letting non-US citizens vote in US elections?
And exactly what "guys" do you believe I have "had [my] chances with"?
If you think for one nanosecond it is "more rational" to allow outsiders to vote in elections for which they have no residence, citizenship or any other attachment, I would respectfully submit that you have something between your own ears that needs to be sorted out.
How about "it's fraud" if there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOCUMENTATION WHATSOEVER TO PROVE CITIZENSHIP?
I don't know about you, but I don't want, and our country doesn't need to allow for the possibility of non-citizens voting in our elections.
I don't care if they MAY be citizens... "MAY" ain't good enough. We as citizens have a right to demand proof positive of ourselves in order to protect the integrity of our elections.
That issue aside, let's say hypotetically the person can be established as a US Citizen, but homeless. Voting for president or VP is not an issue in that case.
But every other ballot question STILL IS. How can a homeless person be allowed to vote for e.g. governor of a state if it cannot be established that he/she is a resident of that state? How can he/she vote on ballot initiatives for a given district, or location, when it is not established as to whether he/she is a resident of that area?
I can hear it now: "well... it's not fair... the person oughta be allowed to vote for something". Maybe, but to have a fair election, there has to be some minimum basis as to how to facilitate those elections.
But I can't see this as any more useful than trying to get everyone to boycott gas stations for a day.
Still, perhaps I can get a patent on this, before Jeff Bezos or some other bozo starts filling out those forms, yet again...
But it didn't happen in the school. It happened outside the school.
That's irrelevant, in my view. The student is making these comments about her own principal. It does not matter where or when the comments are made, and as far as I'm concerned, the context is also irrelevant (and I mean whether it's a joke or not).
Even putting aside the libel/slander aspect of these comments - to allow students to be disrespectful of school officials is unacceptable, as it surely leads to a breakdown of discipline and order (yes, I did say "order") in the school.
That right of a school to preserve discipline and order is necessary for it to function; and that, in my opinion, trumps a student's so-called "rights" to free speech.
This whole idea of allowing grade school kids be able to do anything and everything they please and be disrespectful of community institutions, just because "it falls outside of business hours" and happens to take place "away from the premises" is utter nonsense.
The parents should be ashamed of themselves (in my opinion), for having their child behave in this fashion to begin with. Secondly, they should be ashamed for contributing to the disruption of their school by defending this behavior, which is not only indefensible, but doubly destructive to the school: first, it exacerbates the problem of being disrespectful of school officials (and staff); second, it forces the school to waste valuable time, tax dollars and other resources in dealing with this in court.
Since when did the First Amendment stop becoming the legal means to respect everyone's common rights to free expression within reasonable common-sense limits, and instead become a legal weapon to destroy our long-established institutions?
I love free speech as much as the next Yankee, BUT...
Let's ask this question: what would happen to a school kid if he/she directed the same kind of provocative language at the principal or a school teacher, IN PERSON, either in the hallway or in a classroom?
How long would it take to slap down a suspension? It would probably happen before you or I could finish saying the word "suspension".
For right or for wrong, pure "free speech" in this case is going to take a back seat to order and discipline. It's a necessity IMHO, in order to allow a school to carry out it's primary mission of teaching kids the classic "three R's".
Putting comments out on the web, whether on a blog or social site or a standalone web site, as far as I am concerned, is no different than uttering the words in person. What point does this kind of disrespectful behaior have, other than to disrupt the educational process? And don't give me this "harmless prank" nonsense - accusing a professional of criminal activity online, even if "joking" about it - there's nothing funny about it whatsoever.
I'm neither a lawyer or a teacher, not even a parent, but you can bet I would support a schools suspension of any student who pulls this kind of stunt.
Paper. Pencil. Manual count. Done.
I love tech as much as the next geek. It's my life, and my living. But sometimes, the better solutions are the simpler ones.
"This statement is a lie."
US Constitution, 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.
Did I miss something here?
Not that I want a security system compromised, because I don't... but the 1st Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall ... abridge free speech in instances where a subway system is hacked".
It may be a bit tilted, but in this case, it's tilted the way most of the readers here are in agreement with.
Put another way: the opinions had already been formed.
I'm just glad to see that the momentum is finally building with respect to copyright and fair use.
It took a while for common sense to prevail in the SCO case; it's taken awhile here as well, but it good to see cracks in the Media Cartel's armor.
I don't like these machines either, and am glad they're gone.
But before you all go out into the street to dance, let me remind everyone that those paper ballots aren't exactly hand counted... those too are counted by... say it with me: ELECTRONIC machines. They have software. They are connected to a network. They have to store their results on media at some point.
It doesn't make one "bit" of difference whether a vote is tallied as a bit, or a missing (or hanging) chad... the integrity of an election, ANY ELECTION, is dependent SOLELY UPON the integrity of the people who carry it out.
Just as long as the ATHLETES are NOT on steroids, and the COMPETITION ITSELF is real... that's all I care about.
Considering that the enemy gleefully hijacks our own airplanes and fly them into our own buildings and watches us die; and celebrates that with dances in the street and firing Kalashnikovs into the air... I don't think any President would have a problem with this.
And in fact... I absolutely agree with your notion that military service; of which engaging an enemy force, defeating an enemy force or at the very least, deterring enemy forces from engaging us is the definining mission thereof... should be a mandatory experience in holding the office of President.
One of the two major-party candidates for President already has that experience. The other, does not.
Let me also remind you that the United States has had the technology to kill from halfway around the world for nearly half a century... ever heard of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile?
As for "shrinks" for drone pilots... I too believe this is a good idea. Like their counterparts on the battlefield in person, those brave folks who we refer to as "boots on the ground"... who also witness directly effects of firing weapons on enemy targets... they should also receive counselling, and should receive all the help they can.
I *know* it's in the Olympics. Methinks ya totally missed the point. I'm watching grown athletic ladies, rather than, um, younger ones...
I'll wait for ladies Beach Volleyball instead.
Either someone made another metric/english conversion error, or someone got into the Romulan Ale again...
Well, if trying to remove these kinds of Orwelling provisions is "obstructionist", then dammit, let's get on with the obstructing already.
Chris Dodd, or anyone else (on either side of the aisle) with the gall to slide something like this in, richly deserves the incoming flak.
This isn't even a matter of surveilling suspected criminals or terrorists anymore... this is simply "witch hunt data warehouse".
That's way, way, WAY over the line.
Good luck with all that.
"Men and women think differently."
This is such shocking news. Unbelievable.
The more complex the software releases become, the more complex and insidious the exploits of them become also.
Wasn't the so-called "Universal Access Fee" or whatever the hell it's called, supposed to address this issue? Wasn't this fee supposed to make Internet access "universally" available for *everyone*?
Oh, that's right, collection of taxes (yes I know that these were "fees", but a tax by any other name...) is the business of the government and not of us "little people", how rude of me to question the government... please don't execute me.
I just discontinued their service for good two months ago.
I don't trust them. I don't believe them. My personal "experience" with their service has been a horrible one.
As a Cable TV provider, they used their local monopoly status in my area and offered only two base packages: either the locals + public access filler for $16, which prices got jacked up nearly every single month; or, you could get an "everything except Premium or PPV" package for far too much (65+ at last check), which also kept going up every month. Both were out of line IMHO.
It's also my observation and opinion that as an ISP, they are among the most shadiest of "providers". Better watch out - will they define that 250GB cap as most hard drive manufacturers do, as 250 billion... or will it be the more technically correct 250 * (1024 ^ 2)?
Will there be other restrictions in the fine print (like banning WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE P2P outright, regardless of the actual source) which make even acheiving 250GB impossible?
For those of you happy with this outfit, more power to you. I believe, however, they're not the most upstanding of companies. Call up customer service and get a $2 "agent fee" on your next bill?! Ridiculous! Make a payment in person and get the same thing?! Asinine. Service goes down... do you get a credit? Nope.
When I decided to disconnect, I had to call two additional times to make sure they actually did disconnect, and wouldn't try to charge me for continued service even after I requested cancellation. Two weeks later I got a call asking me to "return their modem and other Comcast-owned equipment". Problem was, the modem I used belonged to me, and I never had any other set-top boxes or other hardware of theirs.
I Don't Care What They "Announce". They can say they cured the common cold for all I care... I'll never do business with them again.
They suck... in my own personal opinion, of course.
Will they simply laugh at us earthlings; or shake their heads in frustration, wondering "when will we ever learn"?
"This will feel... a little weird."
Just go fly a kite... and don't forget your keys!