Umm, the US constitution doesn't apply to service personnel. If you want into the military you have to sign away all that in order to serve.
Um, no that is not true. There are certain limitations to how you express those rights, but you still have rights. It is common to SAY you sign away your rights, but as someone who was in, (and son of a retiree) I am very aware of the exact limitations, which I spoke of.
1. Because it is about removing Chinese soldier's rights to express themselves (or have any presence) on the internet. You can't get more "Your Rights Online" that that.
2. Some of us believe that the right to free speech is not something that a government can give you. Governments can only act to suppress that right, they can't grant it to you because you were born with it. Even if they "take it away", you still have it, you just can't act on it.
3. The fact that it is happening to people in China and not the US doesn't affect the newsworthy aspect. While/. is US-centric, there is no problem with discussing the violation of rights by people living in the UK, Australia, Germany, Moldova, China or Timbuktu.
From what I've seen, this wouldn't be a completely insane idea to apply to members of the US armed forces.
Except that it is contrary to the US constitution. Yes, I know there are some "reasonable" restrictions on military personel (I'm ex USAF) such as going to protests in uniform (reasonable) but if you told everyone in the military that they are no longer allowed to have a personal webpage, blog or have a presence on the internet otherwise, you would have a mutiny on your hands.
It is in the military's interests to insure that those who serve are of good moral character and act responsibly. It is counter to the mission to completely censor free speech. While the statement "we are here to protect democracy, not practice it" applies to the chain of command, it doesn't mean that those who serve have actual rights taken away wholesale.
It has nothing to do with Afghanistan, or Iraq, or policy. It has to do with US personnel having the most basic right, that of free speech, taken away. This violates the First Amendment, and likely Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment since it can be perceived as a punishment (loss of liberty) for a crime neither committed nor where there is a conviction.
This problem isn't gender-based at all. It just looks like it at first blush.
Yes and no. As I stated, the problem is cultural, it is because the woman usually gets stuck with 90% of the child rearing, so it *becomes* gender based, even though the problem *shouldn't* be. From my observation, women who have no children, or have already had all their children and the father is very active, tend to perform and get rewarded at the same level.
Also, I know plenty of women who intentionally make the choice to have less career and more family time, because that is more important to them. They rise to the middle, and are happy to stay there, without the added responsibilities of higher management. I don't think there is anything wrong with this at all. You see this with men much less often, perhaps in part because of our more competitive nature, and less involvement (again) with the children. It is a choice that men seldom have to make in our current culture.
Funny perhaps, but there is a degree of logic in this. A non lethal way to move them away from the ship, then you put cheap, fake towers on the ships that don't have the $$$ for the whole system. This makes it a version of Russian Roulette for the pirates. This would seem a humane way to reduce pirate problems off Somalia.
Then again, I'm not totally against just shooting them via snipers, but this would be less expensive and likely more effective if all you have to do is throw a switch. Assuming you can aim it around the ship without affecting the people ON the ship.
That is fine and dandy, but they will just usually do illegal searches, knowing the courts will just throw them out later. Sometimes they get lucky and the courts don't throw them out. Either way is fine, as the goal was to simply get the information. This is particularly true with drug or terrorism cases. It is rare to immunize someone, as even then the person wouldn't comply, from fear of being killed by higher ups in the drug trade, or because they are terrorists and don't care about cooperating or the costs.
Actually, it does have something to do with it. When a woman takes parental leave, she goes on the bottom of the list to move up. And like it or not, women almost always get stuck with making sure the kids get to school, go to the doctor, etc. so she is usually the one who has to leave work early or miss an entire day on short notice, further putting her on bottom of the promotion list. When kids are sick, day care will NOT accept them (fever = no acceptance). Well shit, kids get sick all the time, and it is almost always mom that stays home with them, not dad. Who has to pick the kids up at school or day care? Mom usually gets that task.
Don't get me wrong, there are some great dads out there, but facts are facts and mom still does most of the maintenance in the vast majority of families. Typically, dad's job pays more, so the lesser paid takes more risk by taking time off. This is a cultural issue.
Even in a perfect situation where 1 man and 1 woman start the same job at the same pay and are equally capable, the woman will usually end up being slightly less reliable, punctual, and willing to work overtime. This is a trade off that she has made, and at the end of the day, the boss *IS* going to favor the guy who always shows up on time and will work overtime with no notice, no questions asked. That doesn't make him a bad boss, actually it is expected that you give the promotions and raises to the person showing the most initiative.
And when a woman takes off for 2 to 3 months, PAID, it does hurt the perception of her in the workplace. I know, I've seen it. The guys bitch because of it, and since most of the employees are guys to begin with, it puts the woman on the outside looking in. And if a woman is 3 months pregnant, the boss doesn't want to put her in charge of a long term project because she will be gone for a few months and maybe not come back ever. I see that happen all the time, where the woman works until birth is close just to get the 3 months extra pay, knowing she is going to not come back. I can't blame her, even if it causes problems for work. Even when a boss is perfectly fair, he would be negligent if he didn't consider these facts.
I'm certainly not trying to rag on women at all, but these are real world examples of why some women get paid less. Having 3 kids in 8 years will produce enough "paid while off" time that any boss HAS to consider it when promoting.
In Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used
Same in America, and usually, that is how it works. More often than not, however, they are more worried about using the information rather than punishing the offender (ie: to get to his bosses) so they do it anyway, and try to convict without that information. This is mainly the federal government that does this, state governments almost never do this.
This is the iPhone we are talking about. It plays games, surfs the internet, chat on Facebook or Tweet your heart out, PLUS it runs thousands of different software packages as low as $1.50 each. What makes you think they designed this thing for making old fashion phone calls?
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and no law enacted anywhere in the US can conflict with it.
The irony here is that if a state tried to go against SCOTUS, they will get slapped hard and fast. Yet, states are supposed to comply with all federal regulations, such as FDA drug scheduling, which lists marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, not eligible for prescriptions in any state, yet 12 states have medicinal marijuana.
Several states have histories of telling the feds to piss off when it comes to statute, but the last time I know of that a state tried to tell the SCOTUS to piss off was during the Civil Rights Movement, which didn't work out for the states (fortunately).
Sure there's a way to validate the petitions - the same way we validate ballots. You can validate without making names public.
So all petitions should have someone from both sides of the issue monitoring the signing, and validating their right to sign the petition before they are allowed to? If you are going to compare voting with ballets, well, don't. They aren't the same thing.
So you would submit a petition that is signed by 10,000 people named "Anonymous Coward" and expect it have any importance?
CAN a petition be completely anonymous, perhaps. But the very nature of it indicates that you shouldn't *expect* your information to be held in confidence. You are basically saying "Me too!" so that your opinions are counted. The fact that you are signing (generally) in public and often supplying other information, such as address of phone (for the purpose of verifying) should make it obvious.
To get a 3rd party candidate on a ballot, it requires $x% of signatures of registered voters in a given district. This would be null and void if it wasn't verifiable. You would also see hundreds of "candidates" showing up with $x% of signatures saying "anonymous coward" fraudulently if verification wasn't performed or required. There are legitimate reasons why petitions should default as "public" and be public, unless they explicitly state otherwise.
I think it should be expected that if you sign a petition, the information is public. Otherwise, there would be no way to validate the petition. The constitution protects free speech, although not necessarily ANONYMOUS free speech. There are other avenues for anonymous free speech anyway.
Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?
Probably the same group that gets to decide what is a.org or a.net or a.com is. All these comparisons to "burger.McD" really don't hold water. Porn is not only the *reason* that internet access is affordable (early adopters paid the high access rates to pave the way) but it is still a large portion of the traffic on the net, including much of the bittorrent traffic.
I wouldn't get too excited, most porn sites won't switch to a.xxx site anytime soon, as they know that all Nanny Software (c) will be filtering out everything *.xxx anyway.
I was about to say, go research Tesla's life, and that alone is filled with patent issues, from Edison, to Marconi to Westinghouse getting hosed, then hosing Tesla. (although they were friends) Patents were how they made money.
The problem now is most software patents are obsolete before they expire, which completely denies the payoff that the public is supposed to get by allowing a limited time monopoly on the invention. It used to be that inventions belonged to the public, but the inventor was allowed a limited time to have the monopoly, but now it is treated as if the public has NO interest and it is "owned" by the inventor, forever.
Regardless, its a metric assload of processing power. The only obvious reason I can see for this type of computing power is to render encryption by the average computers useless.
Slashdot Mirror
He got the idea from the joke that just went WOOSH over your head.
Umm, the US constitution doesn't apply to service personnel. If you want into the military you have to sign away all that in order to serve.
Um, no that is not true. There are certain limitations to how you express those rights, but you still have rights. It is common to SAY you sign away your rights, but as someone who was in, (and son of a retiree) I am very aware of the exact limitations, which I spoke of.
Why is this posted as a YRO article
1. Because it is about removing Chinese soldier's rights to express themselves (or have any presence) on the internet. You can't get more "Your Rights Online" that that.
2. Some of us believe that the right to free speech is not something that a government can give you. Governments can only act to suppress that right, they can't grant it to you because you were born with it. Even if they "take it away", you still have it, you just can't act on it.
3. The fact that it is happening to people in China and not the US doesn't affect the newsworthy aspect. While /. is US-centric, there is no problem with discussing the violation of rights by people living in the UK, Australia, Germany, Moldova, China or Timbuktu.
From what I've seen, this wouldn't be a completely insane idea to apply to members of the US armed forces.
Except that it is contrary to the US constitution. Yes, I know there are some "reasonable" restrictions on military personel (I'm ex USAF) such as going to protests in uniform (reasonable) but if you told everyone in the military that they are no longer allowed to have a personal webpage, blog or have a presence on the internet otherwise, you would have a mutiny on your hands.
It is in the military's interests to insure that those who serve are of good moral character and act responsibly. It is counter to the mission to completely censor free speech. While the statement "we are here to protect democracy, not practice it" applies to the chain of command, it doesn't mean that those who serve have actual rights taken away wholesale.
It has nothing to do with Afghanistan, or Iraq, or policy. It has to do with US personnel having the most basic right, that of free speech, taken away. This violates the First Amendment, and likely Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment since it can be perceived as a punishment (loss of liberty) for a crime neither committed nor where there is a conviction.
This problem isn't gender-based at all. It just looks like it at first blush.
Yes and no. As I stated, the problem is cultural, it is because the woman usually gets stuck with 90% of the child rearing, so it *becomes* gender based, even though the problem *shouldn't* be. From my observation, women who have no children, or have already had all their children and the father is very active, tend to perform and get rewarded at the same level.
Also, I know plenty of women who intentionally make the choice to have less career and more family time, because that is more important to them. They rise to the middle, and are happy to stay there, without the added responsibilities of higher management. I don't think there is anything wrong with this at all. You see this with men much less often, perhaps in part because of our more competitive nature, and less involvement (again) with the children. It is a choice that men seldom have to make in our current culture.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. - Napoleon Bonaparte
Funny perhaps, but there is a degree of logic in this. A non lethal way to move them away from the ship, then you put cheap, fake towers on the ships that don't have the $$$ for the whole system. This makes it a version of Russian Roulette for the pirates. This would seem a humane way to reduce pirate problems off Somalia.
Then again, I'm not totally against just shooting them via snipers, but this would be less expensive and likely more effective if all you have to do is throw a switch. Assuming you can aim it around the ship without affecting the people ON the ship.
That is fine and dandy, but they will just usually do illegal searches, knowing the courts will just throw them out later. Sometimes they get lucky and the courts don't throw them out. Either way is fine, as the goal was to simply get the information. This is particularly true with drug or terrorism cases. It is rare to immunize someone, as even then the person wouldn't comply, from fear of being killed by higher ups in the drug trade, or because they are terrorists and don't care about cooperating or the costs.
Actually, it does have something to do with it. When a woman takes parental leave, she goes on the bottom of the list to move up. And like it or not, women almost always get stuck with making sure the kids get to school, go to the doctor, etc. so she is usually the one who has to leave work early or miss an entire day on short notice, further putting her on bottom of the promotion list. When kids are sick, day care will NOT accept them (fever = no acceptance). Well shit, kids get sick all the time, and it is almost always mom that stays home with them, not dad. Who has to pick the kids up at school or day care? Mom usually gets that task.
Don't get me wrong, there are some great dads out there, but facts are facts and mom still does most of the maintenance in the vast majority of families. Typically, dad's job pays more, so the lesser paid takes more risk by taking time off. This is a cultural issue.
Even in a perfect situation where 1 man and 1 woman start the same job at the same pay and are equally capable, the woman will usually end up being slightly less reliable, punctual, and willing to work overtime. This is a trade off that she has made, and at the end of the day, the boss *IS* going to favor the guy who always shows up on time and will work overtime with no notice, no questions asked. That doesn't make him a bad boss, actually it is expected that you give the promotions and raises to the person showing the most initiative.
And when a woman takes off for 2 to 3 months, PAID, it does hurt the perception of her in the workplace. I know, I've seen it. The guys bitch because of it, and since most of the employees are guys to begin with, it puts the woman on the outside looking in. And if a woman is 3 months pregnant, the boss doesn't want to put her in charge of a long term project because she will be gone for a few months and maybe not come back ever. I see that happen all the time, where the woman works until birth is close just to get the 3 months extra pay, knowing she is going to not come back. I can't blame her, even if it causes problems for work. Even when a boss is perfectly fair, he would be negligent if he didn't consider these facts.
I'm certainly not trying to rag on women at all, but these are real world examples of why some women get paid less. Having 3 kids in 8 years will produce enough "paid while off" time that any boss HAS to consider it when promoting.
In Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used
Same in America, and usually, that is how it works. More often than not, however, they are more worried about using the information rather than punishing the offender (ie: to get to his bosses) so they do it anyway, and try to convict without that information. This is mainly the federal government that does this, state governments almost never do this.
The goal was irony. It appears the mods don't get it.
I was referring to how some states will ignore federal laws, like medicinal marijuana. It is a federal offense, even if "legal" in some states.
This is the iPhone we are talking about. It plays games, surfs the internet, chat on Facebook or Tweet your heart out, PLUS it runs thousands of different software packages as low as $1.50 each. What makes you think they designed this thing for making old fashion phone calls?
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and no law enacted anywhere in the US can conflict with it.
The irony here is that if a state tried to go against SCOTUS, they will get slapped hard and fast. Yet, states are supposed to comply with all federal regulations, such as FDA drug scheduling, which lists marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, not eligible for prescriptions in any state, yet 12 states have medicinal marijuana.
Several states have histories of telling the feds to piss off when it comes to statute, but the last time I know of that a state tried to tell the SCOTUS to piss off was during the Civil Rights Movement, which didn't work out for the states (fortunately).
Big deal, they have been grafting lasers onto sharks for years now.
After all, everyone deserves a hot meal.
Sure there's a way to validate the petitions - the same way we validate ballots. You can validate without making names public.
So all petitions should have someone from both sides of the issue monitoring the signing, and validating their right to sign the petition before they are allowed to? If you are going to compare voting with ballets, well, don't. They aren't the same thing.
So you would submit a petition that is signed by 10,000 people named "Anonymous Coward" and expect it have any importance?
CAN a petition be completely anonymous, perhaps. But the very nature of it indicates that you shouldn't *expect* your information to be held in confidence. You are basically saying "Me too!" so that your opinions are counted. The fact that you are signing (generally) in public and often supplying other information, such as address of phone (for the purpose of verifying) should make it obvious.
To get a 3rd party candidate on a ballot, it requires $x% of signatures of registered voters in a given district. This would be null and void if it wasn't verifiable. You would also see hundreds of "candidates" showing up with $x% of signatures saying "anonymous coward" fraudulently if verification wasn't performed or required. There are legitimate reasons why petitions should default as "public" and be public, unless they explicitly state otherwise.
I think it should be expected that if you sign a petition, the information is public. Otherwise, there would be no way to validate the petition. The constitution protects free speech, although not necessarily ANONYMOUS free speech. There are other avenues for anonymous free speech anyway.
I see Windows on almost all the computers I come across, it must be a GREAT product since everyone has it! ;)
It is. It even runs Linux!
Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?
Probably the same group that gets to decide what is a .org or a .net or a .com is. All these comparisons to "burger.McD" really don't hold water. Porn is not only the *reason* that internet access is affordable (early adopters paid the high access rates to pave the way) but it is still a large portion of the traffic on the net, including much of the bittorrent traffic.
I wouldn't get too excited, most porn sites won't switch to a .xxx site anytime soon, as they know that all Nanny Software (c) will be filtering out everything *.xxx anyway.
I see Antivirus 2010 on half the computers I come across, it must be a good product since everyone has it! ;)
I was about to say, go research Tesla's life, and that alone is filled with patent issues, from Edison, to Marconi to Westinghouse getting hosed, then hosing Tesla. (although they were friends) Patents were how they made money.
The problem now is most software patents are obsolete before they expire, which completely denies the payoff that the public is supposed to get by allowing a limited time monopoly on the invention. It used to be that inventions belonged to the public, but the inventor was allowed a limited time to have the monopoly, but now it is treated as if the public has NO interest and it is "owned" by the inventor, forever.
Fox hasn't learned anything. Remember, this is the network that cancelled Firefly.
A metric assload is roughly equivalent to 2.2 Imperial assloads. Hope that helps.
Regardless, its a metric assload of processing power. The only obvious reason I can see for this type of computing power is to render encryption by the average computers useless.