That's not to say it wasn't stupid to do and even more stupid to record it on video, or that the college isn't justified in their actions and people shouldn't be outraged by this stuff. Only that people are free to SAY (or even publish) just about anything, including this drivel, as a matter of law.
Exactly. I have no problem with the college ejecting the frat, and even possibly the students. Freedom of speech does not mean you have freedom from consequences from your speech, only that you can express any opinion you want and not get arrested and charged with a crime. You can still get fired, ejected from an organization such as a club or college for expressing opinions, even if you are "free" to say just about anything.
This isn't a free speech issue, it's not the government disbanding their frat. It's the college, which is perfectly within its rights to do so.
I was responding to somebody who was trying to claim this was "hate speech" and thus illegal.
And to quote myself....
That's not to say it wasn't stupid to do and even more stupid to record it on video, or that the college isn't justified in their actions and people shouldn't be outraged by this stuff. Only that people are free to SAY (or even publish) just about anything, including this drivel, as a matter of law.
So I'm not up in arms about what the college decided to do either... You are free to say anything, but that does not mean you are free from suffering the consequences when you do.
in the USA you can only restrict speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action
Where is that defined in the Constitution? Hint.. It's not
No, it was put in place by SCOUTS, who is the interpreter of the constitution. There ARE limits (You cannot yell fire in a theater to watch the stampede) or incite a riot, but there is not much more you are not allowed to say because the freedom of speech is part of the constitution.
They have the FIRST AMENDMENT right to say and chant anything they want. As long as they are not inciting a riot or stirring up violence or breaking the law by others, they have the right to hold any opinion and express that opinion.
What we need to realize is that this freedom of speech we have means that the other guy (or gal) has the right to offend me with their opinions, because if you restrict THEIR speech based upon your being offended, then there really is no freedom of speech anymore; you have the thought police then. We need thicker skins and a large doses of tolerance, not restrictions on speech.
The guys were racist, they got the hammer of justice thrown at them...... The system doesn't need to change. Everything worked as intended.
Indeed. The system does seem to work and is actively discouraging such attitudes. You cannot mandate one change their minds, but you can actively discourage the mindless drivel finding expression though punishments like this and maybe even enlighten some of these young minds as they think about all this.
Personally, I don't think we need to make every event that happens into some huge debate over whether our culture is circling the drain and chanting, "There needs to be a law!".
There ALREAY is a law, enshrined in our constitution as the first amendment. Problem is, most people don't think about the freedom that this law brings and they see nut jobs doing things for shock value and demand that law. The problem really is that the first amendment guarantees the freedom of expression of literally ANY perspective, ANY religion, Any opinion. If and when you start making laws that put limits on the expression of perspectives, religion or opinion, you step out on to the slippery slope where the first amendment doesn't mean what it says anymore and eventually there will be no freedom of speech. Yes, you will have to endure being offended by other's expressions, but you get freedom to express yourself in exchange.
So I agree with you, we need no more laws for this. We need to grow thicker skins and learn to appreciate what freedom of expression brings to this country, what it means to our freedoms.
Free speech does not extend to hate speech. No rights are being denied here, since you do not have the right to hate speech.
Huh? Where is "hate speech" defined in the Constitution? Hint.. It's not. This video does NOT depict speech that is illegal.
By law in the USA you can only restrict speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law. That's not what these guys where doing.
That's not to say it wasn't stupid to do and even more stupid to record it on video, or that the college isn't justified in their actions and people shouldn't be outraged by this stuff. Only that people are free to SAY (or even publish) just about anything, including this drivel, as a matter of law.
Here let me summarize what I said... Politically, there isn't the will to pass a bill to undo this, much less override a veto. Where it is POSSIBLE for this to happen technically, it's impossible politically.
Have you seen the rules? I'm told there is a lot of stuff in there and what you think they say might not be what they actually say.
You've heard that Netflix now doesn't like the rules right? They just used the concept of what the rule's title suggests previously, but now that they are being forced by the FCC, they are backing away. They where just arm twisting the ISP's over money and not looking out for your best interest.
I don't know, I hear NETFLIX is backpeddling on their support of it now... You mess with people's flix and you can bet somebody will get angry about it. Have you see how much trouble people cause when Netflix has an outage? Yikes...
I don't know, if the outrage over the regulations get's bad enough and they get this attached to some other bill that the president cannot help but sign, they could pass it or override the veto.
However, such would require a bit of backbone which seems missing from congress right now as we really still have a divided senate even if we've done some office shuffling of late. And growing a backbone seems to be an unlikely option for the Senate leadership in all this, unless you had near riots in the streets. Given that even if the rules where readily available to the public, few people would read them and even fewer would UNDERSTAND them an only a subset of those would really know what they where protesting, I seriously doubt there would be anything close to riots, a few angry BLOGS and maybe even several Slashdot articles, but not riots.
Actually the Third party option has been considered and rejected as STUPID. Of course the left in the country would LOVE for that to happen, which is why they keep suggesting it, but don't hold your breath on that one.
The only thing a third party does (assuming it's a right leaning party) is strip the major party of any hope and grant power to the very people who will do absolutely the wrong thing. So The Tea Party stays within the Republican party. They run candidates at the primary level and back candidates at election time that pull the republicans to the right overall.
Which, in the long run, will be good for the republicans overall. How do I know? Think about the last election, what happened? Um, the left lost, and lost bigger than the incumbent's party usually looses in the middle of the last term. Me thinks the country is a bit tired of the tax and spend mantra and that race card is looking tattered from being played so often and stuffed back up the sleeve. Of course the republicans can screw this up (and currently seem well on their way) and blow their advantage, but the democrats are obviously holding a pretty weak hand having lost the senate and are facing an election w/o a clear successor for president. Hillary is your best bet, but there is a lot of ground between now and the fall of 2016 and she's facing some serious issues that could disqualify her holding office. Of course that race card gets turned into a "Gender" card as soon as she "officially" starts running, but I don't think that card is as powerful for the left. Could be wrong though...
And for the most part, this is what the FAA does, or historically has done. Only recently they have started to phase out the 40 year old system that pre-dated the internet and move to IP based communications.
Also, I don't agree with your approach of just stringing up your own infrastructure for communications. IP networks can be built with LOTS of redundancy and using a couple of internet connections and routing your traffic over them can add huge redundancy gains with low cost. I think the FAA needs an "all of the above" solution, where it provides secure and redundant communications over as many different paths as they can. Nail up direct links, backup links over the internet, throw some satellites up with data link capacity, and even use direct RF links. Just don't depend on any ONE link for mission critical communications... Of course all these links need to be secure, but there are secure ways to tunnel though public channels, you just have to use them.
Perhaps, but the FAA did actually manage to control physical access to that terminal fairly well.
All in all, my quick skim though the report tells me that where the FAA does have issues with security (Mostly with, network security, management of users and patches) they don't do that badly given their large size. They have similar problems to just about everybody else that has systems of similar complexity and by my estimation do better than average on just about all aspects of security. Given the "mission critical" nature of what these systems do and how complex the total system is things need to be better, but IMHO they are doing a bang up job now keeping aircraft from bouncing off each other in the sky.
A few cables? It was a LOT of cables actually and didn't he set a fire too? Also, didn't everybody get on the ground safely? I think they did their job...
And all re-assembly sections following a 5-page teardown will read "Re-assembly is the reverse of removal."
Yea, but any disassembly that starts with "Retrieve Rover and place on jack stands with the emergency break set" is going to be impossible from the get go..
Slashdot Mirror
That's not to say it wasn't stupid to do and even more stupid to record it on video, or that the college isn't justified in their actions and people shouldn't be outraged by this stuff. Only that people are free to SAY (or even publish) just about anything, including this drivel, as a matter of law.
Exactly. I have no problem with the college ejecting the frat, and even possibly the students. Freedom of speech does not mean you have freedom from consequences from your speech, only that you can express any opinion you want and not get arrested and charged with a crime. You can still get fired, ejected from an organization such as a club or college for expressing opinions, even if you are "free" to say just about anything.
This isn't a free speech issue, it's not the government disbanding their frat. It's the college, which is perfectly within its rights to do so.
I was responding to somebody who was trying to claim this was "hate speech" and thus illegal.
And to quote myself....
That's not to say it wasn't stupid to do and even more stupid to record it on video, or that the college isn't justified in their actions and people shouldn't be outraged by this stuff. Only that people are free to SAY (or even publish) just about anything, including this drivel, as a matter of law.
So I'm not up in arms about what the college decided to do either... You are free to say anything, but that does not mean you are free from suffering the consequences when you do.
Sorry... SCOUTS => SCOTUS
in the USA you can only restrict speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action
Where is that defined in the Constitution? Hint.. It's not
No, it was put in place by SCOUTS, who is the interpreter of the constitution. There ARE limits (You cannot yell fire in a theater to watch the stampede) or incite a riot, but there is not much more you are not allowed to say because the freedom of speech is part of the constitution.
Hey, Below the Mason Dixon Line.. Southern state...
Careful, facts are tricky things...
People get rather testy when you challenge them with the actual facts....
Mod parent up!
They have the FIRST AMENDMENT right to say and chant anything they want. As long as they are not inciting a riot or stirring up violence or breaking the law by others, they have the right to hold any opinion and express that opinion.
What we need to realize is that this freedom of speech we have means that the other guy (or gal) has the right to offend me with their opinions, because if you restrict THEIR speech based upon your being offended, then there really is no freedom of speech anymore; you have the thought police then. We need thicker skins and a large doses of tolerance, not restrictions on speech.
The guys were racist, they got the hammer of justice thrown at them...... The system doesn't need to change. Everything worked as intended.
Indeed. The system does seem to work and is actively discouraging such attitudes. You cannot mandate one change their minds, but you can actively discourage the mindless drivel finding expression though punishments like this and maybe even enlighten some of these young minds as they think about all this.
Personally, I don't think we need to make every event that happens into some huge debate over whether our culture is circling the drain and chanting, "There needs to be a law!".
There ALREAY is a law, enshrined in our constitution as the first amendment. Problem is, most people don't think about the freedom that this law brings and they see nut jobs doing things for shock value and demand that law. The problem really is that the first amendment guarantees the freedom of expression of literally ANY perspective, ANY religion, Any opinion. If and when you start making laws that put limits on the expression of perspectives, religion or opinion, you step out on to the slippery slope where the first amendment doesn't mean what it says anymore and eventually there will be no freedom of speech. Yes, you will have to endure being offended by other's expressions, but you get freedom to express yourself in exchange.
So I agree with you, we need no more laws for this. We need to grow thicker skins and learn to appreciate what freedom of expression brings to this country, what it means to our freedoms.
Free speech does not extend to hate speech. No rights are being denied here, since you do not have the right to hate speech.
Huh? Where is "hate speech" defined in the Constitution? Hint.. It's not. This video does NOT depict speech that is illegal.
By law in the USA you can only restrict speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law. That's not what these guys where doing.
That's not to say it wasn't stupid to do and even more stupid to record it on video, or that the college isn't justified in their actions and people shouldn't be outraged by this stuff. Only that people are free to SAY (or even publish) just about anything, including this drivel, as a matter of law.
Did you get past reading comprehension...
Here let me summarize what I said... Politically, there isn't the will to pass a bill to undo this, much less override a veto. Where it is POSSIBLE for this to happen technically, it's impossible politically.
Which is what I was saying... Not going to happen for this... Not enough people are or will be upset.
Have you seen the rules? I'm told there is a lot of stuff in there and what you think they say might not be what they actually say.
You've heard that Netflix now doesn't like the rules right? They just used the concept of what the rule's title suggests previously, but now that they are being forced by the FCC, they are backing away. They where just arm twisting the ISP's over money and not looking out for your best interest.
Just curious... Are you SURE the new rules fix this? I've not seen them, have you?
I don't know, I hear NETFLIX is backpeddling on their support of it now... You mess with people's flix and you can bet somebody will get angry about it. Have you see how much trouble people cause when Netflix has an outage? Yikes...
They could write legislation about anything and expect us to like it because it has a word in it like "freedom" or "patriot". Imagine: .
Hey now, it was good enough criteria for Louis Lerner to filter stuff for IRS scrutiny, why not use it now?
I don't know, if the outrage over the regulations get's bad enough and they get this attached to some other bill that the president cannot help but sign, they could pass it or override the veto.
However, such would require a bit of backbone which seems missing from congress right now as we really still have a divided senate even if we've done some office shuffling of late. And growing a backbone seems to be an unlikely option for the Senate leadership in all this, unless you had near riots in the streets. Given that even if the rules where readily available to the public, few people would read them and even fewer would UNDERSTAND them an only a subset of those would really know what they where protesting, I seriously doubt there would be anything close to riots, a few angry BLOGS and maybe even several Slashdot articles, but not riots.
Actually the Third party option has been considered and rejected as STUPID. Of course the left in the country would LOVE for that to happen, which is why they keep suggesting it, but don't hold your breath on that one.
The only thing a third party does (assuming it's a right leaning party) is strip the major party of any hope and grant power to the very people who will do absolutely the wrong thing. So The Tea Party stays within the Republican party. They run candidates at the primary level and back candidates at election time that pull the republicans to the right overall.
Which, in the long run, will be good for the republicans overall. How do I know? Think about the last election, what happened? Um, the left lost, and lost bigger than the incumbent's party usually looses in the middle of the last term. Me thinks the country is a bit tired of the tax and spend mantra and that race card is looking tattered from being played so often and stuffed back up the sleeve. Of course the republicans can screw this up (and currently seem well on their way) and blow their advantage, but the democrats are obviously holding a pretty weak hand having lost the senate and are facing an election w/o a clear successor for president. Hillary is your best bet, but there is a lot of ground between now and the fall of 2016 and she's facing some serious issues that could disqualify her holding office. Of course that race card gets turned into a "Gender" card as soon as she "officially" starts running, but I don't think that card is as powerful for the left. Could be wrong though...
Maybe it's just wearing out from use? You can only bend something so many times, especially when it's really cold like it is on Mars...
And for the most part, this is what the FAA does, or historically has done. Only recently they have started to phase out the 40 year old system that pre-dated the internet and move to IP based communications.
Also, I don't agree with your approach of just stringing up your own infrastructure for communications. IP networks can be built with LOTS of redundancy and using a couple of internet connections and routing your traffic over them can add huge redundancy gains with low cost. I think the FAA needs an "all of the above" solution, where it provides secure and redundant communications over as many different paths as they can. Nail up direct links, backup links over the internet, throw some satellites up with data link capacity, and even use direct RF links. Just don't depend on any ONE link for mission critical communications... Of course all these links need to be secure, but there are secure ways to tunnel though public channels, you just have to use them.
Perhaps, but the FAA did actually manage to control physical access to that terminal fairly well.
All in all, my quick skim though the report tells me that where the FAA does have issues with security (Mostly with, network security, management of users and patches) they don't do that badly given their large size. They have similar problems to just about everybody else that has systems of similar complexity and by my estimation do better than average on just about all aspects of security. Given the "mission critical" nature of what these systems do and how complex the total system is things need to be better, but IMHO they are doing a bang up job now keeping aircraft from bouncing off each other in the sky.
A few cables? It was a LOT of cables actually and didn't he set a fire too? Also, didn't everybody get on the ground safely? I think they did their job...
Your winnings sir!
Yes, thank you.
If you go swimming in the shark tank with the bookies, expect to loose your money or worse.
And all re-assembly sections following a 5-page teardown will read "Re-assembly is the reverse of removal."
Yea, but any disassembly that starts with "Retrieve Rover and place on jack stands with the emergency break set" is going to be impossible from the get go..
Pesky spelling thing... I took up engineering because I was horrid at spelling.....
They WHERE the lowest bidder...