True, but no-one is forcing him to sign anything. Duress would mean that the Fire Department would be putting him under "extreme unlawful pressure" to sign. Seems like it was actually the other way round - he was willing to pay "whatever it cost" to put the fire out, and the FD were unwilling to bow to HIS pressure to get them to put out the fire.
Some locations are just that "No Man's Land" and are very rural. Emergency services response times would be far to great to save some folks/structures.
But not in this case, obviously, so that argument does not apply here.
Does your city funded (garbage collection? I'm sure your city governments do something.) also perform their function in the rural area adjacent for free?
Well no, that rural adjacent area is maintained by the adjacent city government. If there's no city on the other side of the land, the city line moves out and "hey, free land!"
It's not the person that's being taken off the internet, it's the account. The person is quite welcome to use any other means to access the internet - so to say that the PERSON has been denied access to the internet is wrong.
To continue your car anology, think of your access to the internet as a lease agreement and the ISP is the car leasing company. In the contract you agree to pay your dues and keep the car in good condition, and in return the leasing company agrees to let you use their vehicle. If you fail to take good care of their vehicle, for example never change the oil or never have the brakes checked etc, then if the leasing company finds out that you've let the vehicle become a danger to other drivers, they'll take the car away from you. You can have it back if you pay to have it "fixed" or "brought up to code", or alternatively you're welcome to go get another car ("internet access") from someone else.
I think it's entirely within the ISPs rights to suspend someone's access if they have a bot-infected machine that is causing problems for other users. If the poor sap who has their access cut off actually calls the helpdesk "Mah internets iz borked" then they'll be told "Yes, because you have a computer on your local network that's got a nasty virus which is infecting other people - would you like some help getting it fixed so we can get you back online?".
You're in a shoe shop, second in line at the register. Behind the shop assistant operating the register is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you must have.
The 'opposing' female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them with desire.
Both of you have forgotten your purses.
It would be totally rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes.
The shop assistant remains at the register waiting.
Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma.
She prepares to throw her purse to you.
If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes.
At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and, *whilst it is in flight* you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse and buy the shoes.
Always remembering that until the purse had *actually been thrown* it would be plain wrong to be forward of the other shopper.
No it wouldn't. Where do you draw the line? lotusemail.com? entouragemeail.com? groupwiseemail.com? inscribeemail.com? pocomailemail.com? That's just a subset of email clients. What about other possible infringements?
What if someone wanted to set up a website for users of Microsoft's various email clients? Seems like microsoftemail.com could be considered as a possible name, so if there's going to be just a bunch of simple non-dangerous HTML on the site, how can the domain registrar call foul?
I really can't see registrars submitting every request through a trademark check. What if something is trademarked in Malawi but not the US? What if it's trademarked in the US but nowhere else? What if the domain name subsequently becomes a trademark?
Asking the registrar to perform these checks is akin to asking YouTube to check copyright infringements. Let the owner of the mark defend their property, not introduce some intricate scheme that's not going to fix the problem anyway.
What's more likely, I think, is that he thought to say "forty seven (of the fifty) states" and it came out "fifty seven states". I can totally believe that much more than he thinks there are 60 states.
57 instead of 47 is a piss easy mistake to make when chatting.
I'm not in the US so why should I care? All non-US ISPs and free DNS services will carry on as usual, and the US will become an island on the internet. Somehow I can't see that happening, but if it does... in a battle between the US versus The World I'll take The World.
How do you know? Was there some kind of Survivor vote reveal, where it was neck and neck and it was down to the final vote - which you recognised because of your special smiley riff?
Your vote ALWAYS counts. Whether it matters is another point entirely, and not really the point of voting. The important thing is that it counts.
Maybe that's why you have low turnouts, because people are under the impression that it's their vote that will change things. Elections don't work that way. More important than the outcome, is the participation. It's the act of voting in a free and fair election is what's the most important thing, the outcome is merely a by-product.
Rights are not granted, they are inherent to free people and given up by those not willing to fight for them.
Why was this modded informative? If something is inherent, then it cannot be given up.
Inherent \In*her"ent\, a. [L. inhaerens, -entis, p. pr. of inhaerere: cf. F. inh['e]rent. See Inhere.] Permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or connected; naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable;
Rights are indeed granted - they are written down and we all agree who has what rights, in national and international laws. Your rights vary from state to state, from country to country. For example, you do not have an inalienable right to life in the US. The government can take it away from you for certain crimes - ergo it is not inalienable.
Completely ignoring the issue: I hate it that it's so easy to call anonymously. I have the right to know who's calling me.
Says who? What of the rights of the person calling you, for them to remain anonymous?
Y'see, this is why rights are given, not assumed. Unless it's specifically written down somewhere, you have no rights. Right to life? Yup, covered by the restrictions on people taking it away from you. Right to see who's calling you? Nope, not unless there's a law saying it's illegal to call anonymously.
rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Wow, let's count the weasel words: reasonable, demonstrably, justified, free and democratic. And some of those even modify/qualify the others!
If you think those are weasel words, then you'll find plenty more in the Bill of Rights.
I've been arguing that the behaviour of Rackspace is wrong.
How so? Rackspace is a corporation, and the only right or wrong is legal or not legal. A corporation has no feelings, it has no morality, it does not care about anything except what's in its Articles of Incorporation - which will be profit for its shareholders.
We've established that Rackspace are not obliged to listen to your opinions, nor those of anyone else who isn't a shareholder of Rackspace - this includes your views on whether they are right or wrong.
Legally speaking, what Rackspace did was right - well within their rights in fact. Morally speaking - they are a company and care nothing for morals as long as its legal and makes them money.
What exactly do you mean when you ask whether Rackspace's behaviour is right? What's right for a company is sometimes not what's right for a person and vice versa. You should not anthropomorphise Rackspace, it makes no sense.
My opinion is irrelevant, as I neither wrote nor signed the contract.
If you have a problem with a hosting site's AUP, then don't use them. If they cut you off for violating your contract, my opinion on the matter is entirely moot. The contract is "good", i.e. legally sound, you get what you pay for.
"Hate speech" may indeed be a political term, but last time I checked that hosting company is not in the political industry, it's in the hosting industry where (surprise surprise) legal contracts trump your opinions.
So you're saying it's okay for companies to discriminate between customers based on expressed beliefs.
I don't make that leap - there's no evidence to suggest that's true in this case. What is actually being said here is that it's okay for companies to discriminate between customers based on their actions, especially when those actions violate provisions in the contract that they have signed.
But if you a shopkeeper, want to sell megaphones to everyone but mormons, for example, that's something different.
Nope, being a mormon has nothing to do with it. If a mormon group had 'violated the hate-speech provision of [their] acceptable-use policy,' I'd expect them to be cut off. If a kitten-cuddling group had 'violated the hate-speech provision of [their] acceptable-use policy,' I'd expect them to be cut off too.
Google Analytics means that you can be visiting any of an ever increasing range of sites with no visible affiliation to Google, but still be being tracked by them.
So? Can I demand that the shopkeeper turn off the CCTV before I enter the store? Try buying gas without ending up being recorded on tape somehow.
If someone is that paranoid about being tracked, turn off the damned cookies in your browser. If you're super-duper paranoid, get off the internet - no-one is forcing you to browse.
I can't be bothered to research the number of offshore oil rigs in the world, but NOAA says there are about 4000 in the GOM.
I still can't be bothered to research whether there are environmental issues, but off the top of my head, the North Sea and the Persian Gulf are not known for their hurricanes.
No, because there is obviously something wrong with the industry when two rigs explode within months of each other. Until they get their existing operations sorted out, it's logical to stop them adding new ones in more risky places.
Obviously? For such a huge industry, there have been surprisingly few disasters over the past 50 years.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but no-one is forcing him to sign anything. Duress would mean that the Fire Department would be putting him under "extreme unlawful pressure" to sign. Seems like it was actually the other way round - he was willing to pay "whatever it cost" to put the fire out, and the FD were unwilling to bow to HIS pressure to get them to put out the fire.
Some locations are just that "No Man's Land" and are very rural. Emergency services response times would be far to great to save some folks/structures.
But not in this case, obviously, so that argument does not apply here.
Nothing to do with insurance. If the fire dept had done their job, his house would not have burned down.
If you get robbed, you expect the police to take an interest rather than shrug and say "not our job, sorry".
Does your city funded (garbage collection? I'm sure your city governments do something.) also perform their function in the rural area adjacent for free?
Well no, that rural adjacent area is maintained by the adjacent city government. If there's no city on the other side of the land, the city line moves out and "hey, free land!"
It's not the person that's being taken off the internet, it's the account. The person is quite welcome to use any other means to access the internet - so to say that the PERSON has been denied access to the internet is wrong.
To continue your car anology, think of your access to the internet as a lease agreement and the ISP is the car leasing company. In the contract you agree to pay your dues and keep the car in good condition, and in return the leasing company agrees to let you use their vehicle. If you fail to take good care of their vehicle, for example never change the oil or never have the brakes checked etc, then if the leasing company finds out that you've let the vehicle become a danger to other drivers, they'll take the car away from you. You can have it back if you pay to have it "fixed" or "brought up to code", or alternatively you're welcome to go get another car ("internet access") from someone else.
I think it's entirely within the ISPs rights to suspend someone's access if they have a bot-infected machine that is causing problems for other users. If the poor sap who has their access cut off actually calls the helpdesk "Mah internets iz borked" then they'll be told "Yes, because you have a computer on your local network that's got a nasty virus which is infecting other people - would you like some help getting it fixed so we can get you back online?".
Dear girls,
You're in a shoe shop, second in line at the register. Behind the shop assistant operating the register is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you must have.
The 'opposing' female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them with desire.
Both of you have forgotten your purses.
It would be totally rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes.
The shop assistant remains at the register waiting.
Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma.
She prepares to throw her purse to you.
If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes.
At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and, *whilst it is in flight* you could nip around the other shopper,
catch the purse and buy the shoes.
Always remembering that until the purse had *actually been thrown* it would be plain wrong to be forward of the other shopper.
Boats are notoriously difficult to sink into buildings.
Ahh, but that would make sense
No it wouldn't. Where do you draw the line? lotusemail.com? entouragemeail.com? groupwiseemail.com? inscribeemail.com? pocomailemail.com? That's just a subset of email clients. What about other possible infringements?
What if someone wanted to set up a website for users of Microsoft's various email clients? Seems like microsoftemail.com could be considered as a possible name, so if there's going to be just a bunch of simple non-dangerous HTML on the site, how can the domain registrar call foul?
I really can't see registrars submitting every request through a trademark check. What if something is trademarked in Malawi but not the US? What if it's trademarked in the US but nowhere else? What if the domain name subsequently becomes a trademark?
Asking the registrar to perform these checks is akin to asking YouTube to check copyright infringements. Let the owner of the mark defend their property, not introduce some intricate scheme that's not going to fix the problem anyway.
What's more likely, I think, is that he thought to say "forty seven (of the fifty) states" and it came out "fifty seven states". I can totally believe that much more than he thinks there are 60 states.
57 instead of 47 is a piss easy mistake to make when chatting.
I'm not in the US so why should I care? All non-US ISPs and free DNS services will carry on as usual, and the US will become an island on the internet. Somehow I can't see that happening, but if it does ... in a battle between the US versus The World I'll take The World.
ONE TIME
How do you know? Was there some kind of Survivor vote reveal, where it was neck and neck and it was down to the final vote - which you recognised because of your special smiley riff?
Your vote ALWAYS counts. Whether it matters is another point entirely, and not really the point of voting. The important thing is that it counts.
Maybe that's why you have low turnouts, because people are under the impression that it's their vote that will change things. Elections don't work that way. More important than the outcome, is the participation. It's the act of voting in a free and fair election is what's the most important thing, the outcome is merely a by-product.
Rights are not granted, they are inherent to free people and given up by those not willing to fight for them.
Why was this modded informative? If something is inherent, then it cannot be given up.
Inherent \In*her"ent\, a. [L. inhaerens, -entis, p. pr. of inhaerere: cf. F. inh['e]rent. See Inhere.]
Permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or connected; naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable;
Rights are indeed granted - they are written down and we all agree who has what rights, in national and international laws. Your rights vary from state to state, from country to country. For example, you do not have an inalienable right to life in the US. The government can take it away from you for certain crimes - ergo it is not inalienable.
Completely ignoring the issue: I hate it that it's so easy to call anonymously. I have the right to know who's calling me.
Says who? What of the rights of the person calling you, for them to remain anonymous?
Y'see, this is why rights are given, not assumed. Unless it's specifically written down somewhere, you have no rights. Right to life? Yup, covered by the restrictions on people taking it away from you. Right to see who's calling you? Nope, not unless there's a law saying it's illegal to call anonymously.
Good job he went for a name like John Stuart then.
Do quotes about the financial situation last spring being compared to the Great Depression of the 1930s count?
From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Wow, let's count the weasel words: reasonable, demonstrably, justified, free and democratic. And some of those even modify/qualify the others!
If you think those are weasel words, then you'll find plenty more in the Bill of Rights.
I've been arguing that the behaviour of Rackspace is wrong.
How so? Rackspace is a corporation, and the only right or wrong is legal or not legal. A corporation has no feelings, it has no morality, it does not care about anything except what's in its Articles of Incorporation - which will be profit for its shareholders.
We've established that Rackspace are not obliged to listen to your opinions, nor those of anyone else who isn't a shareholder of Rackspace - this includes your views on whether they are right or wrong.
Legally speaking, what Rackspace did was right - well within their rights in fact. Morally speaking - they are a company and care nothing for morals as long as its legal and makes them money.
What exactly do you mean when you ask whether Rackspace's behaviour is right? What's right for a company is sometimes not what's right for a person and vice versa. You should not anthropomorphise Rackspace, it makes no sense.
My opinion is irrelevant, as I neither wrote nor signed the contract.
If you have a problem with a hosting site's AUP, then don't use them. If they cut you off for violating your contract, my opinion on the matter is entirely moot. The contract is "good", i.e. legally sound, you get what you pay for.
"Hate speech" may indeed be a political term, but last time I checked that hosting company is not in the political industry, it's in the hosting industry where (surprise surprise) legal contracts trump your opinions.
So you're saying it's okay for companies to discriminate between customers based on expressed beliefs.
I don't make that leap - there's no evidence to suggest that's true in this case. What is actually being said here is that it's okay for companies to discriminate between customers based on their actions, especially when those actions violate provisions in the contract that they have signed.
But if you a shopkeeper, want to sell megaphones to everyone but mormons, for example, that's something different.
Nope, being a mormon has nothing to do with it. If a mormon group had 'violated the hate-speech provision of [their] acceptable-use policy,' I'd expect them to be cut off. If a kitten-cuddling group had 'violated the hate-speech provision of [their] acceptable-use policy,' I'd expect them to be cut off too.
Except for philately...
I'm sorry, what?
I don't know either, but my girlfriend says it will get me nowhere.
Google Analytics means that you can be visiting any of an ever increasing range of sites with no visible affiliation to Google, but still be being tracked by them.
So? Can I demand that the shopkeeper turn off the CCTV before I enter the store? Try buying gas without ending up being recorded on tape somehow.
If someone is that paranoid about being tracked, turn off the damned cookies in your browser. If you're super-duper paranoid, get off the internet - no-one is forcing you to browse.
I can't be bothered to research the number of offshore oil rigs in the world, but NOAA says there are about 4000 in the GOM.
I still can't be bothered to research whether there are environmental issues, but off the top of my head, the North Sea and the Persian Gulf are not known for their hurricanes.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "disaster"?
Do you understand the difference between what is supposed to happen, and what happens in real life?
Airplanes are not supposed to fall out of the sky. Trucks are not supposed to crash. Trains are not supposed to derail.
Given the sizes of each of those industries, do you really expect zero disasters over 50 years?
And really, it's absolutely nothing like George Bush saying "Well, I kept you safe for 7 out of 8 years. That's not so bad."
No, because there is obviously something wrong with the industry when two rigs explode within months of each other. Until they get their existing operations sorted out, it's logical to stop them adding new ones in more risky places.
Obviously? For such a huge industry, there have been surprisingly few disasters over the past 50 years.
The same way we long ago stopped worrying about coal mine deaths - except for those poor bastards in Ecuador, where the story is "human interest".
Chile. At least you got the right continent.
Oh, and gold/copper, not coal.
Other than that, spot on.