The first amendment wouldn't apply here - a private employer has every right to block whatever they wish, it's not a freedom of speech issue.
The amendment would not apply because its scope is limited to government, indeed, but it is a freedom of speech issue. The concept of freedom of speech is independent of the legal framework devised to protect it. Private censorship is still censorship.
I remember a very vivid dream from my youth, in which I went into a gas station and bought a pack of Marlboro joints. They looked like cigarettes, and even had filters, and the box looked like a pack of Marlboro 100s except in deep green instead of red.
prohibition on a harmless plant with medicinal and recreational uses is ridiculous.
Well, it's not completely harmless. It's true some people turn into pothead couch potatoes... but they also snap out of it, so maybe it's just co-morbidity and self-medication for depression and causation shouldn't be implied from correlation, but there's also the short-term "woozy" effect that's harmless if you're not operating heavy machinery, and there's a down after the high (sleepiness, not bad of itself but at the wrong time it can cause problems). Oh, and inhaling smoke is not good for you (but it can be eaten, or vaporized).
That being said: Legalize it, because the insane approach of the last 70 years has been causing much more harm than the drug would cause naturally.
Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in. Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
No, growing your own pot in your own backward isn't interstate commerce, even if a corrupt judiciary says it is. Also, the emperor isn't wearing a pretty suit: he's naked, no matter what the judge said.
If I understood his post correctly their account is terminated. They are signing into the accounts of other people who told them their passwords.
Yeah, thanks, someone else already set me straight. I guess you'd have to ask your users to change their passwords when you're laying people off... awkward.
Read his complaint again. They were using account details that had been shared with them.
Ah, to log in to other people's account. I see. Voluntarily sharing details can still fall under the guise of defeating strict security because it gets in the way of getting things done, as with my collection of carelessly forgotten password reminders. You have to find the right balance: if you push your users too far they'll push back just as hard.
But disgruntled ex employees with other people's account info has got to be a pain in the neck that would make the most extreme security measures seem reasonable, I admit.
People who argue that changing passwords frequently* is a waste of time has not had to deal with the security issue of people sharing their passwords on a regular basis.
No, but I had to deal with very strict password rules at university, and you know what I liked to collect? Strips of paper with usernames and very complicated passwords you can't possibly remember. I found those handwritten notes quite frequently at the computer labs, because the password system was insanely user-hostile and stressed-out students forget things when running off to class in a hurry.
allowing anyone to log onto any computer in the network so long as they have an account, and mapping network drives automatically based on your permissions, but suffice to say some people just don't understand that. Someone will still only save to "My Documents" or C: drive, because thats what they do at home. Anyways, if someone gets terminated, and they remember the passwords, they pose a security risk.
Why is their account not terminated at the same moment as their employment?
You got me, troll. I kept telling you to stop replying instead of simply abstaining from feeding the troll... should have seen it sooner... shouldn't even post this, but your "use outdoorsy activities to prove the gym isn't boring" trolling routine obviously works. No point in denying it now.
I used walking as an example that I thought you might be able to relate to, seeing as your smugly superior attitude must preclude you from doing anything that involves what you consider "boredom and monotony", which basically is anything to do with improving physical skills
So much bullshit. Dude, the gym is boring, I know because I went. If you're fine with boredom, go ahead, go the gym, knock yourself out. But stop telling how much you like walks on the beach to prove that the gym isn't boring.
Seriously, stop telling me about all the outdoorsy things you think prove the gym isn't boring; it's ridiculous.
Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training.
And laws are written by lawyers in a way to ensure that a lot of money will have to be paid to lawyers. Like that 1990's modification of trademark law that says that companies MUST sue for all perceived infringement or else lose their trademark, meaning that "yoga inside" gets sued because "x inside" is too close to a chip maker's sales pitch to be allowed to be used for something clearly unrelated to their field.
The problems you mentioned are not specific to the United States of America. But considering that I've heard of rescuers sued by people who's lives they saved for injuring their arm pulling them out of burning cars, you do have a point.
Re:"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
You may not be scared of him but once the plot was announced and Times Square was blocked off for the investigation, a HUGE amount of people were canceling their flights into New York, modifying their schedules to avoid the area, etc. Also, just imagine the cost of closing down Times Square and running the massive investigation (in man-hours, travel, etc) to track down the bomber. It has a rather significant impact to our economy and daily lives.
Can't you accomplish the same with a simple phone call? "I have placed a, how you say, dirty bomb in the infidel Time Square! Allah akbar! LALALALALALALA!" would cause similar panic... heck, the Mooninite attack on Boston caused the same amount of fear, and they were just trying to make people watch a cartoon.
Terrorism doesn't have to have the bomb explode. It's mere presense makes for a successful attack. Was the "Times Square Bomber" successful? The answer is YES, HE WAS -- because it created a sense of "terror" to the population. The "bomb" didn't have to explode. In fact, the bomb couldn't have "exploded" because it was so poorly built
And people are scared by that display of total incompetence? Seems like they're afraid a yappy chihuahua is gonna bust down their door:-|
I'm glad to know that a trained terrorist can't do better than putting fireworks next to propane tanks and inert fertilizer. Makes me feel all safe and secure to see that their hate is balanced by their ignorance.
There have been semi-weekly 9/11s since 9/11, but the U.S. has been the one perpetrating them, not the one on the receiving end.
It's not terror, it's shock and awe! It's not torture, it's enhanced interrogation! It's not evil when WE do it!
Re:"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
The shoebomber, pantybomber and times square incident WERE SUCCESSFUL ATTACKS. The goal of terrorism is to incite fear and terror in our populace causing our country to waste money (damaging our economy) and restrict our freedoms more and more. All three achieved the larger goal. Killing people is just one of the methods to get there.
Is anyone scared by the "lets tape fireworks to propane cans" guy? Really? I feel safer knowing that the training camps churn out terrorists so incompetent any 14 year old Mythbuster fan could think of a way to do more damage than him.
Re:"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
Or has this large growth served us well, exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11?
There have been numerous terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, two successful (e.g., Fort Hood, Little Rock) and the rest foiled only by the attackers' own incompetence (e.g., Shoebomber, Pantybomber, Times Square).
You forgot the anthrax, and the smiley face bomber.
One idiot kid putting pipe bombs in people's mailboxes isn't as scary as a shadowy network of foreign enemies, plotting, scheming in the night... but he did do the acts of terrorism, for the goals of terrorism, and now the media (and this slashdot story is guilty of the same) pretends he never did.
If you're a bomber and your bomb doesn't go BOOM, you are not successful. As a terrorist he did not succeed, not with me at least, because demonstrating that even with training he can't make a bomb that actually explodes made me feel more secure, not less secure.
Shit, half the geeks here probably could make a better bomb just from secondhand anecdotes from the anarchist's cookbook, and these are the great enemy of civilization that can pilot planes into buildings and all? Damn.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you going to have 8-year-old asking, "Daddy, what does sex mean?" I'm not sure I'd vote for a party that put me through that kind of hassle.
"Sex is the difference between men and women. When you fill out forms, they have a question about sex and you answer boy or girl." Wow, what a hassle.
The first amendment wouldn't apply here - a private employer has every right to block whatever they wish, it's not a freedom of speech issue.
The amendment would not apply because its scope is limited to government, indeed, but it is a freedom of speech issue. The concept of freedom of speech is independent of the legal framework devised to protect it. Private censorship is still censorship.
RTFA, the workers ordered the parts and were still waiting for them when the place blew up and sank.
I remember a very vivid dream from my youth, in which I went into a gas station and bought a pack of Marlboro joints. They looked like cigarettes, and even had filters, and the box looked like a pack of Marlboro 100s except in deep green instead of red.
I hope you're sitting down
prohibition on a harmless plant with medicinal and recreational uses is ridiculous.
Well, it's not completely harmless. It's true some people turn into pothead couch potatoes... but they also snap out of it, so maybe it's just co-morbidity and self-medication for depression and causation shouldn't be implied from correlation, but there's also the short-term "woozy" effect that's harmless if you're not operating heavy machinery, and there's a down after the high (sleepiness, not bad of itself but at the wrong time it can cause problems). Oh, and inhaling smoke is not good for you (but it can be eaten, or vaporized).
That being said: Legalize it, because the insane approach of the last 70 years has been causing much more harm than the drug would cause naturally.
I don't have much hope that the Tea Party folks will bring sense to the GOP
You have some hope that the teabaggers will bring sense to anyone? Man, I bet nor torturer could break your spirit!
Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in. Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
No, growing your own pot in your own backward isn't interstate commerce, even if a corrupt judiciary says it is.
Also, the emperor isn't wearing a pretty suit: he's naked, no matter what the judge said.
I really don't see what the difference is between tobacco/pot compared to corn, beans and other foodstuffs.
Drugs and foods are different kinds of things.
Everyone needs food, only some need drugs.
The photo of the student confronting tanks isn't a national security risk.
So they won't have to filter that.
Are you mad? Then everyone will know their tanks aren't student-proof! It'll be the end of China!
If I understood his post correctly their account is terminated. They are signing into the accounts of other people who told them their passwords.
Yeah, thanks, someone else already set me straight. I guess you'd have to ask your users to change their passwords when you're laying people off... awkward.
Read his complaint again. They were using account details that had been shared with them.
Ah, to log in to other people's account. I see. Voluntarily sharing details can still fall under the guise of defeating strict security because it gets in the way of getting things done, as with my collection of carelessly forgotten password reminders. You have to find the right balance: if you push your users too far they'll push back just as hard.
But disgruntled ex employees with other people's account info has got to be a pain in the neck that would make the most extreme security measures seem reasonable, I admit.
People who argue that changing passwords frequently* is a waste of time has not had to deal with the security issue of people sharing their passwords on a regular basis.
No, but I had to deal with very strict password rules at university, and you know what I liked to collect? Strips of paper with usernames and very complicated passwords you can't possibly remember. I found those handwritten notes quite frequently at the computer labs, because the password system was insanely user-hostile and stressed-out students forget things when running off to class in a hurry.
allowing anyone to log onto any computer in the network so long as they have an account, and mapping network drives automatically based on your permissions, but suffice to say some people just don't understand that. Someone will still only save to "My Documents" or C: drive, because thats what they do at home. Anyways, if someone gets terminated, and they remember the passwords, they pose a security risk.
Why is their account not terminated at the same moment as their employment?
Please continue your trolling
You got me, troll. I kept telling you to stop replying instead of simply abstaining from feeding the troll... should have seen it sooner... shouldn't even post this, but your "use outdoorsy activities to prove the gym isn't boring" trolling routine obviously works. No point in denying it now.
I used walking as an example that I thought you might be able to relate to, seeing as your smugly superior attitude must preclude you from doing anything that involves what you consider "boredom and monotony", which basically is anything to do with improving physical skills
So much bullshit. Dude, the gym is boring, I know because I went. If you're fine with boredom, go ahead, go the gym, knock yourself out. But stop telling how much you like walks on the beach to prove that the gym isn't boring.
Seriously, stop telling me about all the outdoorsy things you think prove the gym isn't boring; it's ridiculous.
And how frequently do you click on random URLs from people you don't know now that you've had that experience?
All. day. long! :'(
Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training.
And laws are written by lawyers in a way to ensure that a lot of money will have to be paid to lawyers. Like that 1990's modification of trademark law that says that companies MUST sue for all perceived infringement or else lose their trademark, meaning that "yoga inside" gets sued because "x inside" is too close to a chip maker's sales pitch to be allowed to be used for something clearly unrelated to their field.
Google didn't violate peoples copyrights. The individual uploaders may or may not have,
according to the varying nuances of fair use.
Don't forget that viacom was uploading to youtube with sockpuppet accounts at the same time.
The US legal system is horrible.
The problems you mentioned are not specific to the United States of America. But considering that I've heard of rescuers sued by people who's lives they saved for injuring their arm pulling them out of burning cars, you do have a point.
You may not be scared of him but once the plot was announced and Times Square was blocked off for the investigation, a HUGE amount of people were canceling their flights into New York, modifying their schedules to avoid the area, etc. Also, just imagine the cost of closing down Times Square and running the massive investigation (in man-hours, travel, etc) to track down the bomber. It has a rather significant impact to our economy and daily lives.
Can't you accomplish the same with a simple phone call? "I have placed a, how you say, dirty bomb in the infidel Time Square! Allah akbar! LALALALALALALA!" would cause similar panic... heck, the Mooninite attack on Boston caused the same amount of fear, and they were just trying to make people watch a cartoon.
Terrorism doesn't have to have the bomb explode. It's mere presense makes for a successful attack. Was the "Times Square Bomber" successful? The answer is YES, HE WAS -- because it created a sense of "terror" to the population. The "bomb" didn't have to explode. In fact, the bomb couldn't have "exploded" because it was so poorly built
And people are scared by that display of total incompetence? Seems like they're afraid a yappy chihuahua is gonna bust down their door :-|
I'm glad to know that a trained terrorist can't do better than putting fireworks next to propane tanks and inert fertilizer. Makes me feel all safe and secure to see that their hate is balanced by their ignorance.
There has been no 9/11 since 9/11
There have been semi-weekly 9/11s since 9/11, but the U.S. has been the one perpetrating them, not the one on the receiving end.
It's not terror, it's shock and awe!
It's not torture, it's enhanced interrogation!
It's not evil when WE do it!
The shoebomber, pantybomber and times square incident WERE SUCCESSFUL ATTACKS. The goal of terrorism is to incite fear and terror in our populace causing our country to waste money (damaging our economy) and restrict our freedoms more and more. All three achieved the larger goal. Killing people is just one of the methods to get there.
Is anyone scared by the "lets tape fireworks to propane cans" guy? Really? I feel safer knowing that the training camps churn out terrorists so incompetent any 14 year old Mythbuster fan could think of a way to do more damage than him.
There have been numerous terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, two successful (e.g., Fort Hood, Little Rock) and the rest foiled only by the attackers' own incompetence (e.g., Shoebomber, Pantybomber, Times Square).
You forgot the anthrax, and the smiley face bomber.
One idiot kid putting pipe bombs in people's mailboxes isn't as scary as a shadowy network of foreign enemies, plotting, scheming in the night... but he did do the acts of terrorism, for the goals of terrorism, and now the media (and this slashdot story is guilty of the same) pretends he never did.
The times square bomber was also successful.
If you're a bomber and your bomb doesn't go BOOM, you are not successful.
As a terrorist he did not succeed, not with me at least, because demonstrating that even with training he can't make a bomb that actually explodes made me feel more secure, not less secure.
Shit, half the geeks here probably could make a better bomb just from secondhand anecdotes from the anarchist's cookbook, and these are the great enemy of civilization that can pilot planes into buildings and all? Damn.
This is clearly flamebait. And since I as a US citizen have a distaste for shit talking europeans
It sure is! Most people don't bother pointing that out at the beginning of their posts... well done.