It's an interesting story -- the guy who shot the detainee in the head actually was a South Vietnamese police captain acting on his own initiative. It was of course one of the most controversial images of the war, so it's hard to say that there was any consensus here that it was appropriate.
SAIGON, South Vietnam -- South Vietnamese National Police Chief Brig. Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan executes a Viet Cong officer with a shot to the head, one of the most chilling images of the Vietnam War. Photographer Eddie Adams, who won a Pulitzer Prize for this photograph, said the execution was justified, because the Viet Cong officer had killed eight South Vietnamese. The furor created by this 1968 image destroyed Loan's life. He fled South Vietnam in 1975, the year the communists overran the country, and moved to Virginia, where he opened a restaurant. He died in 1998 at age 67. Loan 'was a hero,' Adams said when he died. 'America should be crying. I just hate to see him go this way, without people knowing anything about him.'
Actually I have a generator.:) And the analogy is limited: Electricity is a commodity that you actually consume. The airwaves are more like free speech. Electricity is about quality of life, communication about quality of mind. As for rabbit ears (and rooftop antennas), currently MILLIONS of homes in the US get their signals that way, including HD. I use it here sometimes with an eyeTV adapter. (And millions still have dial-up. Honest.)
When they talk about the warring parties, there doesn't seem to be enough discussion of the death of free (ad-driven or public, but no access fee) broadcasting. Much of the focus, with some lip service to expanding access to broadband, seems to be on wringing as much profit out of the limited spectrum as possible rather than the maximum benefit to all of us from what is basically a natural resource. I don't like the idea of private industry snapping up control and then renting it back to us. How long before the old rabbit ear antennas are quaint and $50/month service is required? The Internet is a vital alternative for many things, but it is far from cheap or independent itself. I for one am feeling more and more "owned" by the access providers and would like to hear a lot more about ubiquitous free Wifi -- in the cities and the boondocks -- and such, as common and cheap as electricity.
Market size is comfortably in the millions. There are many corruptions in the system.
From a WSJ article re a proponent of $100 hearing aids:
Dr. Killion says many stores already sell "listening devices" for people with normal hearing that differ little from hearing aids. For example, sporting-goods stores sell ear devices for hunters that muffle the sound of gun shots but also amplify quiet sounds, such as animals rustling in vegetation. Dr. Killion says the hunters' device is actually quite effective for people who have trouble hearing and illustrates his point that there's no technological barrier to an inexpensive over-the-counter hearing aid.
Not so fast. Hearing aid sales in the United States aone are around 2 million. Add international sales (no need for language localized version:), the relatively slow product cycle, etc. and the prices are hard to defend.
The hearing aid is not an obscure device, and many millions of people will need one. It is also relatively recession-proof.
It appears that the industry both suffers from a lot of regulation but also is, frankly, crooked. See this Wall Street Journal article.
Actually I agree with you; I was just trying to be nice and cut our manned space flight friends some slack.:) They can be rather passionate. I maintain, however, that manned space flight is really cool. Just not worth it.
"Enjoy" is exactly it -- manned space flight is cool. The STS pictures are amazing. It is not cost effective. I want us (humans) to have a strong committent to space exploration, real science, and for thirty years have noticed that it is a rare scientist who will speak well of the Shuttle program. It has had some great successes, such as the HST repairs (I don't know how else those would have been feasible) but the more common story I've heard is that NASA would delay launches to try to force them to go on the Shuttle, and that funding for basic research probes, with which we have seen stunning successes, was eviscerated.
So, before questioning the end of the multi-billion-dollar Shuttle program that killed two crews, be sure of what we really want next. Myself, I want to see the money spent, and spent efficiently. I'm happy enough if not a human but a robot boldly goes where no human|robot has gone before, and I suspect the robot will do a better job, cost one fifth as much, and happen twenty years sooner.
And yes I agree it is preposterous to distinguish "natural" remedies as good because they came directly from a plant. Strychnine anyone?
The anti-pill arrogance can actually cause harm, as by discouraging people from seeking help. It's good I think to be skeptical of any treatment, but that doesn't prove you're special.
if people expanded their horizons and stopped popping Advils or taking Zicam when they aren't feeling well and taking another root (natural medicine, anyone?), It's guaranteed society would notice a difference
Ah, so you know of a root that is an analgesic, or which has anti-inflammatory properties? That's nice. Can you tell how to provide exactly the right amount of that root, prepared in exactly the right and consistent way, to produce just the anti-inflammatory effect needed without also causing liver or kidney trouble, or provoking an allergic response? Really? So, can you explain to a couple hundred thousand local witch doctors exactly how to predictably prepare, store, and dispense that substance so that anyone traveling can be sure they're getting just what they know will work, no matter where they go? I see, so we need some standards for preparation and dosing, just to be safe? I know, let's call those "pharmaceuticals."
There is a lot of humor in law, especially the parts that are interwoven with human experioence. Law like science is an effort to explain and order the world, though without any promise of ultimate truth. The best teachers in law school used a lot of humor, at least in first year, as a way of sustaining attention and perhaps befriending the audience (it's soft Socratic, not like The Paper Chase any more).
Humor in the hands of the brilliant is the perception of and pointing out the truth of a situation in a way that almost forces understanding and agreement. Once the person laughs, they're in on the conspiracy, perhaps even with appreciation for the release of tension; and the point is made almost indelibly.
If electronic could be made 100% secure, foolproof, etc., it should still not be used simply because of the PERCEPTION of what happens..."
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." -- Emma Goldman (attrib.)
Consider that if voting is a feel-good event, does reality matter? If the voters perceive the election to be fair, why even count the ballots? In the cynical view, the voters don't want to know how the sausage is made, they just want to *believe* it doesn't have cow poop in it. No one in the general public thought about hanging chads (cow poop) until there was a disaster; the people running the elections sure knew about the poop, but also knew they could get away with selling it as 100% beef.
I vote (not that anyone cares) for simple, cheap, reliable, flawed-but-less-so optical scan plus manual recounts of samples to detect errors or fraud. Save technology for where it is actually needed,* not because it saves a few bucks (maybe) or makes election officials look 21st century.
*Until we get unalterable optolythic data rod or the equivalent (which I will call "paper plus").
Libertarian?? I am amused at the way you describe it as "libertarian" to oppose federal coercion, but take for granted state/local coercion ("leave it up to the states"?). OK, giving whatever backward school district free rein to ignore the most basic tenets of science and freedom of religion, may a federalist view, but hardly libertarian.
Radical, irrational views like this will inevitably infect decisionmaking.
i'm trying to picture a revived miami vice, focused on computer crimes. imagine the possibilities. ok, there aren't many...
congrats to the irish police for taking the offense so seriously. but is anyway here wary of the snooping involved? yes the sysadmin had every right to monitor traffic, but in what depth and for what purpose? for example, there's talk here of trying to fish out the suspect's email password and so on -- at police request. wouldn't it would feel a bit different in the police, without warrant, were to do the same themselves -- imagine worst case of them bugging all internet cafes to examine generic traffic without individualized suspicion. it's bad enough they want to see what we do at the library....
practically speaking, i would imagine the government generally lacks the resources to parse large amounts of computer data. but just wait until it can be done by computers hunting for suspicious transactions, much as the credit card companies do now to catch fraud. the capability is there.
i'm not sure where the legal stuff comes out here, this is not US law, but wonder about future possibilities. it is debatable what expectation of privacy you have in an internet cafe -- are keyloggers ok? is decrypting information different from reading plain text? must the user be warned? as an analogy, consider that when the federal exclusionary rule was first judicially established, it did not apply to states and the "silver platter doctrine" emerged whereby state investigators would get what the feds wanted and hand it over clean of any search and seizure problem. obviously this is a charade.
someone who acts at the behest of the government -- an agent -- pretty much *is* the government, and i wonder if this interpretation colors the reaction of anyone here on privacy -- normally/.'rs are pretty, um, passionate on privacy and gov't intrusion, even if this IS an (alleged!) spammer who by definition is not humanoid.:)
how much information on these is machines is public record? how much of government records should be confidential? what i would worry more about is people tampering with the records, doubling my property tax and so on.
also, what if any liability does government have for misuse of information? an infamous case was a state (CA?) that gave out auto licence plate information promiscuously enabled a stalker to locate and kill a woman. for a time state governments were selling driver's license information to marketers, all the way down to the height and weight info. i worked on a proposed "violent gang database" collecting officer intelligence on alleged gang members, such as nicknames, residence, and so on -- i asked, what if the data falls in the hands on an enemy gang?
i would suggest that government should be held liable for negligent dissemination of private information, and that some sort of comprehensive plan regarding what is "private" and what is required to access private data. right now i can apparently find out how much my neighbor paid for her house, how much she gave to poilitical campaigns, where she's lived for the last 20 years -- questions i would hesitate to ask to her face (and she's nice!). what's going on here?
this touches a nerve, as you can see.:) don't get me started about identity theft! (like why is SSN used for anything OTHER THAN social security?)
Why would it be illegal to discriminate on the basis of politics? I don't see anything on this at the FEC site.
The government can't discriminate on politics (first amendment) but the rest of us can. Age, gender, race, disability, and so on are protected by specific civil rights law; they are "protected classes." you can, however, refuse to rent to or employ someone on sexual orientation (most places), height, odor.... and if you want to hire only republicans for, say, the RNC, go ahead.
however, it regrettable that disclosure might chill some contributions. but with public financing of campaigns we could get around all of this nonsense and candidate groveling for contributions.
ah, i agree with you on energy production but made a politically pragmatic point. your arguments go to what should happen. what i fear *will* happen is a haphazard series of changes designed to be popular rather than comprehensive, and all under the jaundiced eye of industry. actually, that is what *has* been happening for years ever since President Reagan persuaded a receptive public that President Carter was nuts to turn down the thermostat in the white house, perhaps even unamerican.
americans are familiar with cheap energy and relatively minimal government. auto gas in denmark or germany costs what, double? triple? (i pick cars b/c i know at least a little about it.) arguments for behavior-inducing gas taxes, or more efficient cars (e.g., CAFE has been frozen since Reagan), have been shot down even though, yes, they probably would have reaped larger dividends in "externalities." americans angrily notice a 10 cent difference in gas prices (even if adjusted for inflation our gas has gotten cheaper) and not externalities, in fact few will listen to (my) arguments about thinking in inflation-adjusted dollars or counting the price of middle eastern entanglement, and would be quick to complain about the "tin can" cars people favor in countries with expensive gas. The Hummer -- only in america?
i don't mean to knock americans too harshly -- heck, i *am* one -- but to say old ways reinforced by pandering politicians die hard. this is plain old cynical politics, not an intellectual exercise. just because an argument makes perfect sense doesn't mean it will carry the day.
i would urge the public to insist on a comprehensive plan, and to be wary of emotional appeals to do this or that. industry is likely to rig the game if overall performance is not a well-defined quantifiable goal as it is in something like air quality. gee, wouldn't this be a good topic for a candidate for president? this is fight that can be won, but only if we pick it.
btw, i have been watching wind with interest and am especially curious where "cape wind" will come out. again politics are key -- which side will win and why?
... but the writer's unstated point is apt -- we should consider what WILL happen, not what should. it is unlikely that eliminating nuclear will be in tandem with making coal safe; coal use will increase (or some other dirty fossil fuel method) and a new more subtle hazard will spring up. it is easy to protest the "sexy" threat of nuclear (e.g., the China Syndrome) while not adequately bringing the hazards of mercury into the public's mind (try writing a movie on tainted fish!). the industry is driven by profit, the public by subjective fear... and a dislike of taxes and energy prices. alternative energy still has a fringe image to it, and frankly in the short term it offers less profit or higher prices. (rarely are the alternatives zero impact, either.)
i'm not arguing for nuclear or against coal per se, rather that the ENTIRE energy production picture MUST be considered at once, otherwise we merely displace risk and may even cause more aggregate harm.
thanks for chiming in. perhaps he is just an idiot, perhaps he has a disorder, perhaps he has a disorder AND is an idiot, perhaps neither... well, point is, one can't know this easily, but the question is worthy.
facetiousness aside, a lot of people getting willingly nailed by nigerian scams, penis enlargement pitches, and so may have a variety of things going on that dismissal as an idiot does not address. if we want to reduce the behavior and maybe do a little good for the victim, a harder look is often beneficial, and i mean in our day-to-day lives. that jerk brother-in-law might suffer from depression (which causes anxiety, of a flavor that's like being sawn in half), that tardy employee might be an alcoholic, etc. the point is not to give everyone an excuse, but to target the response to the problem and maybe do some good.
although (ahem) i am enjoying some of the humor here, i hope this guy makes some progress beyond "idiot". granted there are genuine idiots out there (if it's innate do we blame the same as if it is a choice?). i don't mean to medicalize everything, but the ignorance of the "normals" is greater than we realize.
of pork, the dictionary says "The flesh of a pig or hog used as food."
that's pretty broad!! of course what do i care, i'm vegetarian... whatever ethical benefits that does or does not provide, it relieves me of wondering whether that elusive line between my food and dog food really exists!
iirc, sodium nitrite (NaNO2) is the meat preservative (and suspected carcinogen?); sodium nitrate (NaNO3) is the sodium version of saltpeter used as fertilizer and in gunpowder. i remember my disappointment as a kid that bacon could not be made into an explosive.
Did you know people do this sort of thing voluntarily? (Note the "spam cram" -- Hormel asked them to change the name to "The World Championship SPAM(R) Burger Eating Contest.") What if spam-lovers self-selected to be spammers? It's spamful.
What's remarkable to me, given the examples of companies like Microsoft, Apple, Disney, etc., on trademark, is Hormel's fairly good humor about all these uses of its name such as this, UCE, Monty Python. Granted the slang use of spam would've gotten away from them no matter what (they once sued the "spam king"), but they chose to make wine out of water and take the benefit of people hearing the name -- provided no one publishes what they actually put in their product.
Now wouldn't you like to go have some nice Spam(R)?
CAN-SPAM applies, and of course US law has extraterritorial effect.
As for our end of things, laws extend as far as the counstitution (due process) allows. On the foreign end, they may be *practical* problems such as getting physical custody (extradition), seizing assets, collecting evidence, but the US and Canada are on very good terms and have one of the most significant economic relationships in the world -- we can work it out. Also, if the defendants have violated the act and we can't reach them, they may still have reason to regret it -- and US assets might be forfeited and they might not want to visit. They can also be subject to suit in absentia -- if they refuse to show up on proper notice and jurdiction, they may lose their defenses.
Jurisdiction derives from the domestic effects, you can't just hide on the other side of the border. The classic example is that if you shoot someone across the border, you are subject to the jurisdiction; yes this applies to fraud and other intangible offenses like the Nigerian scams. Again, the problems are practical. About CAN-SPAM. The practical problems in enforcing it are HUGE, but clearly the theoretical jurisdiction exists. Also -- it seems a bit implausible to suppose that Yahoo's lawyers missed so many first-year law classes that they didn't catch any of this.
As for who may sue -- the law in enforceable by the FTC, civil action by the states, and not individuals but ISP's (here, Yahoo):
(f) ACTION BY PROVIDER OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE.--
(1) ACTION AUTHORIZED.--A provider of Internet access service adversely affected by a violation of section 5 may bring a civil action in any district court of the United States with jurisdiction over the defendant, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, to--
(A) enjoin further violation by the defendant; or
(B) recover damages in an amount equal to the greater of--
(i) actual monetary loss incurred by the provider of Internet access service as a result of such violation; or
(ii) the amount determined under paragraph (2).
(2) STATUTORY DAMAGES.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), the amount determined under this paragraph is the amount calculated by multiplying the number of willful, knowing, or negligent violations by an amount, in the discretion of the court, of up to $10 (with each separately addressed unlawful message carried over the facilities of the provider of Internet access service or sent to an electronic mail address obtained from the provider of Internet access service in violation of section 5(b) treated as a separate violation). In determining the per-violation penalty under this subparagraph, the court shall take into account the degree of culpability, any history of prior such conduct, ability to pay, the extent of economic gain resulting from the violation, and such other matters as justice may require.
(B) LIMITATION.--For any violation of section 5 (other than section 5(a)(1)), the amount determined under subparagraph (A) may not exceed $500,000, except that if the court finds that the defendant committed the violation willfully and knowingly, the court may increase the limitation established by this paragraph from $500,000 to an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.
(3) ATTORNEY FEES.--In any action brought pursuant to paragraph (1), the court may, in its discretion, require an undertaking for the payment of the costs of such action, and assess reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, against any party.
i think they do quite a bit in the hope of luring customers and getting them to linger to maybe buy a second round or other stuff. they play music, provide tables outside, sell newspapers, easy bwireless access.... i'm not that wild about their coffee buy will pay extra not to be told to leave right away.:)
also i suspect starbucks feels pressure to continually reinvent itself rather be perceived as yesterday's coffee news. notice how mcdonalds introduces new items of dubious value to get some buzz and quietly drops them later. (or such is my impression, i don't eat there anymore.)
now if only starbucks could make coffee that didn't taste burnt. i like underdogs, good luck peet's. we have an indy coffee place nearby that has *couches* and wireless..... i doubt the chains will go this far, that's just a bit too inviting.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an interesting story -- the guy who shot the detainee in the head actually was a South Vietnamese police captain acting on his own initiative. It was of course one of the most controversial images of the war, so it's hard to say that there was any consensus here that it was appropriate.
One account:
Actually I have a generator. :) And the analogy is limited: Electricity is a commodity that you actually consume. The airwaves are more like free speech. Electricity is about quality of life, communication about quality of mind. As for rabbit ears (and rooftop antennas), currently MILLIONS of homes in the US get their signals that way, including HD. I use it here sometimes with an eyeTV adapter. (And millions still have dial-up. Honest.)
When they talk about the warring parties, there doesn't seem to be enough discussion of the death of free (ad-driven or public, but no access fee) broadcasting. Much of the focus, with some lip service to expanding access to broadband, seems to be on wringing as much profit out of the limited spectrum as possible rather than the maximum benefit to all of us from what is basically a natural resource. I don't like the idea of private industry snapping up control and then renting it back to us. How long before the old rabbit ear antennas are quaint and $50/month service is required? The Internet is a vital alternative for many things, but it is far from cheap or independent itself. I for one am feeling more and more "owned" by the access providers and would like to hear a lot more about ubiquitous free Wifi -- in the cities and the boondocks -- and such, as common and cheap as electricity.
Not so fast. Hearing aid sales in the United States aone are around 2 million. Add international sales (no need for language localized version :), the relatively slow product cycle, etc. and the prices are hard to defend.
The hearing aid is not an obscure device, and many millions of people will need one. It is also relatively recession-proof.
It appears that the industry both suffers from a lot of regulation but also is, frankly, crooked. See this Wall Street Journal article.
Actually I agree with you; I was just trying to be nice and cut our manned space flight friends some slack. :) They can be rather passionate. I maintain, however, that manned space flight is really cool. Just not worth it.
"Enjoy" is exactly it -- manned space flight is cool. The STS pictures are amazing. It is not cost effective. I want us (humans) to have a strong committent to space exploration, real science, and for thirty years have noticed that it is a rare scientist who will speak well of the Shuttle program. It has had some great successes, such as the HST repairs (I don't know how else those would have been feasible) but the more common story I've heard is that NASA would delay launches to try to force them to go on the Shuttle, and that funding for basic research probes, with which we have seen stunning successes, was eviscerated.
So, before questioning the end of the multi-billion-dollar Shuttle program that killed two crews, be sure of what we really want next. Myself, I want to see the money spent, and spent efficiently. I'm happy enough if not a human but a robot boldly goes where no human|robot has gone before, and I suspect the robot will do a better job, cost one fifth as much, and happen twenty years sooner.
Hilarious :-)
Um, I think the writer meant "route" not "root."
And yes I agree it is preposterous to distinguish "natural" remedies as good because they came directly from a plant. Strychnine anyone?
The anti-pill arrogance can actually cause harm, as by discouraging people from seeking help. It's good I think to be skeptical of any treatment, but that doesn't prove you're special.
if people expanded their horizons and stopped popping Advils or taking Zicam when they aren't feeling well and taking another root (natural medicine, anyone?), It's guaranteed society would notice a difference
Ah, so you know of a root that is an analgesic, or which has anti-inflammatory properties? That's nice. Can you tell how to provide exactly the right amount of that root, prepared in exactly the right and consistent way, to produce just the anti-inflammatory effect needed without also causing liver or kidney trouble, or provoking an allergic response? Really? So, can you explain to a couple hundred thousand local witch doctors exactly how to predictably prepare, store, and dispense that substance so that anyone traveling can be sure they're getting just what they know will work, no matter where they go? I see, so we need some standards for preparation and dosing, just to be safe? I know, let's call those "pharmaceuticals."
There is a lot of humor in law, especially the parts that are interwoven with human experioence. Law like science is an effort to explain and order the world, though without any promise of ultimate truth. The best teachers in law school used a lot of humor, at least in first year, as a way of sustaining attention and perhaps befriending the audience (it's soft Socratic, not like The Paper Chase any more).
Humor in the hands of the brilliant is the perception of and pointing out the truth of a situation in a way that almost forces understanding and agreement. Once the person laughs, they're in on the conspiracy, perhaps even with appreciation for the release of tension; and the point is made almost indelibly.
If electronic could be made 100% secure, foolproof, etc., it should still not be used simply because of the PERCEPTION of what happens..."
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." -- Emma Goldman (attrib.)
Consider that if voting is a feel-good event, does reality matter? If the voters perceive the election to be fair, why even count the ballots? In the cynical view, the voters don't want to know how the sausage is made, they just want to *believe* it doesn't have cow poop in it. No one in the general public thought about hanging chads (cow poop) until there was a disaster; the people running the elections sure knew about the poop, but also knew they could get away with selling it as 100% beef.
I vote (not that anyone cares) for simple, cheap, reliable, flawed-but-less-so optical scan plus manual recounts of samples to detect errors or fraud. Save technology for where it is actually needed,* not because it saves a few bucks (maybe) or makes election officials look 21st century.
*Until we get unalterable optolythic data rod or the equivalent (which I will call "paper plus").
Libertarian?? I am amused at the way you describe it as "libertarian" to oppose federal coercion, but take for granted state/local coercion ("leave it up to the states"?). OK, giving whatever backward school district free rein to ignore the most basic tenets of science and freedom of religion, may a federalist view, but hardly libertarian.
Radical, irrational views like this will inevitably infect decisionmaking.
As I noted above, the sexually connotation of the comment was pretty clear. I suspect the *BBC* agreed b/c they deleted it. Weirdness.
I do agree "sexually" was implied by the article, and the whole comment was an unsubstantiated slur.
However, my check of the BBC article indicates they later edited the unfortunate sentence out, which is also QUITE unfortunate.
Compare the first hit from a Google of ["arthur c. clarke" "unconventional lifestyle continued to cause some raised eyebrows"]
with that article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7304004.stm
I don't see the word unconventional anywhere, or a notation that the article was edited.
...that they'll lose my bags?!?
... they'd somehow misplaced it at an airport the size of a thimble.
i'm serious, folks, it happened again a few weeks ago
i'm trying to picture a revived miami vice, focused on computer crimes. imagine the possibilities. ok, there aren't many...
/.'rs are pretty, um, passionate on privacy and gov't intrusion, even if this IS an (alleged!) spammer who by definition is not humanoid. :)
congrats to the irish police for taking the offense so seriously. but is anyway here wary of the snooping involved? yes the sysadmin had every right to monitor traffic, but in what depth and for what purpose? for example, there's talk here of trying to fish out the suspect's email password and so on -- at police request. wouldn't it would feel a bit different in the police, without warrant, were to do the same themselves -- imagine worst case of them bugging all internet cafes to examine generic traffic without individualized suspicion. it's bad enough they want to see what we do at the library....
practically speaking, i would imagine the government generally lacks the resources to parse large amounts of computer data. but just wait until it can be done by computers hunting for suspicious transactions, much as the credit card companies do now to catch fraud. the capability is there.
i'm not sure where the legal stuff comes out here, this is not US law, but wonder about future possibilities. it is debatable what expectation of privacy you have in an internet cafe -- are keyloggers ok? is decrypting information different from reading plain text? must the user be warned? as an analogy, consider that when the federal exclusionary rule was first judicially established, it did not apply to states and the "silver platter doctrine" emerged whereby state investigators would get what the feds wanted and hand it over clean of any search and seizure problem. obviously this is a charade.
someone who acts at the behest of the government -- an agent -- pretty much *is* the government, and i wonder if this interpretation colors the reaction of anyone here on privacy -- normally
how much information on these is machines is public record? how much of government records should be confidential? what i would worry more about is people tampering with the records, doubling my property tax and so on.
:) don't get me started about identity theft! (like why is SSN used for anything OTHER THAN social security?)
also, what if any liability does government have for misuse of information? an infamous case was a state (CA?) that gave out auto licence plate information promiscuously enabled a stalker to locate and kill a woman. for a time state governments were selling driver's license information to marketers, all the way down to the height and weight info. i worked on a proposed "violent gang database" collecting officer intelligence on alleged gang members, such as nicknames, residence, and so on -- i asked, what if the data falls in the hands on an enemy gang?
i would suggest that government should be held liable for negligent dissemination of private information, and that some sort of comprehensive plan regarding what is "private" and what is required to access private data. right now i can apparently find out how much my neighbor paid for her house, how much she gave to poilitical campaigns, where she's lived for the last 20 years -- questions i would hesitate to ask to her face (and she's nice!). what's going on here?
this touches a nerve, as you can see.
Why would it be illegal to discriminate on the basis of politics? I don't see anything on this at the FEC site.
The government can't discriminate on politics (first amendment) but the rest of us can. Age, gender, race, disability, and so on are protected by specific civil rights law; they are "protected classes." you can, however, refuse to rent to or employ someone on sexual orientation (most places), height, odor.... and if you want to hire only republicans for, say, the RNC, go ahead.
however, it regrettable that disclosure might chill some contributions. but with public financing of campaigns we could get around all of this nonsense and candidate groveling for contributions.
ah, i agree with you on energy production but made a politically pragmatic point. your arguments go to what should happen. what i fear *will* happen is a haphazard series of changes designed to be popular rather than comprehensive, and all under the jaundiced eye of industry. actually, that is what *has* been happening for years ever since President Reagan persuaded a receptive public that President Carter was nuts to turn down the thermostat in the white house, perhaps even unamerican.
americans are familiar with cheap energy and relatively minimal government. auto gas in denmark or germany costs what, double? triple? (i pick cars b/c i know at least a little about it.) arguments for behavior-inducing gas taxes, or more efficient cars (e.g., CAFE has been frozen since Reagan), have been shot down even though, yes, they probably would have reaped larger dividends in "externalities." americans angrily notice a 10 cent difference in gas prices (even if adjusted for inflation our gas has gotten cheaper) and not externalities, in fact few will listen to (my) arguments about thinking in inflation-adjusted dollars or counting the price of middle eastern entanglement, and would be quick to complain about the "tin can" cars people favor in countries with expensive gas. The Hummer -- only in america?
i don't mean to knock americans too harshly -- heck, i *am* one -- but to say old ways reinforced by pandering politicians die hard. this is plain old cynical politics, not an intellectual exercise. just because an argument makes perfect sense doesn't mean it will carry the day.
i would urge the public to insist on a comprehensive plan, and to be wary of emotional appeals to do this or that. industry is likely to rig the game if overall performance is not a well-defined quantifiable goal as it is in something like air quality. gee, wouldn't this be a good topic for a candidate for president? this is fight that can be won, but only if we pick it.
btw, i have been watching wind with interest and am especially curious where "cape wind" will come out. again politics are key -- which side will win and why?
... but the writer's unstated point is apt -- we should consider what WILL happen, not what should. it is unlikely that eliminating nuclear will be in tandem with making coal safe; coal use will increase (or some other dirty fossil fuel method) and a new more subtle hazard will spring up. it is easy to protest the "sexy" threat of nuclear (e.g., the China Syndrome) while not adequately bringing the hazards of mercury into the public's mind (try writing a movie on tainted fish!). the industry is driven by profit, the public by subjective fear ... and a dislike of taxes and energy prices. alternative energy still has a fringe image to it, and frankly in the short term it offers less profit or higher prices. (rarely are the alternatives zero impact, either.)
i'm not arguing for nuclear or against coal per se, rather that the ENTIRE energy production picture MUST be considered at once, otherwise we merely displace risk and may even cause more aggregate harm.
thanks for chiming in. perhaps he is just an idiot, perhaps he has a disorder, perhaps he has a disorder AND is an idiot, perhaps neither ... well, point is, one can't know this easily, but the question is worthy.
facetiousness aside, a lot of people getting willingly nailed by nigerian scams, penis enlargement pitches, and so may have a variety of things going on that dismissal as an idiot does not address. if we want to reduce the behavior and maybe do a little good for the victim, a harder look is often beneficial, and i mean in our day-to-day lives. that jerk brother-in-law might suffer from depression (which causes anxiety, of a flavor that's like being sawn in half), that tardy employee might be an alcoholic, etc. the point is not to give everyone an excuse, but to target the response to the problem and maybe do some good.
although (ahem) i am enjoying some of the humor here, i hope this guy makes some progress beyond "idiot". granted there are genuine idiots out there (if it's innate do we blame the same as if it is a choice?). i don't mean to medicalize everything, but the ignorance of the "normals" is greater than we realize.
more likely, that worker too is SPAM. ;-)
... whatever ethical benefits that does or does not provide, it relieves me of wondering whether that elusive line between my food and dog food really exists!
of pork, the dictionary says "The flesh of a pig or hog used as food."
that's pretty broad!! of course what do i care, i'm vegetarian
iirc, sodium nitrite (NaNO2) is the meat preservative (and suspected carcinogen?); sodium nitrate (NaNO3) is the sodium version of saltpeter used as fertilizer and in gunpowder. i remember my disappointment as a kid that bacon could not be made into an explosive.
Did you know people do this sort of thing voluntarily? (Note the "spam cram" -- Hormel asked them to change the name to "The World Championship SPAM(R) Burger Eating Contest.") What if spam-lovers self-selected to be spammers? It's spamful.
What's remarkable to me, given the examples of companies like Microsoft, Apple, Disney, etc., on trademark, is Hormel's fairly good humor about all these uses of its name such as this, UCE, Monty Python. Granted the slang use of spam would've gotten away from them no matter what (they once sued the "spam king"), but they chose to make wine out of water and take the benefit of people hearing the name -- provided no one publishes what they actually put in their product.
Now wouldn't you like to go have some nice Spam(R)?
CAN-SPAM applies, and of course US law has extraterritorial effect.
As for our end of things, laws extend as far as the counstitution (due process) allows. On the foreign end, they may be *practical* problems such as getting physical custody (extradition), seizing assets, collecting evidence, but the US and Canada are on very good terms and have one of the most significant economic relationships in the world -- we can work it out. Also, if the defendants have violated the act and we can't reach them, they may still have reason to regret it -- and US assets might be forfeited and they might not want to visit. They can also be subject to suit in absentia -- if they refuse to show up on proper notice and jurdiction, they may lose their defenses.
Jurisdiction derives from the domestic effects, you can't just hide on the other side of the border. The classic example is that if you shoot someone across the border, you are subject to the jurisdiction; yes this applies to fraud and other intangible offenses like the Nigerian scams. Again, the problems are practical. About CAN-SPAM. The practical problems in enforcing it are HUGE, but clearly the theoretical jurisdiction exists. Also -- it seems a bit implausible to suppose that Yahoo's lawyers missed so many first-year law classes that they didn't catch any of this.
As for who may sue -- the law in enforceable by the FTC, civil action by the states, and not individuals but ISP's (here, Yahoo):
(f) ACTION BY PROVIDER OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE.--
(1) ACTION AUTHORIZED.--A provider of Internet access service adversely affected by a violation of section 5 may bring a civil action in any district court of the United States with jurisdiction over the defendant, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, to--
(A) enjoin further violation by the defendant; or
(B) recover damages in an amount equal to the greater of--
(i) actual monetary loss incurred by the provider of Internet access service as a result of such violation; or
(ii) the amount determined under paragraph (2).
(2) STATUTORY DAMAGES.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), the amount determined under this paragraph is the amount calculated by multiplying the number of willful, knowing, or negligent violations by an amount, in the discretion of the court, of up to $10 (with each separately addressed unlawful message carried over the facilities of the provider of Internet access service or sent to an electronic mail address obtained from the provider of Internet access service in violation of section 5(b) treated as a separate violation). In determining the per-violation penalty under this subparagraph, the court shall take into account the degree of culpability, any history of prior such conduct, ability to pay, the extent of economic gain resulting from the violation, and such other matters as justice may require.
(B) LIMITATION.--For any violation of section 5 (other than section 5(a)(1)), the amount determined under subparagraph (A) may not exceed $500,000, except that if the court finds that the defendant committed the violation willfully and knowingly, the court may increase the limitation established by this paragraph from $500,000 to an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.
(3) ATTORNEY FEES.--In any action brought pursuant to paragraph (1), the court may, in its discretion, require an undertaking for the payment of the costs of such action, and assess reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, against any party.
i think they do quite a bit in the hope of luring customers and getting them to linger to maybe buy a second round or other stuff. they play music, provide tables outside, sell newspapers, easy bwireless access.... i'm not that wild about their coffee buy will pay extra not to be told to leave right away. :)
also i suspect starbucks feels pressure to continually reinvent itself rather be perceived as yesterday's coffee news. notice how mcdonalds introduces new items of dubious value to get some buzz and quietly drops them later. (or such is my impression, i don't eat there anymore.)
now if only starbucks could make coffee that didn't taste burnt. i like underdogs, good luck peet's. we have an indy coffee place nearby that has *couches* and wireless..... i doubt the chains will go this far, that's just a bit too inviting.