SPAM can only be slowed via eduacation. People must learn that SPAM is not the way to buy things.
Unfortunately, you're wrong about this. SPAM works because the vanishingly small amount of money it generates per message is still greater than the cost of the message. The people who get taken by spam are the same people that get taken by psychics that advertise on cardboard signs. These people will always exist - no matter how much effort is made to educate them.
Two quotes come to mind:
"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
and
"Knowledge is realizing that the street is one-way, wisdom is looking both directions anyway" - unknown
The point is that their right to say what I do with their service should end at the point it enters my home. These laws enable telcos to regulate what I do with a bought and paid for service in the 'privacy' of my own home.
Your solution merely masks the problem. It assumes that market pressure will allow such things. That is a false assumption.
Competition only exists in a regulated market, if we do not regulate the telcos, but allow them to regulate us instead, competition among them will cease once they drive out the smaller players. Then we will truly be at their mercy when it comes to all sorts of communication.
I don't think so. America's telecommunications industry is related to national security. While I'm not normally one to be alarmist about security, I still think that allowing foreign companies to control any large part of our telecommunications infrastructure is a bad, bad idea.
And I think there may be laws on the books about that. IANAL, so I'm not certain, but isn't illegal for a foreign company to own more than a certain percentage of our telco industry?
That means if I meet 20 people, 5 of them will not be able to read or write correctly.
I find that absolutely scary for a civilised nation.
Yeah, and you know what's even scarier? Our "cut taxes, but spend more" Bush Administration has managed to see to it that education spending is plummeting around the nation. Oops... a correction: public education spending is plumeting. Private schools are doing better than ever. Lesson, get rich; 'cause being poor is getting harder live with.
We got the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, whatever happened to the wars on poverty and illiteracy? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be modest, intelligent, and free than poor, ignorant, and repressed. And I don't give a shit what the wealthy, safe, and smug people in Washington think if they are not willing to help me achieve that. Just so long as they get out of my way.
It should be noted that this study only polled American internet users. The internet presence of many other countries is small, but rising. Furthermore, there do not seem to be any empiricle measurements of the kind network traffic analisis could provide. The study also does not take into account non-personal uses of the internet. Things like spiders and robots, mirroring software, etc. This study should not be taken to mean that the internet usage in general is leveling off. Just direct usage of it by the general public in America.
Even their conclusions may not be entirely accurate. Although we may be reaching a certain saturation point, as the article suggests, that saturation point is actually a moving target. Saturation levels are determined by many things, including access to the technology, the current state of the art, and basic literacy rates. Improvements in any of these could drive the theoretical saturation point higher, allowing for more growth in usage levels.
However, the study is a good one on it's merits and has many interesting things to say within it's limitations. For instance, the summary states:...and 27% (of American non-interenet users) say they believe the Internet is too complicated and hard to understand. What with 23% of Americans functionally illiterate, this only to be expected. Although I would have expected expected the number to be somewhat higher, I guess there are quite a few things people of limited literacy skills could accomplish on the internet. Playing games and checking sports scores come to mind.
eMachines are disgusting. Some days I can't get near my workstation without gagging on the smell. I think it's built from the stuff you get from a five dollar whore. I wish I could chuck the thing out the window, or better yet, take a baseball bat to it.
hmm.. maybe that's a little harsh. But then again, maybe not. eMachines are pretty awful.
Banning books just doesn't work. The most the censors can hope for is to make certain books hard to find. And even that is getting harder and harder to do. Information does want to be free, and it's getting harder to restrain it every day. Witness the internet. If you want to get around the censors, you just offload your offensive material on some server outside their reach. It's so simple that any half educated person can do it. And speaking of education...
I believe that an educated, enlightened populous is the only hope for a peaceful and sustainable future. Banning books does nothing to help achieve that goal. That seems so obvious to me that I have trouble understanding people who don't think that way.
So I say to this guy, publish your book. And do it in the most visible way you can. Laws like the DMCA don't get repealed without public outcry, so make as much noise as possible. (Posting a link on slashdot helps;)
These things are all "good" but whenever we all collectively get together and nail the hell out of spammers with the pent up rage of 2 million people who can sighn them up for nail mail garbage, it's considered wrong?
Yeah, that durn enlightenment thing is annoying as hell. We gotta admit bad behavior even when it feels good.
Googling for my own state's (Texas) Super DMCA, I found this by Dan Wallach, an asst. professor at Rice University. He has some interesting things to say aout the billsbefore our House and Senate. So in the interest of fact checking, I looked at the Senate version.
Sure enough, by the letter of the law, NATs would be illegal. It prohibits owning or creating any technology that is used to knowingly modify a communications sevice in ways unauthorized by the service provider. The bill imposes a Class A misdemeanor for the first offence, except where five or more 'communications devices' are employed in the 'criminal episode'. In that case, the crime is a felony.
In my home, I have a wireless NAT setup. There are four desktop systems and a laptop that regularly access the internet via that network. Additionally, there is one more desktop that occasionally joins the network. That makes seven discreet communications devices, including the router, that are employed in gaining access. The definition of a communication device is very broad and includes single connectors,switches and connections (presumably between devices). Theoretically, the state could use each cat5 cable and external wireless nic as communications devices, upping my number of devices to 10 or 12. Since my ISP only grants authorized access to one communication device in my service contract, I would fall squarely under the stated definition of a felony under this bill. For running a freakin' home network!
I freely admit that I use my internet service connection in ways unauthorized by my provider. Sure. And they can cut my service at any time of their choosing if they find out. I accept that. I'm violating the agreement, therefore they have the right to terminate it. Simple, to the point, and effective.
But now I could become a felon as well. That's where I draw the line. In my opinion, the state has no business enforcing civil contracts with the criminal justice system. That's what the civil courts are for. If my provider cares to, they can try to get compensation for any perceived loss in a civil court. There is no need to make my activities a felony.
Somethings got to be done. I'm going to do my part and write a letter. Please do yours.
I think that the point is that he no longer has those documents in his possession. No documents, no crime. The documents in question were written before the law came into effect, and he apparently moved them immediately when it did go into effect. But being electronic documents, he should be absolutely certain that no unintentional copies remain on his computers.
This brings up an interesting question, if I live in Michigan (which I don't), would it be illegal for me to view the docs on the web? I mean, once having viewed them, I would have a cached copy on my computer.
Your suggestion does not line up at all with the activities of the US government in the past.
Sure it does. Just recently we have utterly ignored the UN's stance on Iraq, and attempted (pretty successfully) to marginalize their importance in the middle east. NAFTA, which we sponsored, does assume many of the functions supposedly provided by the WTO. Namely trade agreements between nations.
The minute the U.S. gov't decides that the WTO no longer acts in it's interest (over-all, not just in some cases), it will work outside the organization, thereby marginalizing it. The government may even take steps to destabilize them, if the they prove sufficiently intractable. For precedence, one can look to the League of Nations. That organization died because it was sidelined by the U.S.
One would think that, yes, but lawyers are expensive too. I don't know how hard it would be to fix the problem, it may well be cheaper to hire lawyers, but then again, maybe not.
It seems to me, though, that this is really a long-term issue that has more to do with brand-awareness than anything else. If blackboard is widely seen as a insecure, then their brand recognition suffers (ipso facto). If the company can stop people from publishing exploits and criticisms, then it stands to reason that no-one would know about them. At least, not the people that matter, which are the suits with the authority to sign checks.
I don't think upgrade is the right term for what you should do with that.
Seriously though, get a new workstation. The k6-2 would work fine as a file server or gateway or something. Trying to upgrade such an old computer is nearly pointless; better to find a new use for the old one, and get a new desktop system. You can put together a nice usable system for not too much money if you do it yourself
And if you simply don't have a use for an old computer, lots of charitable organizations would love to have it.
Cute thing is, if the US tried to enact legislation to protect its workforce (yeah right, not until Americans realize that billionaire oil tycoons are not, and will never be 'just regular Joes like you and me'), the WTO would probably slap it on the wrist for obstructing free trade.
That doesn't matter. If the WTO takes an aggressive stance against U.S. policy, the U.S. gov't will just ignore them, or attempt to sideline them, as is their usual strategy when dealing with unresponsive world bodies.
I understand your sentiment. But who benifits from that tax, and where does the money go? I don't see how they could equitably distribute that money to everyone who's suffered from piracy. After all, it's not just musicians and music labels. Software companies also lose money that way. Anyone that sells popular media on CD would qualify. It seems that simply identifying all the victims that should be reimbursed would be impossible, therefore those that receive money would be unfairly benifiting (at least a little bit) from the loss of those that were not identified.
On it's face, the law seems draconian, overly complex, and ineffective. It also supports an industry without, IMO, a good enough reason. Industries die. The recording industry is not a vital industry in any sense. It didn't exist two hundred years ago and, unlike some other new industries, there is no compelling reason why it should continue to exist. Musicians will continue to make a living if the major labels die, just like they did before the industry became the behemoth that it is.
It seems to me that the whole piracy thing on the internet is unavoidable. The internet is all about file sharing. That's the whole point. Whether it's email, websites, peer-to-peer networks, or anything else. You connect networks together to exchange files and if you can't exchange files, there's no point to the entire thing. If file sharing hurts someone, then perhaps they should find a business model that does not rely on restricting file sharing for revenue.
The recording industry is all about restricting file sharing. They are willing to share their files (recordings of artists' music) for a fee. If you don't agree to pay that fee, they want to restrict your access to the file. It's been a good way to make money since recordings were possible. But that business model is dying. We have progressed technologically to the point where sharing files is so efficient and cheap, it's difficult to justify charging for it anymore. Ergo, the recording industry doesn't stand a chance. Their business model has been removed, and they are so scared they are willing to push for government intervention to save themselves. If your business requires government intervention to continue operating, and if that business is not vital to the country, your business is doomed. You should probably be looking for a new one.
The fact is though, the big labels are just too big. The recording industry itself is not really in any danger, just the big players. If it costs them $500,000.00 to market one hit song for sixty days, then perhaps piracy is not really why they can't make money off of CD sales.
The makeup of the House and Senate was very carefully thought out by the founding fathers. And the reason for it's architecture is as valid today as it was then.
Originally, there was to be but one electected legislative body. Some state representatives (to the first constitutional congress) wanted the legislature to be made up of an equal number of members from each state. Representatives of more populous states rightly saw that less populous states would have undue power over them. These representatives wanted the number of legislators from each state to be based on the population of that state. The problem with this is that populous states would wield power over the less populous states.
So a compromise was reached. The legislature was split into two houses - the Senate and the House of Representatives. The compromise stipulated that the two houses would have to agree on a bill before it could go to the president for signing. This neatly solved the problem. If the House passes a bill that unfairly benifits the populous states (such as a bill that would approve highway funds only to states that were in the top 70% in populations), the senate would surely reject it. The inverse also holds true.
That's the theory anyway. It mostly works.
The electoral college is another situation entirely. I agree that it has serious problems, but the problem isn't in how the electors are assigned, but with the institution itself. It need to be changed drastically if not abolished entirely.
I'm down with that. Anyone care to start an open letter to Macromedia and Adobe? Linux would come a long way if just those two companies ported their desktop apps.
There is not any such thing as technology that is inherently Dangerous.
Sure there is.
Airplanes, space shuttles, and race cars are examples of technology that are inherently dangerous even when used properly. Furthermore, even though steps can be taken to reduce the risk of operating these technologies, that risk can never be completely mitigated.
Complex websites are as legitimate pieces of software as your word processor. They have routines and they maintain state (albeit painfully). They also have bugs. They can have development cycles and release schedules. Just like software. You have to pay attention to threading and memory usage just like real software.
In short, websites are often not collections of html documents comparable to a PDF file, but true pieces of software that require thought and analysis throughout the development cycle. To get an idea of this, download a copy of phpMyAdmin or webmin and have a look at the source. Slashcode is also a good example.
No, public libraries are typically owned by the citizens of the counties and municipalities in which they operate. Obviously I don't know about all states, but the libraries I've seen have not been owned by them.
Anyhow, governments don't own things in the way that an individual or business owns things. Public libraries belong to us, not to the state or county that created it. We merely entrust their operation to them. It is their responsiblity and duty to operate them in the manner that best suits the citizens that they are sworn to serve.
So, yeah, I get pretty angry when the state wants to violate my 4th Ammendment rights at the local library. That's my library, not theirs, and they don't have the right to search my records without a clear, legal search warrant obtained with probable cause.
Slashdot Mirror
SPAM can only be slowed via eduacation. People must learn that SPAM is not the way to buy things.
Unfortunately, you're wrong about this. SPAM works because the vanishingly small amount of money it generates per message is still greater than the cost of the message. The people who get taken by spam are the same people that get taken by psychics that advertise on cardboard signs. These people will always exist - no matter how much effort is made to educate them.
Two quotes come to mind:
"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
and
"Knowledge is realizing that the street is one-way, wisdom is looking both directions anyway" - unknown
The point is that their right to say what I do with their service should end at the point it enters my home. These laws enable telcos to regulate what I do with a bought and paid for service in the 'privacy' of my own home.
Your solution merely masks the problem. It assumes that market pressure will allow such things. That is a false assumption.
Competition only exists in a regulated market, if we do not regulate the telcos, but allow them to regulate us instead, competition among them will cease once they drive out the smaller players. Then we will truly be at their mercy when it comes to all sorts of communication.
I don't think so. America's telecommunications industry is related to national security. While I'm not normally one to be alarmist about security, I still think that allowing foreign companies to control any large part of our telecommunications infrastructure is a bad, bad idea.
And I think there may be laws on the books about that. IANAL, so I'm not certain, but isn't illegal for a foreign company to own more than a certain percentage of our telco industry?
My favorite was the sex, liquor and drugs diet I saw about this time last year in WWN.
And? How many of the drunk, over-sexed junkies that you know are overweight? Obviously, the diet works.
That means if I meet 20 people, 5 of them will not be able to read or write correctly.
I find that absolutely scary for a civilised nation.
Yeah, and you know what's even scarier? Our "cut taxes, but spend more" Bush Administration has managed to see to it that education spending is plummeting around the nation. Oops... a correction: public education spending is plumeting. Private schools are doing better than ever. Lesson, get rich; 'cause being poor is getting harder live with.
We got the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, whatever happened to the wars on poverty and illiteracy? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be modest, intelligent, and free than poor, ignorant, and repressed. And I don't give a shit what the wealthy, safe, and smug people in Washington think if they are not willing to help me achieve that. Just so long as they get out of my way.
It should be noted that this study only polled American internet users. The internet presence of many other countries is small, but rising. Furthermore, there do not seem to be any empiricle measurements of the kind network traffic analisis could provide. The study also does not take into account non-personal uses of the internet. Things like spiders and robots, mirroring software, etc. This study should not be taken to mean that the internet usage in general is leveling off. Just direct usage of it by the general public in America.
...and 27% (of American non-interenet users) say they believe the Internet is too complicated and hard to understand. What with 23% of Americans functionally illiterate, this only to be expected. Although I would have expected expected the number to be somewhat higher, I guess there are quite a few things people of limited literacy skills could accomplish on the internet. Playing games and checking sports scores come to mind.
Even their conclusions may not be entirely accurate. Although we may be reaching a certain saturation point, as the article suggests, that saturation point is actually a moving target. Saturation levels are determined by many things, including access to the technology, the current state of the art, and basic literacy rates. Improvements in any of these could drive the theoretical saturation point higher, allowing for more growth in usage levels.
However, the study is a good one on it's merits and has many interesting things to say within it's limitations. For instance, the summary states:
While I wouldn't characterize The Gathering as a Geek Think Tank, it most certainly ain't all about pr0n, warez, and fragging.
It's not? Damn, I guess I'll have to cancel my flight.
... on an eMachine, disgusting.
eMachines are disgusting. Some days I can't get near my workstation without gagging on the smell. I think it's built from the stuff you get from a five dollar whore. I wish I could chuck the thing out the window, or better yet, take a baseball bat to it.
hmm.. maybe that's a little harsh. But then again, maybe not. eMachines are pretty awful.
Banning books just doesn't work. The most the censors can hope for is to make certain books hard to find. And even that is getting harder and harder to do. Information does want to be free, and it's getting harder to restrain it every day. Witness the internet. If you want to get around the censors, you just offload your offensive material on some server outside their reach. It's so simple that any half educated person can do it. And speaking of education...
;)
I believe that an educated, enlightened populous is the only hope for a peaceful and sustainable future. Banning books does nothing to help achieve that goal. That seems so obvious to me that I have trouble understanding people who don't think that way.
So I say to this guy, publish your book. And do it in the most visible way you can. Laws like the DMCA don't get repealed without public outcry, so make as much noise as possible. (Posting a link on slashdot helps
These things are all "good" but whenever we all collectively get together and nail the hell out of spammers with the pent up rage of 2 million people who can sighn them up for nail mail garbage, it's considered wrong?
Yeah, that durn enlightenment thing is annoying as hell. We gotta admit bad behavior even when it feels good.
Googling for my own state's (Texas) Super DMCA, I found this by Dan Wallach, an asst. professor at Rice University. He has some interesting things to say aout the bills before our House and Senate. So in the interest of fact checking, I looked at the Senate version.
Sure enough, by the letter of the law, NATs would be illegal. It prohibits owning or creating any technology that is used to knowingly modify a communications sevice in ways unauthorized by the service provider. The bill imposes a Class A misdemeanor for the first offence, except where five or more 'communications devices' are employed in the 'criminal episode'. In that case, the crime is a felony.
In my home, I have a wireless NAT setup. There are four desktop systems and a laptop that regularly access the internet via that network. Additionally, there is one more desktop that occasionally joins the network. That makes seven discreet communications devices, including the router, that are employed in gaining access. The definition of a communication device is very broad and includes single connectors,switches and connections (presumably between devices). Theoretically, the state could use each cat5 cable and external wireless nic as communications devices, upping my number of devices to 10 or 12. Since my ISP only grants authorized access to one communication device in my service contract, I would fall squarely under the stated definition of a felony under this bill. For running a freakin' home network!
I freely admit that I use my internet service connection in ways unauthorized by my provider. Sure. And they can cut my service at any time of their choosing if they find out. I accept that. I'm violating the agreement, therefore they have the right to terminate it. Simple, to the point, and effective.
But now I could become a felon as well. That's where I draw the line. In my opinion, the state has no business enforcing civil contracts with the criminal justice system. That's what the civil courts are for. If my provider cares to, they can try to get compensation for any perceived loss in a civil court. There is no need to make my activities a felony.
Somethings got to be done. I'm going to do my part and write a letter. Please do yours.
I think that the point is that he no longer has those documents in his possession. No documents, no crime. The documents in question were written before the law came into effect, and he apparently moved them immediately when it did go into effect. But being electronic documents, he should be absolutely certain that no unintentional copies remain on his computers.
This brings up an interesting question, if I live in Michigan (which I don't), would it be illegal for me to view the docs on the web? I mean, once having viewed them, I would have a cached copy on my computer.
Your suggestion does not line up at all with the activities of the US government in the past.
Sure it does. Just recently we have utterly ignored the UN's stance on Iraq, and attempted (pretty successfully) to marginalize their importance in the middle east. NAFTA, which we sponsored, does assume many of the functions supposedly provided by the WTO. Namely trade agreements between nations.
The minute the U.S. gov't decides that the WTO no longer acts in it's interest (over-all, not just in some cases), it will work outside the organization, thereby marginalizing it. The government may even take steps to destabilize them, if the they prove sufficiently intractable. For precedence, one can look to the League of Nations. That organization died because it was sidelined by the U.S.
One would think that, yes, but lawyers are expensive too. I don't know how hard it would be to fix the problem, it may well be cheaper to hire lawyers, but then again, maybe not.
It seems to me, though, that this is really a long-term issue that has more to do with brand-awareness than anything else. If blackboard is widely seen as a insecure, then their brand recognition suffers (ipso facto). If the company can stop people from publishing exploits and criticisms, then it stands to reason that no-one would know about them. At least, not the people that matter, which are the suits with the authority to sign checks.
I don't think upgrade is the right term for what you should do with that.
Seriously though, get a new workstation. The k6-2 would work fine as a file server or gateway or something. Trying to upgrade such an old computer is nearly pointless; better to find a new use for the old one, and get a new desktop system. You can put together a nice usable system for not too much money if you do it yourself
And if you simply don't have a use for an old computer, lots of charitable organizations would love to have it.
Cute thing is, if the US tried to enact legislation to protect its workforce (yeah right, not until Americans realize that billionaire oil tycoons are not, and will never be 'just regular Joes like you and me'), the WTO would probably slap it on the wrist for obstructing free trade.
That doesn't matter. If the WTO takes an aggressive stance against U.S. policy, the U.S. gov't will just ignore them, or attempt to sideline them, as is their usual strategy when dealing with unresponsive world bodies.
I understand your sentiment. But who benifits from that tax, and where does the money go? I don't see how they could equitably distribute that money to everyone who's suffered from piracy. After all, it's not just musicians and music labels. Software companies also lose money that way. Anyone that sells popular media on CD would qualify. It seems that simply identifying all the victims that should be reimbursed would be impossible, therefore those that receive money would be unfairly benifiting (at least a little bit) from the loss of those that were not identified.
On it's face, the law seems draconian, overly complex, and ineffective. It also supports an industry without, IMO, a good enough reason. Industries die. The recording industry is not a vital industry in any sense. It didn't exist two hundred years ago and, unlike some other new industries, there is no compelling reason why it should continue to exist. Musicians will continue to make a living if the major labels die, just like they did before the industry became the behemoth that it is.
It seems to me that the whole piracy thing on the internet is unavoidable. The internet is all about file sharing. That's the whole point. Whether it's email, websites, peer-to-peer networks, or anything else. You connect networks together to exchange files and if you can't exchange files, there's no point to the entire thing. If file sharing hurts someone, then perhaps they should find a business model that does not rely on restricting file sharing for revenue.
The recording industry is all about restricting file sharing. They are willing to share their files (recordings of artists' music) for a fee. If you don't agree to pay that fee, they want to restrict your access to the file. It's been a good way to make money since recordings were possible. But that business model is dying. We have progressed technologically to the point where sharing files is so efficient and cheap, it's difficult to justify charging for it anymore. Ergo, the recording industry doesn't stand a chance. Their business model has been removed, and they are so scared they are willing to push for government intervention to save themselves. If your business requires government intervention to continue operating, and if that business is not vital to the country, your business is doomed. You should probably be looking for a new one.
The fact is though, the big labels are just too big. The recording industry itself is not really in any danger, just the big players. If it costs them $500,000.00 to market one hit song for sixty days, then perhaps piracy is not really why they can't make money off of CD sales.
The makeup of the House and Senate was very carefully thought out by the founding fathers. And the reason for it's architecture is as valid today as it was then.
Originally, there was to be but one electected legislative body. Some state representatives (to the first constitutional congress) wanted the legislature to be made up of an equal number of members from each state. Representatives of more populous states rightly saw that less populous states would have undue power over them. These representatives wanted the number of legislators from each state to be based on the population of that state. The problem with this is that populous states would wield power over the less populous states.
So a compromise was reached. The legislature was split into two houses - the Senate and the House of Representatives. The compromise stipulated that the two houses would have to agree on a bill before it could go to the president for signing. This neatly solved the problem. If the House passes a bill that unfairly benifits the populous states (such as a bill that would approve highway funds only to states that were in the top 70% in populations), the senate would surely reject it. The inverse also holds true.
That's the theory anyway. It mostly works.
The electoral college is another situation entirely. I agree that it has serious problems, but the problem isn't in how the electors are assigned, but with the institution itself. It need to be changed drastically if not abolished entirely.
Troll? Come on moderators, that was funny!
I'm down with that. Anyone care to start an open letter to Macromedia and Adobe? Linux would come a long way if just those two companies ported their desktop apps.
There is not any such thing as technology that is inherently Dangerous.
;)
Sure there is.
Airplanes, space shuttles, and race cars are examples of technology that are inherently dangerous even when used properly. Furthermore, even though steps can be taken to reduce the risk of operating these technologies, that risk can never be completely mitigated.
Moral: all blanket statements are false
Complex websites are as legitimate pieces of software as your word processor. They have routines and they maintain state (albeit painfully). They also have bugs. They can have development cycles and release schedules. Just like software. You have to pay attention to threading and memory usage just like real software.
In short, websites are often not collections of html documents comparable to a PDF file, but true pieces of software that require thought and analysis throughout the development cycle. To get an idea of this, download a copy of phpMyAdmin or webmin and have a look at the source. Slashcode is also a good example.
No, public libraries are typically owned by the citizens of the counties and municipalities in which they operate. Obviously I don't know about all states, but the libraries I've seen have not been owned by them.
Anyhow, governments don't own things in the way that an individual or business owns things. Public libraries belong to us, not to the state or county that created it. We merely entrust their operation to them. It is their responsiblity and duty to operate them in the manner that best suits the citizens that they are sworn to serve.
So, yeah, I get pretty angry when the state wants to violate my 4th Ammendment rights at the local library. That's my library, not theirs, and they don't have the right to search my records without a clear, legal search warrant obtained with probable cause.
Looked at a chemistry book?
Terrorist.
Read Mein Kampft(sp)?
Terorist
Checked out "The Prince"?
Republican
I think he means he told RH to buy Gentoo last year. Somewhat emphatically, I gather.