Yeah, cause without javascript we couldn't have wonderful inventions like pop-unders. Bleh, I'd just as well javascript never were invented. There are very few sites that actually do something useful with it anyway.
I have all sorts of high concepts about what this should represent and I keep coming back to the thought 'nothing which is useless can be truly beautiful'.
Just don't tell you fiance this when you have her in bed. She might start asking what her "use" is.
At what point would you be willing to say you've lived long enough?
Never, of course.
If human learning and the capacity to retain new concepts has a finite limit how could you reasonably expect to have any quality of life once the world has left you decades or centuries behind?
Human learning and the capacity to retain new concepts doesn't have a finite limit (at least not any more than concepts themselves do).
Yes, at some point the research into quality of life has to catch up with length of life. But that is being done, too.
How about the guys overseas that have a big-assed list of email addresses real and imagined, I buy an account get a email address to send one email to the address and the scripts on the server strips off the original Email address add some forged headers and starts spewing out the same Email to every name of the list rotating between known open-relays?
How does that change my assertions? They're still at some point up the stream going through a major ISP who is being paid (at least indirectly) by them.
Check the dictionary: To assert or affirm, especially formally: This doctrine holds that people are inherently good.
Well then, in that case I guess I disagree. In my opinion the Constitution does hold that freedom of speech is absolute.
And I, and many advocates of free speech, believe that such legislation shouldn't survive a court challenge based on that test.
I, too, am an advocate of free speech, so please don't portray me as being opposed to free speech simply because we disagree on this point.
I didn't. I, too, am an advocate of anti-spam legislation, so please don't portray me as being opposed to all laws against spam simply because we disagree on which particular laws should be enacted.
The purpose of such legislation would be to prevent marketers from cost-shifting to recipients and ISPs without the permission of those parties. For it to fail the test, you would need to show that there is a less extensive legislative option that would accomplish the same goals.
There is a less extensive legislative option. It's called a "Do Not Email" list.
As to your comments about those who wish to receive spam: Some small percentage of people would like to receive anonymous, obscene phone calls, but the laws prohibiting obscene phone calls do, and should, exist to protect the interests of the vast majority.
I certainly disagree that they should exist. Obscenity is an exception to the First Amendment that I strongly disagree with. But spam isn't (necessarily) obscene.
Sorry, but you lost me. Most ISPs I am aware of charge based on the speed of access, not the bandwidth used.
You've clearly never priced colocation or a T1 line.
Gotcha. You are right. I am arguing that the smaller IPSs should also charge by bandwidth (which is how their upstream provider is charging them), which would shift the cost of spam back to the spammer, thus making it unprofitable to send the stuff.
Umm, whatever. Those smaller ISPs who don't stop spammers or charge them extra will just go out of business.
I think you meant 'All the major ISPs are happy to look the other way whenever a high paying customer uses more bandwith - and pays for that bandwidth"
Sillier and sillier. If you want a lawyer, you have to ask for one (either call your private attorney or tell the authorities you need a court-appointed defender).
Actually if you are charged with a crime and say absolutely nothing, a lawyer will be provided for you.
You may not assume that anyone who has not specifically told you "no" is "willing", any more than you can assume that anyone who has specifically told you not to pick their pockets is fair game for your prestidigitory skill.
I think this type of trespassing is more like physical trespassing. If you don't have a "No Trespassing" sign (or pink paint on trees, or whatever the accepted signal is in your state), you can only sue for actual damages.
They price access based on assumed or average usage, not on actual usage - which is one reason they are putting stuff like "no servers" in their TOC. Spammers don't fit in the average user profile; they way exceed the bandwith usage an average user would use at almost any level of service.
And that's one of the reasons why spammers pay way more than the average user for service.
If ISPs had a service level of "SPAMMER" and charged accordingly (or had metered access, where the spammers paid for the actual bandwidth they used), then possibly they could make a profit off spam.
All the major ISPs are happy to look the other way whenever a high paying customer sends a little spam. If you're a dialup user, you can be sure your account is going to be suspended, on the other hand.
If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have any spam. The major ISPs would force the smaller ISPs downstream to police their users. Yes, smaller ISPs might lose out, if they're not smart enough to charge their users properly, but major ISPs charge by bandwidth, and my comment was about major ISPs.
I know I'm going to regret this, but my beliefs are as strongly held as yours are...
And I'm quite aware of them, as we've argued over and over again.
The Constitution and the courts have not held that freedom of speech is absolute.
Agreed (except of course that the Constitution can't "hold" anything.
Laws limiting freedom of speech must simply pass the Central Hudson Test [bodi.com]. I, and many advocates of anti-spam legislation, believe that such legislation would survive a court challenge based on this test.
And I, and many advocates of free speech, believe that such legislation shouldn't survive a court challenge based on that test. By affecting everyone, regardless of whether or not they are offended by spam, it is not narrowly tailored to serve the government purpose of stopping those who don't want spam from getting it.
Only then is the constitutional right to receive spam preserved.
There is no such right. If there were, then everyone who did not send you spam would be violating your rights, which is absurd on its face.
I have a right to a lawyer, but that doesn't mean that anyone who is not my lawyer is violating my rights.
The right to free speech means that a willing sender should be allowed to send spam to a willing recipient. Most anti-spam laws I have seen deny people that right, or make it difficult to exercise (by forcing solicitation).
A "Do Not Email" list is the only constitutional solution, in my opinion.
But other than those two extremes, NJ is a fucking great place to live. Pretty much everything outside of those two uber densely populated areas is greener than green.
Citing "Freedom of speach", the first ammendment, etc, there still seems to be an ignorant crowd that thinks that we shouldn't have any legal means to curb spam.
There are legal means to curb spam. But I haven't seen any laws which don't also block free speech. There needs to be a "Do Not Email" list, which allows people to voluntarily opt-out of all spam (sent in or affecting interstate commerce). Only then is the constitutional right to receive spam preserved.
They still think technology can solve a social problem.
It could. I don't get any spam on instant messenger, for instance.
When 99% of all email is spam, will you STILL think it's ok?
Sure, I'll just stop using email.
When ISP's raise your internet fees due to spam, will you still defend its legality?
Definately. I'll just switch to an ISP which doesn't waste money fighting spam, and makes money selling service to spammers.
When you are on the road paying $.50 / minute downloading spam for half an hour, even though your local filter blocks it from your view will you still be happy?
There are people who want to re-invent the email protocol to solve the problem. Yeah, doing something technological can help the FUTURE, but what are we going to do for the 5 years it takes to develop, implement, and deploy this new technology?
What's needed is accountability. Give someone internet or smtp access? Make sure you have a way of billing them for any spam they send, and put it in big letters when they sign up.
Amen. This will never be done, of course, because all the major ISPs profit off spam.
if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.
That's an `or'.
Umm, clearly the or is applicable only to "enters or serves in." It doesn't separate "voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship" from the rest of the sentence. Especially since your assertion directly contradicts the other quote.
Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking.
The second "or" on the other hand doesn't include the "voluntarily part." If you serve as an officer, the presumption is that you have voluntarily relinquished your citizenship. At that point you can probably lose your citizenship. This is made clear in another quote.
Service as a high-ranking officer, particularly in a policy-making position, could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.
Lindh is considered a citizen because the government chose not to exercise its right to hold him as an unlawful combatant, just as the government routinely chooses which crimes to prosecute, and what charges to bring.
Two points. First of all, whether or not you are considered a citizen has nothing to do with whether or not you are an unlawful combatant.
Secondly, I don't believe that the government had the right to hold Lindh as an unlawful combatant, since he was a lawful combatant.
For a summary of Supreme Court cases concerning the renunciation of citizenship, see this page at the State Department [state.gov], which cites a number of cases.
Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it
could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.
Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking.
Emphasis is mine. This directly contradicts your statements that "This man lost his rights as a US citizen when he traveled overseas and conspired with a foreign government to harm the United States." and "By declaring allegiance to a hostile power, in words or actions (such as figting for a foreign military), you give up your citizenship." In fact, it reaffirms my contention that "If you are born in the United States, you cannot lose your citizenship, except voluntarily." And it even cites the same Supreme Court case that I did.
To quote the paragraph which has been printed, in one form or other, inside every US Passport ever issued.
Just because it is written in a Passport doesn't mean it's correct. Passports aren't the final authority on interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court is. The key ruling here is Afroyim v. Rusk.
(a) Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by Congress before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a mature and well considered dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, is to the same effect. Pp. 257-261 .
(b) The Fourteenth Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . .." completely controls the status of citizenship, and prevents the cancellation of petitioner's citizenship. Pp. 262-268 .
Also, you should notice that the passport merely says that you may lose your citizenship, not that you will.
In other words, your citizenship only lasts until you choose to renounce it, and taking up arms against the US (or even joining a foreign army, except in certain cases) counts as choosing to renounce it, and the courts have upheld this fact again and again.
So why is Lindh considered a citizen? And where have the courts "upheld this fact again and again?"
This man lost his rights as a US citizen when he traveled overseas and conspired with a foreign government to harm the United States. Read the fine print on your passport sometime. You can have your citizenship revoked for such actions.
Bzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
If you are born in the United States, you cannot lose your citizenship, except voluntarily.
Would you have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you held a conversation in a public place? Of course not. You're sending your words out into the air with no measures at all in place to make sure nobody is overhearing them.
Agreed.
Telephones, and most especially cell phones, are exactly the same.
Absolutely not. The average person doesn't have tools to listen to my cell phone conversations, so I do have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Looking at it another way, the simple fact that I discuss more sensitive things over a telephone than I would in public demonstrates that I have a higher expectation of privacy on a telephone. My admittedly non-scientific evidence leads me to believe that most people also feel the same way.
Your car color/model is private - unless the cops are on the lookout for a car matching your description, you don't get a second glance.
As long as you get a first glance, then it's not private. You seem to be redefining private from the way I intended it. Car colors and models are public because the average person with the unaided eye can see them. If the police were using night vision goggles or even binoculars then maybe it could be considered a search, but merely observing something in plain view is not a search.
Suppose KSM's cell phone number was one digit transposed from your favorite pizza joint, and you misdialed it one day. You were interesting for a few moments, but when the contents of your conversation were "Huh? Oh, wrong number", and the rest of your profile checks out asboring, you cease to be interesting.
It's quite easy for police to get a warrant to monitor calls to a particular person. It's when they do so without a warrant that I have a problem.
I'm no fan of Big Brother, but IMO, incidental surveillance - be it of your car by the cops or your calling patterns by the Man - is not a threat to your Fourth Amendment rights.
I'm willing to concede that warantless searches of cell phone conversations may be constitutional. I wouldn't consider them fair or honest though.
Frankly I don't care what information the police obtain, as long as no physical damage is caused and they're not allowed to use it against me (without getting a warrant before the search).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, cause without javascript we couldn't have wonderful inventions like pop-unders. Bleh, I'd just as well javascript never were invented. There are very few sites that actually do something useful with it anyway.
I have all sorts of high concepts about what this should represent and I keep coming back to the thought 'nothing which is useless can be truly beautiful'.
Just don't tell you fiance this when you have her in bed. She might start asking what her "use" is.
At what point would you be willing to say you've lived long enough?
Never, of course.
If human learning and the capacity to retain new concepts has a finite limit how could you reasonably expect to have any quality of life once the world has left you decades or centuries behind?
Human learning and the capacity to retain new concepts doesn't have a finite limit (at least not any more than concepts themselves do).
Yes, at some point the research into quality of life has to catch up with length of life. But that is being done, too.
How about the guys overseas that have a big-assed list of email addresses real and imagined, I buy an account get a email address to send one email to the address and the scripts on the server strips off the original Email address add some forged headers and starts spewing out the same Email to every name of the list rotating between known open-relays?
How does that change my assertions? They're still at some point up the stream going through a major ISP who is being paid (at least indirectly) by them.
Are you allowed to send spam?
Check the dictionary: To assert or affirm, especially formally: This doctrine holds that people are inherently good.
Well then, in that case I guess I disagree. In my opinion the Constitution does hold that freedom of speech is absolute.
And I, and many advocates of free speech, believe that such legislation shouldn't survive a court challenge based on that test.
I, too, am an advocate of free speech, so please don't portray me as being opposed to free speech simply because we disagree on this point.
I didn't. I, too, am an advocate of anti-spam legislation, so please don't portray me as being opposed to all laws against spam simply because we disagree on which particular laws should be enacted.
The purpose of such legislation would be to prevent marketers from cost-shifting to recipients and ISPs without the permission of those parties. For it to fail the test, you would need to show that there is a less extensive legislative option that would accomplish the same goals.
There is a less extensive legislative option. It's called a "Do Not Email" list.
As to your comments about those who wish to receive spam: Some small percentage of people would like to receive anonymous, obscene phone calls, but the laws prohibiting obscene phone calls do, and should, exist to protect the interests of the vast majority.
I certainly disagree that they should exist. Obscenity is an exception to the First Amendment that I strongly disagree with. But spam isn't (necessarily) obscene.
Sorry, but you lost me. Most ISPs I am aware of charge based on the speed of access, not the bandwidth used.
You've clearly never priced colocation or a T1 line.
Gotcha. You are right. I am arguing that the smaller IPSs should also charge by bandwidth (which is how their upstream provider is charging them), which would shift the cost of spam back to the spammer, thus making it unprofitable to send the stuff.
Umm, whatever. Those smaller ISPs who don't stop spammers or charge them extra will just go out of business.
I think you meant 'All the major ISPs are happy to look the other way whenever a high paying customer uses more bandwith - and pays for that bandwidth"
I fail to see the difference.
Sillier and sillier. If you want a lawyer, you have to ask for one (either call your private attorney or tell the authorities you need a court-appointed defender).
Actually if you are charged with a crime and say absolutely nothing, a lawyer will be provided for you.
You may not assume that anyone who has not specifically told you "no" is "willing", any more than you can assume that anyone who has specifically told you not to pick their pockets is fair game for your prestidigitory skill.
I think this type of trespassing is more like physical trespassing. If you don't have a "No Trespassing" sign (or pink paint on trees, or whatever the accepted signal is in your state), you can only sue for actual damages.
They price access based on assumed or average usage, not on actual usage - which is one reason they are putting stuff like "no servers" in their TOC. Spammers don't fit in the average user profile; they way exceed the bandwith usage an average user would use at almost any level of service.
And that's one of the reasons why spammers pay way more than the average user for service.
If ISPs had a service level of "SPAMMER" and charged accordingly (or had metered access, where the spammers paid for the actual bandwidth they used), then possibly they could make a profit off spam.
All the major ISPs are happy to look the other way whenever a high paying customer sends a little spam. If you're a dialup user, you can be sure your account is going to be suspended, on the other hand.
If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have any spam. The major ISPs would force the smaller ISPs downstream to police their users. Yes, smaller ISPs might lose out, if they're not smart enough to charge their users properly, but major ISPs charge by bandwidth, and my comment was about major ISPs.
I know I'm going to regret this, but my beliefs are as strongly held as yours are...
And I'm quite aware of them, as we've argued over and over again.
The Constitution and the courts have not held that freedom of speech is absolute.
Agreed (except of course that the Constitution can't "hold" anything.
Laws limiting freedom of speech must simply pass the Central Hudson Test [bodi.com]. I, and many advocates of anti-spam legislation, believe that such legislation would survive a court challenge based on this test.
And I, and many advocates of free speech, believe that such legislation shouldn't survive a court challenge based on that test. By affecting everyone, regardless of whether or not they are offended by spam, it is not narrowly tailored to serve the government purpose of stopping those who don't want spam from getting it.
Only then is the constitutional right to receive spam preserved.
There is no such right. If there were, then everyone who did not send you spam would be violating your rights, which is absurd on its face.
I have a right to a lawyer, but that doesn't mean that anyone who is not my lawyer is violating my rights.
The right to free speech means that a willing sender should be allowed to send spam to a willing recipient. Most anti-spam laws I have seen deny people that right, or make it difficult to exercise (by forcing solicitation).
A "Do Not Email" list is the only constitutional solution, in my opinion.
But other than those two extremes, NJ is a fucking great place to live. Pretty much everything outside of those two uber densely populated areas is greener than green.
Some of it even glows green.
New Jersey, the 5th smallest state, has more superfund sites than any other. That's why people make fun of it, not just because of Camden.
40% of all ISP revenues are from spammers.
Citing "Freedom of speach", the first ammendment, etc, there still seems to be an ignorant crowd that thinks that we shouldn't have any legal means to curb spam.
There are legal means to curb spam. But I haven't seen any laws which don't also block free speech. There needs to be a "Do Not Email" list, which allows people to voluntarily opt-out of all spam (sent in or affecting interstate commerce). Only then is the constitutional right to receive spam preserved.
They still think technology can solve a social problem.
It could. I don't get any spam on instant messenger, for instance.
When 99% of all email is spam, will you STILL think it's ok?
Sure, I'll just stop using email.
When ISP's raise your internet fees due to spam, will you still defend its legality?
Definately. I'll just switch to an ISP which doesn't waste money fighting spam, and makes money selling service to spammers.
When you are on the road paying $.50 / minute downloading spam for half an hour, even though your local filter blocks it from your view will you still be happy?
There are people who want to re-invent the email protocol to solve the problem. Yeah, doing something technological can help the FUTURE, but what are we going to do for the 5 years it takes to develop, implement, and deploy this new technology?
Delete spam?
What's needed is accountability. Give someone internet or smtp access? Make sure you have a way of billing them for any spam they send, and put it in big letters when they sign up.
Amen. This will never be done, of course, because all the major ISPs profit off spam.
In any event, as with pretty much ANY ultimatum, the answer should be 'No, thank you.'
You mean an ultimatum like "By installing this software, you agree to...."
It was made by the executive branch in part because they knew they would have gotten slapped down by the judicial.
That's an `or'.
Umm, clearly the or is applicable only to "enters or serves in." It doesn't separate "voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship" from the rest of the sentence. Especially since your assertion directly contradicts the other quote.
The second "or" on the other hand doesn't include the "voluntarily part." If you serve as an officer, the presumption is that you have voluntarily relinquished your citizenship. At that point you can probably lose your citizenship. This is made clear in another quote.
Seriously, you lost this one.
Lindh is considered a citizen because the government chose not to exercise its right to hold him as an unlawful combatant, just as the government routinely chooses which crimes to prosecute, and what charges to bring.
Two points. First of all, whether or not you are considered a citizen has nothing to do with whether or not you are an unlawful combatant.
Secondly, I don't believe that the government had the right to hold Lindh as an unlawful combatant, since he was a lawful combatant.
For a summary of Supreme Court cases concerning the renunciation of citizenship, see this page at the State Department [state.gov], which cites a number of cases.
Emphasis is mine. This directly contradicts your statements that "This man lost his rights as a US citizen when he traveled overseas and conspired with a foreign government to harm the United States." and "By declaring allegiance to a hostile power, in words or actions (such as figting for a foreign military), you give up your citizenship." In fact, it reaffirms my contention that "If you are born in the United States, you cannot lose your citizenship, except voluntarily." And it even cites the same Supreme Court case that I did.
Sorry for my tone.
To quote the paragraph which has been printed, in one form or other, inside every US Passport ever issued.
Just because it is written in a Passport doesn't mean it's correct. Passports aren't the final authority on interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court is. The key ruling here is Afroyim v. Rusk.
Also, you should notice that the passport merely says that you may lose your citizenship, not that you will.
In other words, your citizenship only lasts until you choose to renounce it, and taking up arms against the US (or even joining a foreign army, except in certain cases) counts as choosing to renounce it, and the courts have upheld this fact again and again.
So why is Lindh considered a citizen? And where have the courts "upheld this fact again and again?"
This man lost his rights as a US citizen when he traveled overseas and conspired with a foreign government to harm the United States. Read the fine print on your passport sometime. You can have your citizenship revoked for such actions.
Bzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
If you are born in the United States, you cannot lose your citizenship, except voluntarily.
Umm, I thought they were microwaves (which would be E-M waves, not sound or gravity waves).
You don't know how this system works.
OK, you win.
Would you have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you held a conversation in a public place? Of course not. You're sending your words out into the air with no measures at all in place to make sure nobody is overhearing them.
Agreed.
Telephones, and most especially cell phones, are exactly the same.
Absolutely not. The average person doesn't have tools to listen to my cell phone conversations, so I do have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Looking at it another way, the simple fact that I discuss more sensitive things over a telephone than I would in public demonstrates that I have a higher expectation of privacy on a telephone. My admittedly non-scientific evidence leads me to believe that most people also feel the same way.
Your car color/model is private - unless the cops are on the lookout for a car matching your description, you don't get a second glance.
As long as you get a first glance, then it's not private. You seem to be redefining private from the way I intended it. Car colors and models are public because the average person with the unaided eye can see them. If the police were using night vision goggles or even binoculars then maybe it could be considered a search, but merely observing something in plain view is not a search.
Suppose KSM's cell phone number was one digit transposed from your favorite pizza joint, and you misdialed it one day. You were interesting for a few moments, but when the contents of your conversation were "Huh? Oh, wrong number", and the rest of your profile checks out asboring, you cease to be interesting.
It's quite easy for police to get a warrant to monitor calls to a particular person. It's when they do so without a warrant that I have a problem.
I'm no fan of Big Brother, but IMO, incidental surveillance - be it of your car by the cops or your calling patterns by the Man - is not a threat to your Fourth Amendment rights.
I'm willing to concede that warantless searches of cell phone conversations may be constitutional. I wouldn't consider them fair or honest though.
Frankly I don't care what information the police obtain, as long as no physical damage is caused and they're not allowed to use it against me (without getting a warrant before the search).
If the idle cpu cycles are being used to perform calculations, what resources are being wasted?
Electricity.