"All back" is how you say "hit the brakes!" on a ship.
The ship in question displaces 9900 tons (full). It does not turn on a dime. Ordering all back shifted the pitch on the controllable-reversible screws so that they were pulling the ship in reverse (without having to reverse the rotation of the shafts, so it happens pretty quickly).
Maneuvering to either side while doing this would have simply placed a larger portion of the ship in jeopardy by exposing it in profile to the head-on threat.
Clearly you have never sailed a warship. (I have - actually, one that I sailed was a Belknap class CG, a predecessor of the Ticonderoga class, which is what the San Jacinto is).
Because you know exactly how to do his job, right?
He also has a keen grasp of basic physics, apparently. Hint: a warship does not steer like an Indy race car.
(I was qualified master helmsman in the USN a couple decades ago. I do in fact know how this works.)
Would the government's refusal to provide ANY Internet access constitute a violation of the Free Speech Clause? Of course not. So why would the government providing partial access to the Internet pose a question of Constitutionality?
Because once the State gets involved in the provision of a forum, it is bound by the Constitution to refrain from abridging free speech in that forum. There's plenty of case law on the books covering this.
The FCC is not a content provider. Specious argument.
United States v American Library Association limits the use of library filters, in that they must be turned off at the request of an adult patron (a provision included in CIPA for the express purpose of passing Constitutional muster). You might want to take the time to read all the opinions in that case before you go off half-cocked and fully uninformed again.
The issue here is not regulating the INTARWEB. It's regulating a taxpayer funded forum based on content (the question of whether WiFi access points represent public or limited public forums is another matter that comes into play, but that's just a sidebar). A forum is a forum. You can research that one on your own - I don't get paid to do legal research anymore, and certainly not by you or slashdot.
The constitutional question here is not about providing a press - the People have presumably already authorized these access points, on their dime. The First Amendment arises out of the fact that once those access points have been provided they are subject to the same law as any other public forum (which law covers among other things the extremely limited scope of censorship allowed to be enacted or enforced).
Speed limits protect the users of the highway from each other (in theory). The State can show an overwhelming compelling interest in that. It can show no such compelling interest in regulating what information people can access while parked off the highway. Who are they protecting, and from whom? Not to mention at whose expense?
Caesar funds nothing. Caesar puts a gun to your head and picks your pocket. Then he spends that money on a bigger gun to put to your head while he's picking your pocket.
It's actionable when government makes laws abridging the freedom of speech. Filtering a "public service" in such a way as to restrict free speech (and its complement, the freedom to hear said speech if you so choose) is an abridgment, by law. Calling it a "public service" or "public utility" and claiming a constitutional exemption just won't cut it. (the US Constitution trumps the TX one in this regard)
Then there is your other point. Filtering does block arbitrary content which may or may not actually fall under the publicly stated guidelines for being blocked. How would the average user or the public ever know?
"We're blocking porn, yup yup. Um, of course, there may be some collateral damage. You can't get to the ACLU, or the opposition candidates' websites. These things happen. But, please, just think of the children."
If they are providing such a service on the taxpayer's dime, it must be usable by every taxpayer in whatever manner they so choose. Regulating speed limits on the taxpayer funded asphalt highways is one thing. Regulating the content which people choose to access on a taxpayer funded information highway is an altogether different thing - an unconstitutional, draconian, totalitarian one.
Among them being that some of us simply have to make do with what we've got.
I am the IT department for a non-profit in San Francisco. We're an Apple only shop, and our charter does not allow us to spend money on hardware. Everything is donated. The result? Besides 8 Rev C and D iMacs and 3 Rev 1 Yosemite G3s, the other 40 or so machines are a motley collection of older, even ancient Macs.
On the iMacs and Yosemites, Jaguar is about as high as you should go if you actually need to get your work done in a timely manner (especially when you only have 192-320M in them). The other Macs run mostly 8.6-9.1, with a couple still running 7.x (if it ain't broke...).
While I (and the admin peeps) would love to have everyone on an OSX box running OpenOffice.org, it's simply not possible at this time. So, we have Office 98, 2001, and 2004 running... depending on the OS installed. I have AppleWorks installed most everywhere, but no one really uses it. Fortunately, Mozilla 1.2 is serviceable on the 8.x-9.x machines.
Like Sting said, "when the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around." Creaky or not.
I'm sure no apple support tech has had to deal with that. The mac version of a right click, being either ctrl + click or holding down the mouse button for 3 seconds to generate a menu, doesn't lodge an idea of different kinds of clicks in the users mind.
You obviously never worked the phones when the iMac first came out.
"Click? Which button is that, sonny?"
@#$$%^&&*&((*((^%%%$mouse!!!!!!!
"What does a rat have to do with my new computer??!!?"
You do realize that Puerto Rico is a United States possession, yes? When you're talking about State-controlled monopolies there, you're talking about USA-controlled monopolies.
We already have a decent, FREE, and fast wireless network in The City: SFLan.org.
Do you really want to be bound by the government's TOS, for a service "sold" as free that you are in fact paying for, whether you use it or not?
Of course, using public money for questionable ends is nothing new... but dear Gavin already invests far too much of our money waging war on the poor (no, not on poverty... on the poor).
Is your Federal law enforcement peep aware that at this time, the UK is not yet part of the United States of America? Perhaps he knows something we don't which allows a US judge to grant a US law enforcement agency a warrant to seize evidence in the UK?
I can't even begin to imagine the amount of effort it might take to get a sealed warrant from a United States judge granting access to property located on the soil of another sovereign nation. Especially in light of the fact that the DoJ has been screaming at every judge on every bench in every jurisdiction that the US Constitution and courts are beyond the reach of those detained outside US borders, like, say, Guantanamo Bay... so how is it that US courts can reach out and touch property much further away and on much more clearly sovereign soil while people 90 miles away can't reach out and touch justice?
I think you should stop imagining that your goldfish is a) a Federal law enforcement person and b) giving you inside information about how sealed warrants work, and c) that he's talking to you at all.
Those who feel the election is tainted and invalid have some serious grounds for complaint. Now all they have to do is find anyone who'll listen.
To what end? So someone listens... what're they going to do, taunt the USA a second time and thereby force a policy change?
Unless we here in the US - who ostensibly still hold the reins of power over our government - are both listening and prepared to take action, it's just another complaint in a world filled with billions of complainers. Excepting of course that the entire rest of the world wakes the fuck up and realizes that though a lot of them might get spanked, the remainder can do the US in if it comes to it, which is still a better outcome than ending up just another outpost of the United States of Earth (and Territorial Possessions).
The fact that the media rarely gets the facts or reasoning right on decisions and rarely covers procedural rulings only makes things worse.
That's because facts and reasoning rarely fit into sound-bite sized juicy nuggets. McMedia is much more concerned with selling eyeshare than courting mindshare. The mindless eyes are as much to blame as anyone.
Law is man made and is arbitrarily complex. It could be simple, but for some reason, even though it is defined by man, it isn't. On the other hand, physics is defined by observable natural phenomenon. There is no known way to make it simpler. There's a huge difference.
So, you're saying that the activities of the human animal over a period of millenia don't count as observable natural phenomena?
Law is man made, yes. But its basis is the idea that there should be a common set of principles to which any man can look in order to determine if his actions are considered by those with whom he must live to be within tolerable limits. The problem is that not every man is capable of fully comprehending such principles, just as surely as not every man can comprehend string theory. That's why we have lawyers as well as theoretical physicists.
Law may not be rocket science, but it is most certainly science.
The senior Senator from Massachusetts is Edward Moore Kennedy. The letter T does not appear at all anywhere in the name by which he is legally identified.
He wasn't held based on some automatic flag set off by his ID matching "T Kennedy," but based on the fact that they knew exactly who he was (but apparently didn't know that Ted is not short for Theodore, but simply a nickname unrelated to his given name).
According to the Washington Post writeup, "[a] senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects." "They" really should have put a bit more work into their story, unless the implication is that since the Senator is known to the entire effin' world by the alias Teddy Kennedy, he is suspect.
The Federal government designated the DNC a special security event, not the DNC. The Boston Police and City Attorney, using this designation as a pretext, testified in favour of the "free speech zone." The US Secret Service presented evidence on behalf of the governement - ex parte, of course. The DNC, as an organization, had nothing to do with it beyond holding their event.
When trying to prove someone wrong, it is generally considered good form to be correct yourself. Or at least choose premises that do in fact support your conclusion.
Obviously, the submitter didn't bother any more than any of you to follow through to the source...
The patent is for an automated procedure for licensing sub-domain names via an Internet portal, not on subdomains - the submitter's claim is considerably more absurd than the patent claim, no matter your views on software and business model patents.
The Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act (PIRATE Act) would let the Justice Department file civil lawsuits against file swappers. Under current law, the department only can prosecute criminal offenses.
...
RIAA President Cary Sherman said the lawsuits are a vital deterrent to online music piracy.
"When we see the impact our lawsuits have had on the general public's behavior, I can only imagine that a Department of Justice prosecution would have even more of a deterrent impact," Sherman said. "This is a very effective way of giving the government an additional tool to combat piracy."
Slashdot Mirror
And you were qualified master helmsman in the US Navy when, exactly?
"All back" is how you say "hit the brakes!" on a ship.
The ship in question displaces 9900 tons (full). It does not turn on a dime. Ordering all back shifted the pitch on the controllable-reversible screws so that they were pulling the ship in reverse (without having to reverse the rotation of the shafts, so it happens pretty quickly).
Maneuvering to either side while doing this would have simply placed a larger portion of the ship in jeopardy by exposing it in profile to the head-on threat.
Clearly you have never sailed a warship. (I have - actually, one that I sailed was a Belknap class CG, a predecessor of the Ticonderoga class, which is what the San Jacinto is).
Because you know exactly how to do his job, right?
He also has a keen grasp of basic physics, apparently. Hint: a warship does not steer like an Indy race car. (I was qualified master helmsman in the USN a couple decades ago. I do in fact know how this works.)
Why didn't Jaguar Software sue as well?
Or Puma Software?
Would the government's refusal to provide ANY Internet access constitute a violation of the Free Speech Clause? Of course not. So why would the government providing partial access to the Internet pose a question of Constitutionality?
Because once the State gets involved in the provision of a forum, it is bound by the Constitution to refrain from abridging free speech in that forum. There's plenty of case law on the books covering this.
The FCC is not a content provider. Specious argument.
United States v American Library Association limits the use of library filters, in that they must be turned off at the request of an adult patron (a provision included in CIPA for the express purpose of passing Constitutional muster). You might want to take the time to read all the opinions in that case before you go off half-cocked and fully uninformed again.
The issue here is not regulating the INTARWEB. It's regulating a taxpayer funded forum based on content (the question of whether WiFi access points represent public or limited public forums is another matter that comes into play, but that's just a sidebar). A forum is a forum. You can research that one on your own - I don't get paid to do legal research anymore, and certainly not by you or slashdot.
The constitutional question here is not about providing a press - the People have presumably already authorized these access points, on their dime. The First Amendment arises out of the fact that once those access points have been provided they are subject to the same law as any other public forum (which law covers among other things the extremely limited scope of censorship allowed to be enacted or enforced).
Speed limits protect the users of the highway from each other (in theory). The State can show an overwhelming compelling interest in that. It can show no such compelling interest in regulating what information people can access while parked off the highway. Who are they protecting, and from whom? Not to mention at whose expense?
Straw Man.
Thank you, please drive through.
Come back when you can debate the actual points.
You think state taxes paid for the freeways along which these rest stops are located?
Caesar funds nothing. Caesar puts a gun to your head and picks your pocket. Then he spends that money on a bigger gun to put to your head while he's picking your pocket.
It's actionable when government makes laws abridging the freedom of speech. Filtering a "public service" in such a way as to restrict free speech (and its complement, the freedom to hear said speech if you so choose) is an abridgment, by law. Calling it a "public service" or "public utility" and claiming a constitutional exemption just won't cut it. (the US Constitution trumps the TX one in this regard)
Then there is your other point. Filtering does block arbitrary content which may or may not actually fall under the publicly stated guidelines for being blocked. How would the average user or the public ever know?
"We're blocking porn, yup yup. Um, of course, there may be some collateral damage. You can't get to the ACLU, or the opposition candidates' websites. These things happen. But, please, just think of the children."
If they are providing such a service on the taxpayer's dime, it must be usable by every taxpayer in whatever manner they so choose. Regulating speed limits on the taxpayer funded asphalt highways is one thing. Regulating the content which people choose to access on a taxpayer funded information highway is an altogether different thing - an unconstitutional, draconian, totalitarian one.
Among them being that some of us simply have to make do with what we've got.
I am the IT department for a non-profit in San Francisco. We're an Apple only shop, and our charter does not allow us to spend money on hardware. Everything is donated. The result? Besides 8 Rev C and D iMacs and 3 Rev 1 Yosemite G3s, the other 40 or so machines are a motley collection of older, even ancient Macs.
On the iMacs and Yosemites, Jaguar is about as high as you should go if you actually need to get your work done in a timely manner (especially when you only have 192-320M in them). The other Macs run mostly 8.6-9.1, with a couple still running 7.x (if it ain't broke...).
While I (and the admin peeps) would love to have everyone on an OSX box running OpenOffice.org, it's simply not possible at this time. So, we have Office 98, 2001, and 2004 running... depending on the OS installed. I have AppleWorks installed most everywhere, but no one really uses it. Fortunately, Mozilla 1.2 is serviceable on the 8.x-9.x machines.
Like Sting said, "when the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around." Creaky or not.
I'm sure no apple support tech has had to deal with that. The mac version of a right click, being either ctrl + click or holding down the mouse button for 3 seconds to generate a menu, doesn't lodge an idea of different kinds of clicks in the users mind.
You obviously never worked the phones when the iMac first came out.
"Click? Which button is that, sonny?"
@#$$%^&&*&((*((^%%%$mouse!!!!!!!
"What does a rat have to do with my new computer??!!?"
Heh.... had PR on the brain.... bad reference. Me friend just moved to Puerto Rico, like yesterday... crossed wires there. Oops.
You do realize that Puerto Rico is a United States possession, yes? When you're talking about State-controlled monopolies there, you're talking about USA-controlled monopolies.
What? You thought "A penny for your thought" meant they wanted to pay you?
You thought your two cents worth was going to be a revenue stream rather than an expense?
You must be a terrorist.
Why do you hate Freedom?
We already have a decent, FREE, and fast wireless network in The City: SFLan.org.
Do you really want to be bound by the government's TOS, for a service "sold" as free that you are in fact paying for, whether you use it or not?
Of course, using public money for questionable ends is nothing new... but dear Gavin already invests far too much of our money waging war on the poor (no, not on poverty... on the poor).
Is your Federal law enforcement peep aware that at this time, the UK is not yet part of the United States of America? Perhaps he knows something we don't which allows a US judge to grant a US law enforcement agency a warrant to seize evidence in the UK?
I can't even begin to imagine the amount of effort it might take to get a sealed warrant from a United States judge granting access to property located on the soil of another sovereign nation. Especially in light of the fact that the DoJ has been screaming at every judge on every bench in every jurisdiction that the US Constitution and courts are beyond the reach of those detained outside US borders, like, say, Guantanamo Bay... so how is it that US courts can reach out and touch property much further away and on much more clearly sovereign soil while people 90 miles away can't reach out and touch justice?
I think you should stop imagining that your goldfish is a) a Federal law enforcement person and b) giving you inside information about how sealed warrants work, and c) that he's talking to you at all.
You're new to this planet, aren't you?
The current US administration doesn't give a rat's arse about lines on a map.
Jurisdiction is so last century.
To what end? So someone listens... what're they going to do, taunt the USA a second time and thereby force a policy change?
Unless we here in the US - who ostensibly still hold the reins of power over our government - are both listening and prepared to take action, it's just another complaint in a world filled with billions of complainers. Excepting of course that the entire rest of the world wakes the fuck up and realizes that though a lot of them might get spanked, the remainder can do the US in if it comes to it, which is still a better outcome than ending up just another outpost of the United States of Earth (and Territorial Possessions).
I'll just wait for the black helicopters now.
That's because facts and reasoning rarely fit into sound-bite sized juicy nuggets. McMedia is much more concerned with selling eyeshare than courting mindshare. The mindless eyes are as much to blame as anyone.
Give me convenience or give me reality TV.
So, you're saying that the activities of the human animal over a period of millenia don't count as observable natural phenomena?
Law is man made, yes. But its basis is the idea that there should be a common set of principles to which any man can look in order to determine if his actions are considered by those with whom he must live to be within tolerable limits. The problem is that not every man is capable of fully comprehending such principles, just as surely as not every man can comprehend string theory. That's why we have lawyers as well as theoretical physicists.
Law may not be rocket science, but it is most certainly science.
Interesting statistics, but...
The senior Senator from Massachusetts is Edward Moore Kennedy. The letter T does not appear at all anywhere in the name by which he is legally identified.
He wasn't held based on some automatic flag set off by his ID matching "T Kennedy," but based on the fact that they knew exactly who he was (but apparently didn't know that Ted is not short for Theodore, but simply a nickname unrelated to his given name).
According to the Washington Post writeup, "[a] senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects." "They" really should have put a bit more work into their story, unless the implication is that since the Senator is known to the entire effin' world by the alias Teddy Kennedy, he is suspect.
The Federal government designated the DNC a special security event, not the DNC. The Boston Police and City Attorney, using this designation as a pretext, testified in favour of the "free speech zone." The US Secret Service presented evidence on behalf of the governement - ex parte, of course. The DNC, as an organization, had nothing to do with it beyond holding their event.
When trying to prove someone wrong, it is generally considered good form to be correct yourself. Or at least choose premises that do in fact support your conclusion.
Obviously, the submitter didn't bother any more than any of you to follow through to the source...
The patent is for an automated procedure for licensing sub-domain names via an Internet portal , not on subdomains - the submitter's claim is considerably more absurd than the patent claim, no matter your views on software and business model patents.
Er, I not only RTFA, but others as well...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2 7801-2004Mar26.html