Yes, and it's only the information you choose to share about yourself unless you're aware of something I'm not.
You know, the "parents should consider doing their job" line gets really tiresome. That slogan isn't a magic wand that will suddenly make all the kids do their homework, clean behind their ears, and otherwise act to someone's idea of perfection.
Nice job of splitting up my comment. If parents did their job, they would know that children are potentially posting private information on a public web-site. If the parent isn't aware of what their child is doing on the web (in other words, NOT doing their job), then the parent should stop complaining about sites like MySpace.
This is based on your extensive experiences as a parent? Methinks not. Go ahead, stick a laptop and its extended power cord on the kitchen table, assuming you have a kitchen with space for that. I'll give it 6 months - tops - before it's whiplashed off the table and destroyed.
Uh, yes, it is based on experience. If you teach the child how to interact with the expensive equipment, they will treat it carefully. My 2 1/2 year old son has been using my laptop for over six months. I do sit with him and help him out. So far, no problems. If you are afraid of the kitchen table you could put the laptop on the floor or put it on a coffee table. Or, you could get a desktop and put it in a public place in your house.
So what, now -talking- about having underage sex is illigal, should be reported as sexual harrassment or such. My issues with the legal age aside, you can NOT compare phonesex with a minor to statitory rape.
IANAL, but having a dirty phone conversation with an underage person is probably very illegal. At the minimum, it is immoral and an adult that engages in that activity should be considered a potential pedophile.
And, you just so happened to skip over the another part of my post. I pointed out that parents should be doing their JOB. It is not Myspace's fault that teenagers are posting private information. It is the parent's fault. In my OPIONION, the job of "parent" includes removing a computer from the child's bedroom. My son does not have a computer in his bedroom, nor will he ever. If you want your child to have a computer in their bedroom, go ahead and do so. I don't care how you raise your kids. But, then, after you do so, don't turn around and complain that sites like "MYSPACE" are dangerous.
At what age does it become acceptable? 18? 16? 14? If you've got a 15 year old girl that wants to flirt on the net, removing her computer from her room isnt going to stop her. If you want to be sure that she doesnt go meet some 40 year old in a motel for a night of wild sex, then raise her with values that wouldnt let her do that.
A computer in my son's bedroom becomes acceptable when I say it becomes acceptable. I am a parent. I make the decisions for my child. Don't question how I raise him As long as I am not abusing the child, it isn't anybody's business.
California, which averaged 62 statutory rape convictions per month in the late 90s, in a state population of 33 million
So, the article is comparing a the state of California (a physical region) with MySpace, which is in Cyberspace. To me, that does not sound like a fair comparison. I believe that the comparison to California's crime rate is invalid because cybercrime may or may not involve actual physical contact. And, if it doesn't involve physical contact (for example, a dirty phone conversation), then it may not be reported.
While I realize that some worries of MySpace are overblown, I would like to point out there are dangers. These dangers include the fact that you can easily find out alot of personal information about someone. And, that information is readily available to millions of people on the web.
Should MySpace be banned? No. But, parents should consider doing their job. Note: IMHO, that job should include removing computers from their children's bedroom. The kid should be using a laptop in the kitchen. It won't cure the problem, but it will involve the parents in what their kids are doing on line.
Why would this guy take this stuff to the media instead of the appropriate government authorities? Shouldn't he at least have tried to go through official channels first? It's not like the 'media' option would have gone away had those attempts failed.
Uh, if he broke the law when he acquired the material, then taking it to the police would have probably put him in jail (or at least on trial the way he is today). By taking it to the media, he may have been hoping that the prosecutors would have been too intimiated to charge him.
That is all based on the presumption that he obtained the material in a legal manner. And, for the record, IANAL (Thank God).
And why does slashdot assume the only possible explanations are A) the government is evil and rewriting history or B) the government is stupid or C) the government is evil?
Don't limit those explanations to just Slashdot. Almost everywhere you go in the US, you will find a natural distrust of government. After all, remember back in the Clinton Administration, there was a large number of conservatives that truly believed the US Government was secretly collaborating with the United Nations in order to allow for a World Government?
Does a low level member of the Judiciary branch have the ability to override the executive branch? We have a black program, that is protected by multiple layers of secrecy. This is a construct of the executive branch. Can the Judiciary proclaim this level of secrecy null and void by decree and order classified information released?
Insteresting. I read those questions as specifically being related to Separation of Powers. In fact, the poster put "Separation of Powers" in his or her subject line. So, the question I was responding to was, in fact, a Separation of Powers question.
it's a is-FISA-even-about-this question.
I'm assuming you are referring to the overall issue regaring the NSA and the legality of the Bush executive order (which is different than the question posed by the OP). My only question is that if there were questions about FISA, why wouldn't George Bush ask his Republican dominated Congress to, you know, change the law?
Is the action we are trying to take against terrorists a war, or a law enforcement action? I don't think the American people have worked through this yet. In the passion after September 11th 2001, everyone worked from the opinion it was war.
I might point out that "everyone" doesn't include the one branch of Congress with the authority to declare war.
2)If this is a war, does the Judiciary have any role to play in how that war is conducted? In the past the answer has been they do not, as there seems to be no role in the constitution that connects the Judicial branch to the war execution powers of the executive or the war declaration powers of the Congress.
I must disagree. In December 1944, the US Supreme Court rules in the "Endo" case (Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283 (1944)) that the United States internment of Japanese American Citizens was illegal. So, yes, the Judicial Branch does have a role to play in how a war is conducted, at least as it relates to how the government treats it's own citizens during the course of a "war" (or whatever the legal term for this anti-terrorism activity is).
Does a low level member of the Judiciary branch have the ability to override the executive branch? We have a black program, that is protected by multiple layers of secrecy. This is a construct of the executive branch. Can the Judiciary proclaim this level of secrecy null and void by decree and order classified information released?
This is a good post, why is it that since he doesnt agree with the general opinion of the website is he modded flamebait?
Well, I guess that one reason is that he questions the patriotism of those who disagree with him. Not to mention his insinuation that those who disagree with him are "candy asses". Yeah, agree or disagree with him, that post is most definitely flame.
James Woolsey may have been appointed by Clinton, but he also was a member of The Project for a New American Century. Mr. Woolsey's buddies in that organization included Bill Kristol, the Scaife Family, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. That is not exactly a list of names you would find listed in the Democratic National Committee fundraising book.
I'm not saying that Mr. Woolsey's arguments are invalid. I am saying that you shouldn't (intentionally or unintentionally) insinuate Mr. Woolsey is a liberal Clintonite....
Assuming a 45-degree inclination, that means the base would need to be 1000 miles across, or ~1414 miles corner-to-corner. Any idea where you'd put it?
"According to their Web site the Space Elevator company Lifport recently managed to get their platform and climbing robot to the mile-high mark over the Arizona desert."
The robot only made it around 1500 feet. The cable was a mile long.
Rule Number 1: Don't let the facts ruin a good story.
If "metalcoat", "The Winner", submitted the article ONE MINUTE before you did, then, they would have been placed it in the queue and rejeced ALL similar subsequent submissions. In other words, we shall refer to you as "The Loser". Get used to it. Roland P. submits about 400 articles a day. You are lucky if you beat him to the punch one time in six months.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, the "parents should consider doing their job" line gets really tiresome. That slogan isn't a magic wand that will suddenly make all the kids do their homework, clean behind their ears, and otherwise act to someone's idea of perfection.
Nice job of splitting up my comment. If parents did their job, they would know that children are potentially posting private information on a public web-site. If the parent isn't aware of what their child is doing on the web (in other words, NOT doing their job), then the parent should stop complaining about sites like MySpace.
This is based on your extensive experiences as a parent? Methinks not. Go ahead, stick a laptop and its extended power cord on the kitchen table, assuming you have a kitchen with space for that. I'll give it 6 months - tops - before it's whiplashed off the table and destroyed.Uh, yes, it is based on experience. If you teach the child how to interact with the expensive equipment, they will treat it carefully. My 2 1/2 year old son has been using my laptop for over six months. I do sit with him and help him out. So far, no problems. If you are afraid of the kitchen table you could put the laptop on the floor or put it on a coffee table. Or, you could get a desktop and put it in a public place in your house.
IANAL, but having a dirty phone conversation with an underage person is probably very illegal. At the minimum, it is immoral and an adult that engages in that activity should be considered a potential pedophile.
And, you just so happened to skip over the another part of my post. I pointed out that parents should be doing their JOB. It is not Myspace's fault that teenagers are posting private information. It is the parent's fault. In my OPIONION, the job of "parent" includes removing a computer from the child's bedroom. My son does not have a computer in his bedroom, nor will he ever. If you want your child to have a computer in their bedroom, go ahead and do so. I don't care how you raise your kids. But, then, after you do so, don't turn around and complain that sites like "MYSPACE" are dangerous.
At what age does it become acceptable? 18? 16? 14? If you've got a 15 year old girl that wants to flirt on the net, removing her computer from her room isnt going to stop her. If you want to be sure that she doesnt go meet some 40 year old in a motel for a night of wild sex, then raise her with values that wouldnt let her do that.A computer in my son's bedroom becomes acceptable when I say it becomes acceptable. I am a parent. I make the decisions for my child. Don't question how I raise him As long as I am not abusing the child, it isn't anybody's business.
Should Slashdot be blocked at work?
So, the article is comparing a the state of California (a physical region) with MySpace, which is in Cyberspace. To me, that does not sound like a fair comparison. I believe that the comparison to California's crime rate is invalid because cybercrime may or may not involve actual physical contact. And, if it doesn't involve physical contact (for example, a dirty phone conversation), then it may not be reported.
While I realize that some worries of MySpace are overblown, I would like to point out there are dangers. These dangers include the fact that you can easily find out alot of personal information about someone. And, that information is readily available to millions of people on the web.
Should MySpace be banned? No. But, parents should consider doing their job. Note: IMHO, that job should include removing computers from their children's bedroom. The kid should be using a laptop in the kitchen. It won't cure the problem, but it will involve the parents in what their kids are doing on line.
I think they lost that contract. Which may partially explain why that brewery is one step ahead of the bankrupcy court.
Damn...two mistakes on my part
prosecutors would have been too intimiated to charge himI actually meant too intimidated to charge him.
presumption that he obtained the material in a legal manner.
I mean to say in an ILLegal manner.
I must remember to use "preview".
Uh, if he broke the law when he acquired the material, then taking it to the police would have probably put him in jail (or at least on trial the way he is today). By taking it to the media, he may have been hoping that the prosecutors would have been too intimiated to charge him.
That is all based on the presumption that he obtained the material in a legal manner. And, for the record, IANAL (Thank God).
Ah, I am thrilled to see another member of the club! Although you should receive a few demerits for not including "Iron City Drinkin'" in your list...
My inner Spelling Nazi would like to point out there is an "h" at the end of Pittsburgh.
Hey! That's MISTER John Fuckup to you!
Well said.
Don't limit those explanations to just Slashdot. Almost everywhere you go in the US, you will find a natural distrust of government. After all, remember back in the Clinton Administration, there was a large number of conservatives that truly believed the US Government was secretly collaborating with the United Nations in order to allow for a World Government?
The reason that Google blocks it is a secret. So, we could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.
Well, let's re-read the original post
Does a low level member of the Judiciary branch have the ability to override the executive branch? We have a black program, that is protected by multiple layers of secrecy. This is a construct of the executive branch. Can the Judiciary proclaim this level of secrecy null and void by decree and order classified information released?Insteresting. I read those questions as specifically being related to Separation of Powers. In fact, the poster put "Separation of Powers" in his or her subject line. So, the question I was responding to was, in fact, a Separation of Powers question.
it's a is-FISA-even-about-this question.I'm assuming you are referring to the overall issue regaring the NSA and the legality of the Bush executive order (which is different than the question posed by the OP). My only question is that if there were questions about FISA, why wouldn't George Bush ask his Republican dominated Congress to, you know, change the law?
I might point out that "everyone" doesn't include the one branch of Congress with the authority to declare war.
2)If this is a war, does the Judiciary have any role to play in how that war is conducted? In the past the answer has been they do not, as there seems to be no role in the constitution that connects the Judicial branch to the war execution powers of the executive or the war declaration powers of the Congress.I must disagree. In December 1944, the US Supreme Court rules in the "Endo" case (Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283 (1944)) that the United States internment of Japanese American Citizens was illegal. So, yes, the Judicial Branch does have a role to play in how a war is conducted, at least as it relates to how the government treats it's own citizens during the course of a "war" (or whatever the legal term for this anti-terrorism activity is).
Maybe you need a refresher course on the Separation of Powers.
Well, I guess that one reason is that he questions the patriotism of those who disagree with him. Not to mention his insinuation that those who disagree with him are "candy asses". Yeah, agree or disagree with him, that post is most definitely flame.
James Woolsey may have been appointed by Clinton, but he also was a member of The Project for a New American Century. Mr. Woolsey's buddies in that organization included Bill Kristol, the Scaife Family, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. That is not exactly a list of names you would find listed in the Democratic National Committee fundraising book.
I'm not saying that Mr. Woolsey's arguments are invalid. I am saying that you shouldn't (intentionally or unintentionally) insinuate Mr. Woolsey is a liberal Clintonite....
I vote for California!
The robot only made it around 1500 feet. The cable was a mile long.
Rule Number 1: Don't let the facts ruin a good story.
Try the Rome Total Realism mod.
Oh, I forgot to add the Descent/Freespace Series. Those games rocked.
The entire Total War Series. Shogun TW, Medieval TW, and Rome TW.
If "metalcoat", "The Winner", submitted the article ONE MINUTE before you did, then, they would have been placed it in the queue and rejeced ALL similar subsequent submissions. In other words, we shall refer to you as "The Loser". Get used to it. Roland P. submits about 400 articles a day. You are lucky if you beat him to the punch one time in six months.
RTFA -- the submitter just copied and pasted the first four paragraphs of the article in his submission.