I've been discussing this elsewhere (yeah, Slash is about a week behind), and the general consensus was that if you can't be shot while committing it, it shouldn't be a felony. This is Just Plain Wrong.
Anonymous coward? But TFA said it was by Sal Cangeloso, and since it's taken verbatim, I'd say it's probably reasonable to ascribe this to him.
Hey, you know what'd be really cool? If we had somebody who could read the stories, and decide which ones are valid news stories, and which are just advertisements. We could call the process "editing," or somesuch.
If we really wanted to go overboard, we could make him check the spelling and grammar of submissions, and possibly even see if the same story was reported the previous day. But that's probably just crazy talk.
I do not have any data about the shutdown of these sites save for that which was in the article. I do think it's within the realm of plausibility that it was organized, if not executed, by the British government (or any number of others), but I'm not actually accusing them of doing it. As you say, I was "framing the debate," but I intended no nefarious purpose; rather, I was trying to create context for my question, which I reproduce here:
What is the threshold for shutdown, and how do we maintain transparency to ensure that the government isn't abusing the power to shut down non-violent (but strongly critical) sites?
To that, I would also add "should they be shut down at all?" Such information is trivially easy to find for anybody with access to a University library (read: nearly anybody) and a high-school understanding of chemistry and map-reading. I, myself, know how to make a few different explosives: black powder (I shoot and hunt with muzzleloading rifles, and though I prefer to buy my powder pre-made by Goex, I know how to make it), ANFO (I know people who grew up on farms, and blasting stumps is pretty common), or even simpler explosive devices like...a full gas can. Any number of other explosives can be found and synthesized with information from a good chem book, or certainly university-level chemistry materials. Almost every city of significant size in the US (I don't know about Britain or the rest of the world) has a university, and many public libraries stock good science selections as well. The point is, such information is trivially available; should the government ever have the power to shut down a site for saying something it doesn't like?
If we accept that such power should be granted by the citizens (and I'll concede, for sake of this argument that it should, though I don't consider the question settled), then my original question comes into play: how do we ensure that only the "right" sites are taken down? Indymedia has had numerous "problems" with the law lately, mostly seizures of equipment, and I don't think they advocate violent revolution. This story deals with the "killing civilians" bit, but governments have a history of <ahem> interfering with people who say things they don't want to hear, or don't want the people to hear. How do we grant the power to "obstruct and intercept terrorism" while maintaining transparency and public control of the process, particularly when the government is quick to use the "National Security--You Can't See This!" label?
A UK government clamp-down on internet abuse is being rushed through parliament following the apparent ease with which terrorists can obtain the wherewithal to make bombs like those used in the recent attack on London.
'Terrorist and extremist use of the internet poses a significant threat,' a Home Office spokesperson told Chemistry World, 'We are already working with our G8 and European partners to find ways to tackle the sites and identify individuals and groups responsible. People who download bomb-making instructions and then try to follow them could well be guilty of the new proposed Act Preparatory to Terrorism offence, which we announced on 18th July, and will be taken forward into the new Prevention of Terrorism Bill.'
It says "and then try to follow them," but it also says that they're going to try to find ways to find out who's reading them. Even if you don't follow them, you can expect to get a knock on your door (or, if it's anything like the American BATF, a battering ram knocking your door down) just for visiting such sites. It's for the chiiillldren, after all.
What they are doing is shutting down a conduit for the organization of groups whose purpose it is to kill civilians, disrupt society, and bring down the current government.
Well, without the "killing civilians" bit, I can think of any number of groups who would love to disrupt our society and bring down our current government. Matter of fact, I'm not sure that a few of them don't have the right idea.
Of course, the government would disagree; natural, really, having an interest in self-preservation. What is the threshold for shutdown, and how do we maintain transparency to ensure that the government isn't abusing the power to shut down non-violent (but strongly critical) sites?
"According to this article at Wired, Boston Common Asset Management, has filed a shareholders resolution asking Cisco to 'adopt a comprehensive human rights policy for its dealings with the Chinese government, and with other states practicing political censorship of the internet.'"
Translation:
Free market demands company consider human rights; does so without interference or prodding from government.
I wondered when somebody was going to bring up BATFE's bullshit "constructive posession" argument. You forgot to mention, though, that the prohibition extended even to a complete device that was legal, plus extra parts that would not have been legal on that device, but would have on others. In other words, if you own a complete post-ban rifle, you can't own a pre-ban upper at all until you buy a pre-ban lower, even if you never assemble them.
And yes, I do think "constructive posession" is a fancy way of saying "prior restraint," but the courts have decided those silly little "rights" things just weren't that important after all.
1500 watts? It's called a micro wave oven... I guess you mean milliwatts...
No, he doesn't; hams can use up to 1,500 watts (yes, 1.5kW) on almost all of our bands. Certain exceptions do exist (there are a few conditions where power is limited to 200W), but that's the basic rule.
People don't adopt new OSes because they are lazy, and learning a new OS takes work.
Seriously--my dad just bought a new iBook, after using 'doze all his life, and quit using it after just a few weeks because it was, in his words, "too much work" to learn the new system.
I would rather he select someone who agrees with a modern interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
And that interpretation would be what? You have no right to be controlled at a local level rather than a federal level (see: Raich, in which Kennedy arrogantly said that Californians had the "democratic process" at their disposal if they wanted marijuana law changed, ignoring the fact that their law passed on a public initiative and a state legislature vote)? That it's OK for the Feds to tell you what you can grow on your land (Wickard), and the decision that started all of this "it's all interstate commerce somehow, so we can rule everything!" crap: NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.. Or how about the fact that it's OK to give your land to a developer for a few extra tax dollars (which Stevens specifically said is based upon a shift in the meaning of "public use" in the mid-nineteenth century)? That limiting political expression (McCain-Feingold) is OK (and, incidentally, creating a special class of people called "media" who are exempt; defining that's going to be interesting).
Sorry, I'm not convinced this "modern" interpretation is all that good an idea. The Founding Fathers were pretty smart guys, if only we'd follow the system they gave us.
Not to belabor the issue, but in this case, I think CrkHead raises a relevant point. You were discussing variance from "the norm," whatever it may be, as cause to doubt somebody's judgement or intelligence. In your case, you mention body modification[0]. CrkHead then commented on your intellectual prowess as demonstrated by your spelling.
If anything, CrkHead had the better claim. Body modification, while socially questionable, is at least a subjective topic. Spelling and grammar are objectively right or wrong--I can go to an elementary grammar book and point out where your post violates the basic rules of the English language.
Mind you, I'm not picking on you personally, or even on Slashdotters as a whole. Rather, I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your position. Do you really think that poor use of the language is less an indicator of one's ability to think than a tattoo or piercing?
[0]For the record, I don't care much for body modification either. I think it looks kind of silly.
There's nothing in the Constitution requiring the Senate to vote on a nominee either.
Article II, Section 2:
[The President]... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
By any rational reading of that passage, the only appointees that don't need Senate confirmation are those that Congress has exempted from Senatorial review. Since they haven't done so for judges, the Senate is required to consider the President's appointments. The Constitution does not specify a means for consideration and approval, just that it happen. The Senate has chosen to adopt a vote of the members as its means of consideration. Certain Democrats' threat to filibuster (and they haven't filibustered yet) thwarts Senate Republicans' efforts to consider the nominees, either approving or rejecting them. So, while the Senate isn't explicitly required to vote on nominees, the duty to give consideration is clear.
Note that I also disagree with the plan to reduce the threshold for invoking cloture; I think both parties are acting like spoiled children. If I had my way, the Republicans would show some stones, force the Democrats to actually filibuster, we'd all get to see how stupid both parties are being, get fed up, and beat all of our elected representatives with Giant Foam Cluebats.
why have I heard absolutely nothing to that effect in the past two years since that particular issue has even been talked about?
I would guess that it's because those issues aren't your particular field of interest. There's so much going on that it's impossible to keep up with everything; this happens to be one of my particular interests. The bill numbers are H.R. 800 and S. 397, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act, and you can find them on http://thomas.loc.gov. Your accusation of zealotry is misguided, BTW; you might be surprised to learn that I actually argued against the act, because I believe that it represents an improper intrusion of the Federal government into state matters, specifically the states' right to sue whom they choose. As usual, Dr. Ron Paul expresses my objections more eloquently than I can. You can read his explanation--and the NRA's disapproval--at http://www.inlibertyandfreedom.com/rp1036.htm. That said, I do think such suits are without merit (as has every single court that has heard one, I might add).
I care not because of single-issue zealotry; while his actions actually could affect me (by driving up costs), that's not the primary reason for my concern. I care because I'm opposed to government using the courts to achieve those ends which it cannot achieve legislatively. I am particularly concerned where such ends are achieved by lawsuit and driving companies out of business (or making continued operations economically unviable); typically, when such measures are taken, it is because there is no justification in legislation, or because such legislation would be either unconstitutional, or rejected by constituents. His job being the enforcement of existing law, it is inappropriate for him to be engaging in lawsuits against lawful manufacturers of lawful products because of the unlawful actions of end users. As a parallel, would it be appropriate if he filed suit against Ford for the actions of drunk drivers?
As for your crusade comment: I'm going to let that one stand, because it's pretty close. I do take exception to the "one true righteous" part, though. My crusade, my passion, is not concealed carry, or even gun rights in general; rather, it's my right to live without unnecessary meddling or interference from my government. I speak out not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of anybody who has been abused at the hands of government. I am a frequent critic of President Bush, AG Gonzales (I swear, I never though I'd actually miss Ashcroft, but Gonzales is actually worse), the DEA, ONDCP, FBI, and pretty much every other government agency. Mr. Spitzer's lawsuits represent an intrusion into lawful commerce that serves as an unwelcome precedent: that the government can hold producers accountable for the actions of end-users, actions over which they have no control. See also: filesharing software. I have consistently opposed RIAA/MPAA efforts, along with the DMCA (and similar), to hold the software authors and service providers accountable for the actions of their users. Why? Because the authors have no control over who uses their software to do what; without control, neither can there be responsibility. Mr. Spitzer is a particularly apropos target for criticism in this matter, though, because these lawsuits were his brainchild--he is, effectively, the leader of that effort, and just as President Bush is the leader of many of our truly offensive policy decisions ("enemy combatants" and the USA PATRIOT Act being perhaps two of the most egregious), and therefore deserving of extra criticism, so does Mr. Spitzer deserve the criticism on this issue.
Single-issue zealotry? The issue is freedom, and I don't think it's irrational at all. My comment was not to paint Mr. Spitzer as a villain, but rather to respond to your (apparent) characterization of him as a hero. I appreciate what he's done for us--for all of us, even those of
Including the legislature, and, presumably, the constituency that elected them, right? In fact, the legislature is so appalled at his idea that they're considering legislation to make what he did illegal.
This was 'supposed' to help them clean up dupes, yet we find that they are not only failing to check dupes, tehy are also failing to check the account so that those of us (that are paying, not being paid) can help out...
That's because you're doing it all wrong. The staff doesn't care. But there is a solution; you mention that we're paying for this "service." Gentlemen, I give you the contact information for the Open Source Technology Group, Slashdot's parent company:
Slashdot Mirror
I've been discussing this elsewhere (yeah, Slash is about a week behind), and the general consensus was that if you can't be shot while committing it, it shouldn't be a felony. This is Just Plain Wrong.
Work up to it, start by watching a 30-minute sitcom without eating.
The real trick is watching a 30-minute sitcom without drinking yourself into a coma.
Anonymous coward? But TFA said it was by Sal Cangeloso, and since it's taken verbatim, I'd say it's probably reasonable to ascribe this to him.
Hey, you know what'd be really cool? If we had somebody who could read the stories, and decide which ones are valid news stories, and which are just advertisements. We could call the process "editing," or somesuch.
If we really wanted to go overboard, we could make him check the spelling and grammar of submissions, and possibly even see if the same story was reported the previous day. But that's probably just crazy talk.
I do not have any data about the shutdown of these sites save for that which was in the article. I do think it's within the realm of plausibility that it was organized, if not executed, by the British government (or any number of others), but I'm not actually accusing them of doing it. As you say, I was "framing the debate," but I intended no nefarious purpose; rather, I was trying to create context for my question, which I reproduce here:
What is the threshold for shutdown, and how do we maintain transparency to ensure that the government isn't abusing the power to shut down non-violent (but strongly critical) sites?
To that, I would also add "should they be shut down at all?" Such information is trivially easy to find for anybody with access to a University library (read: nearly anybody) and a high-school understanding of chemistry and map-reading. I, myself, know how to make a few different explosives: black powder (I shoot and hunt with muzzleloading rifles, and though I prefer to buy my powder pre-made by Goex, I know how to make it), ANFO (I know people who grew up on farms, and blasting stumps is pretty common), or even simpler explosive devices like...a full gas can. Any number of other explosives can be found and synthesized with information from a good chem book, or certainly university-level chemistry materials. Almost every city of significant size in the US (I don't know about Britain or the rest of the world) has a university, and many public libraries stock good science selections as well. The point is, such information is trivially available; should the government ever have the power to shut down a site for saying something it doesn't like?
If we accept that such power should be granted by the citizens (and I'll concede, for sake of this argument that it should, though I don't consider the question settled), then my original question comes into play: how do we ensure that only the "right" sites are taken down? Indymedia has had numerous "problems" with the law lately, mostly seizures of equipment, and I don't think they advocate violent revolution. This story deals with the "killing civilians" bit, but governments have a history of <ahem> interfering with people who say things they don't want to hear, or don't want the people to hear. How do we grant the power to "obstruct and intercept terrorism" while maintaining transparency and public control of the process, particularly when the government is quick to use the "National Security--You Can't See This!" label?
Is it now illegal to look at such websites?
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2005/July/It says "and then try to follow them," but it also says that they're going to try to find ways to find out who's reading them. Even if you don't follow them, you can expect to get a knock on your door (or, if it's anything like the American BATF, a battering ram knocking your door down) just for visiting such sites. It's for the chiiillldren, after all.
What they are doing is shutting down a conduit for the organization of groups whose purpose it is to kill civilians, disrupt society, and bring down the current government.
Well, without the "killing civilians" bit, I can think of any number of groups who would love to disrupt our society and bring down our current government. Matter of fact, I'm not sure that a few of them don't have the right idea.
Of course, the government would disagree; natural, really, having an interest in self-preservation. What is the threshold for shutdown, and how do we maintain transparency to ensure that the government isn't abusing the power to shut down non-violent (but strongly critical) sites?
Gus Grissom died in the Apollo 1 fire, you insensitive clod.
Damn, I'm dumb; I don't know how I forgot that. Sometimes I can be such a, well, clod. Mea culpa.
As for your book, are you sure it didn't say he was the first to orbit (which he was)?
Space travel means an orbital insertion. Controlled powered space travel.
I'll be sure to mention that to Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom.
"According to this article at Wired, Boston Common Asset Management, has filed a shareholders resolution asking Cisco to 'adopt a comprehensive human rights policy for its dealings with the Chinese government, and with other states practicing political censorship of the internet.'"
Translation:
Free market demands company consider human rights; does so without interference or prodding from government.
Told you it could work.
I wondered when somebody was going to bring up BATFE's bullshit "constructive posession" argument. You forgot to mention, though, that the prohibition extended even to a complete device that was legal, plus extra parts that would not have been legal on that device, but would have on others. In other words, if you own a complete post-ban rifle, you can't own a pre-ban upper at all until you buy a pre-ban lower, even if you never assemble them.
And yes, I do think "constructive posession" is a fancy way of saying "prior restraint," but the courts have decided those silly little "rights" things just weren't that important after all.
1500 watts? It's called a micro wave oven... I guess you mean milliwatts...
No, he doesn't; hams can use up to 1,500 watts (yes, 1.5kW) on almost all of our bands. Certain exceptions do exist (there are a few conditions where power is limited to 200W), but that's the basic rule.
You know, because spending the money on improving literacy would fall on deaf ears.
No, just stupid ones.
Right up until somebody hacks the driver to make them all "Any" keys.
2005-06-04 21:10:19 FBI, DHS Object to In-Flight Cell Phones (Index,Privacy) (rejected)
Same thing as the cell phone article, only now it's for data. Glad to see Taco's on the ball again.
Why doesn't the Australian government provide the source code to the public?
Because then you might be able to figure out just how much you're actually paying in taxes?
People don't adopt new OSes because they are lazy, and learning a new OS takes work.
Seriously--my dad just bought a new iBook, after using 'doze all his life, and quit using it after just a few weeks because it was, in his words, "too much work" to learn the new system.
I would rather he select someone who agrees with a modern interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
And that interpretation would be what? You have no right to be controlled at a local level rather than a federal level (see: Raich, in which Kennedy arrogantly said that Californians had the "democratic process" at their disposal if they wanted marijuana law changed, ignoring the fact that their law passed on a public initiative and a state legislature vote)? That it's OK for the Feds to tell you what you can grow on your land (Wickard), and the decision that started all of this "it's all interstate commerce somehow, so we can rule everything!" crap: NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.. Or how about the fact that it's OK to give your land to a developer for a few extra tax dollars (which Stevens specifically said is based upon a shift in the meaning of "public use" in the mid-nineteenth century)? That limiting political expression (McCain-Feingold) is OK (and, incidentally, creating a special class of people called "media" who are exempt; defining that's going to be interesting).
Sorry, I'm not convinced this "modern" interpretation is all that good an idea. The Founding Fathers were pretty smart guys, if only we'd follow the system they gave us.
Oh noes! Teh bad grammar, it burns us!
Not to belabor the issue, but in this case, I think CrkHead raises a relevant point. You were discussing variance from "the norm," whatever it may be, as cause to doubt somebody's judgement or intelligence. In your case, you mention body modification[0]. CrkHead then commented on your intellectual prowess as demonstrated by your spelling.
If anything, CrkHead had the better claim. Body modification, while socially questionable, is at least a subjective topic. Spelling and grammar are objectively right or wrong--I can go to an elementary grammar book and point out where your post violates the basic rules of the English language.
Mind you, I'm not picking on you personally, or even on Slashdotters as a whole. Rather, I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your position. Do you really think that poor use of the language is less an indicator of one's ability to think than a tattoo or piercing?
[0]For the record, I don't care much for body modification either. I think it looks kind of silly.
Am I required to submit original source code, written by me, or can I merely submit the leaked Windows source, and thus be assured of victory?
There's nothing in the Constitution requiring the Senate to vote on a nominee either.
Article II, Section 2:
By any rational reading of that passage, the only appointees that don't need Senate confirmation are those that Congress has exempted from Senatorial review. Since they haven't done so for judges, the Senate is required to consider the President's appointments. The Constitution does not specify a means for consideration and approval, just that it happen. The Senate has chosen to adopt a vote of the members as its means of consideration. Certain Democrats' threat to filibuster (and they haven't filibustered yet) thwarts Senate Republicans' efforts to consider the nominees, either approving or rejecting them. So, while the Senate isn't explicitly required to vote on nominees, the duty to give consideration is clear.
Note that I also disagree with the plan to reduce the threshold for invoking cloture; I think both parties are acting like spoiled children. If I had my way, the Republicans would show some stones, force the Democrats to actually filibuster, we'd all get to see how stupid both parties are being, get fed up, and beat all of our elected representatives with Giant Foam Cluebats.
Fat chance of that happening.
It would be really useful if it could tell where the crime was about to occur .. in advance
Easier done than said. Just put a big, red, flashing dot on The Honorable Richard J. Daley Plaza.
why have I heard absolutely nothing to that effect in the past two years since that particular issue has even been talked about?
I would guess that it's because those issues aren't your particular field of interest. There's so much going on that it's impossible to keep up with everything; this happens to be one of my particular interests. The bill numbers are H.R. 800 and S. 397, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act, and you can find them on http://thomas.loc.gov. Your accusation of zealotry is misguided, BTW; you might be surprised to learn that I actually argued against the act, because I believe that it represents an improper intrusion of the Federal government into state matters, specifically the states' right to sue whom they choose. As usual, Dr. Ron Paul expresses my objections more eloquently than I can. You can read his explanation--and the NRA's disapproval--at http://www.inlibertyandfreedom.com/rp1036.htm. That said, I do think such suits are without merit (as has every single court that has heard one, I might add).
I care not because of single-issue zealotry; while his actions actually could affect me (by driving up costs), that's not the primary reason for my concern. I care because I'm opposed to government using the courts to achieve those ends which it cannot achieve legislatively. I am particularly concerned where such ends are achieved by lawsuit and driving companies out of business (or making continued operations economically unviable); typically, when such measures are taken, it is because there is no justification in legislation, or because such legislation would be either unconstitutional, or rejected by constituents. His job being the enforcement of existing law, it is inappropriate for him to be engaging in lawsuits against lawful manufacturers of lawful products because of the unlawful actions of end users. As a parallel, would it be appropriate if he filed suit against Ford for the actions of drunk drivers?
As for your crusade comment: I'm going to let that one stand, because it's pretty close. I do take exception to the "one true righteous" part, though. My crusade, my passion, is not concealed carry, or even gun rights in general; rather, it's my right to live without unnecessary meddling or interference from my government. I speak out not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of anybody who has been abused at the hands of government. I am a frequent critic of President Bush, AG Gonzales (I swear, I never though I'd actually miss Ashcroft, but Gonzales is actually worse), the DEA, ONDCP, FBI, and pretty much every other government agency. Mr. Spitzer's lawsuits represent an intrusion into lawful commerce that serves as an unwelcome precedent: that the government can hold producers accountable for the actions of end-users, actions over which they have no control. See also: filesharing software. I have consistently opposed RIAA/MPAA efforts, along with the DMCA (and similar), to hold the software authors and service providers accountable for the actions of their users. Why? Because the authors have no control over who uses their software to do what; without control, neither can there be responsibility. Mr. Spitzer is a particularly apropos target for criticism in this matter, though, because these lawsuits were his brainchild--he is, effectively, the leader of that effort, and just as President Bush is the leader of many of our truly offensive policy decisions ("enemy combatants" and the USA PATRIOT Act being perhaps two of the most egregious), and therefore deserving of extra criticism, so does Mr. Spitzer deserve the criticism on this issue.
Single-issue zealotry? The issue is freedom, and I don't think it's irrational at all. My comment was not to paint Mr. Spitzer as a villain, but rather to respond to your (apparent) characterization of him as a hero. I appreciate what he's done for us--for all of us, even those of
He is what I view as the embodiment of what it means to be a TRUE American. A genuine good-guy who isn't afraid to stand up for what's right...
Ah, yes. So, say, attempting to use lawsuits to enforce policy you can't pass legislatively (probably because it infringes upon fundamental human rights) is what a TRUE American does? Hint: check out http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Sty le=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS /2003/06/30&ID=Ar00601 for the story.)
Including the legislature, and, presumably, the constituency that elected them, right? In fact, the legislature is so appalled at his idea that they're considering legislation to make what he did illegal.
As for your being beaten to death and you just barely manage to dial 911 and the police only hear the crime and trace the call
That's when you dial 1911 and take care of the problem. Then, once you're safe, go call the police. Tell them to bring a mop.
This was 'supposed' to help them clean up dupes, yet we find that they are not only failing to check dupes, tehy are also failing to check the account so that those of us (that are paying, not being paid) can help out...
That's because you're doing it all wrong. The staff doesn't care. But there is a solution; you mention that we're paying for this "service." Gentlemen, I give you the contact information for the Open Source Technology Group, Slashdot's parent company:
(Source: http://www.ostg.com/contact/index.htm) You want the editors to, erm, edit? Complain to their bosses.