After several recommendations from a friend I finally tried the "nasal douche" and I've become a believer. I've got both the Neti pot and squeeze bottle. I like the squeeze bottle best.
Next round i predict semi anon software that your grandma can run where they mix in some plausible deniability using encrypted cache stores just to make it extra painful for the *.A.As and may i say i hope it hurts.
Share uses encryption to hide the identity of who is transferring or what they are transferring. It is non-centralized so it cannot be easily shut down and it supports multiple source "swarm" downloading. All files are transferred encrypted so they must be decrypted upon download completion. In the meantime they are stored in encrypted form in a "Cache" folder. This folder is also used to allow recently downloaded files to be shared among the network based on priorities.
There apps use strings to populate the menus and dialog text so they can be localized. I had an interest in this years ago, and simply put, it comes down to convenience and affluence. BTW Steam sale today, $2.49 for Magicka...
"and I find it absurd to assert that completely blocking a web site is in any way appropriate response to emails."
being ambiguous. You were not referring to the website in question but a hypothetical one. Let's skip all the pedantry: the problem isn't the content but how it was distributed. There's a lesson in there somewhere...
"School resources" are still used to read personal email, so the problem of using school resources for something that doesn't violate the AUP couldn't have been avoided by using a different email address when using the university resources to do this.
True only if you they're accessing from campus, you know you can send and receive email from off campus? Don't use your school email account to do things you agreed not to with it. Why is this such a challenge for you (and the students) to understand?
I disagree with your definition of spam (and I believe your definition is contrary to most or all of the common definitions
Except it's not mine, I used the first one returned by Google because I had a hunch you'd have an issue with the definition. Definition of spam per Google, yet another link with an aggregate from multiple dictionary sources. We're in the information age and you're at a computer, take some initiative and back up your claims. So far it's been all about how you feel, not about what the facts are about this situation.
and I find it absurd to assert that completely blocking a web site is in any way appropriate response to emails.
Just "You don't get any special priviledges for practicing your religion."
That's the idea but in practice it's simply not true, for example: During the California State Bar Exam which occurs over a period of three days in the fall one of the days fell upon a Jewish Holiday, those who celebrated the day were able to take the same test as those who were not absent.
Teaching something or refusing to teach something or performing some act or refusing to perform some act because of religious doctrine should disqualify one from accepting taxation benefits or governmental grants.
Otherwise, you have unequal application of the rules, which, without a good reason, often ends up being illegal.
Welcome to the US where selective enforcement is a reality. This whole situation could be avoided by simply using personal email instead of school resources.
I don't believe the use of an online poll site violates the AUP, nor is there anything in there about the enforcement, likely a stern talking to or less for a first offense, and on from there, not a complete blocking of the offending site, including services unrelated to the "breach" you assert happened.
This isn't about what you believe. This is about what students agreed to and school policy. I'm not a lawyer nor do I know what their internal protocols are for blocking things (I'm very curious about this), or any additional agreements students sign when enrolling as I've never attended ASU, if you have please enlighten me. I've cited what their use policy is, quoting specifically the portions which apply to my points. Where are yours?
You emphasized things, but didn't indicate how an on-line poll is a violation
Please re-read my above posts concerning spam. Perhaps definitions for these words may shed some light on why:
spam, verb: Send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet.
Advertising, noun: the promotion of goods or services.
Was this a dick move? Arguably. However, I didn't agree to abide by the University's rules and proceed to violate them. I'm not familiar with Arizona state laws regarding contract laws and rights, in my lay understanding as long as what you're agreeing to isn't illegal it's solid.
So we are only discussing civil rights, not "loaded" civil rights, so it's ok to infringe on our civil rights as long as they aren't "loaded"? So making the atheists sit outside would be fine because nobody likes the pretentious atheist assholes, not even other atheists?
This isn't civil rights, this is breach of contract. Don't agree to follow rules and cry foul when caught.
If the owners establish an acceptable usage policy, then fail to follow it, did they wrong those who paid for access to the network?
The owners did not violate it, users did by direct violation of acceptable use (see below), otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this. Since you've obviously not read it, I'll cite it for you:
"...Users of ASU’s computing and communications resources are required to comply with this policy, other applicable ASU and regents’ policies and state and federal laws. When necessary, enforcement will be consistent with other applicable Board of Regents’ policies and ASU administrative policies and procedures."
AND
"Use of ASU computer resources for private business or commercial activities, fund-raising or advertising on behalf of non-ASU organizations is prohibited." emphasis mine.
I've just admitted that I find your grandparent comment ambiguous, if that doesn't hint that I still don't know what you implied by quoting "private property" I'll say it bluntly: what did you mean by quoting "privatey property"? Stop with the labels, those are for cans, not people. Make your argument without resorting to calling someone insane, or troll... how am I arguing with myself? You're replying...
You can't only serve Blacks in the alley out back anymore,
Irrelevant. We're discussing a blocked website, not loaded civil rights based upon skin color.
Let me ask you this, are networks are private property? Are the owners free establish acceptable use policies? Why not?
So now is my opinion a lie? HAH! Where did I quote and state factually that AK Marc said something false and quote it as such? You're quick to call others liars, and insane ramblers and fail to clarify your ambiguous points. As informed and reasonable as you represent yourself you're ignorant of the massive idiocy involved in the school system regarding zero tolerance, yet when it applies to a site which violates a policy you blather on about it being selective.
"Private property" like the public university you paid for in taxes and by tuition?
I provided some examples of publicly funded property which has restrictions, not unlike a university. You've just insulted me, I'm not sure how that makes me an insane liar... enjoy your evening/morning and stay classy.
If it's a school that teaches or promulgates religious doctrines, then it should not qualify for the same benefits as a school that doesn't. The refusal to teach or support birth control is in support of a religious doctrine.
The first sentence I agree. To the second: "Thou shalt not murder." is religious doctrine too, should schools which teach tolerance be held to the same scrutiny (after all the religion(s) which teach this and instilled this message in present society were around much longer than the "non-religious" organizations who make use of these morals)?
P.S.: I didn't mean to single out Catholic organizations more than other religious organizations, but the article was about a Catholic organization. I would have the same opinion of Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon or Hindu, Moslem, or Pagan organizations. But it is true that the major religions, especially including Catholics, have taken much more advantage of taxation relief than more minor religions typically have.
I'd like to see how this plays out for Muslims, honestly. *prepares popcorn*
"Private property" like the public university you paid for in taxes and by tuition?
Oh, since it's publicly funded you can go anywhere and do anything, do you go to the deans office and type messages from there? How does that work for parks which close after dark, or public libraries, or exploring your Police Department of your own volition (they're public servants and tax payers paid for all of it)? Are you able to look up whatever you want online from a computer at a public school as a tax payer?
The difference is nobody has claimed that work is required to provide open access. The issue is, can a public university (an organization not just a private company who subsists primarily on public funds, like the Ivy League, but an organization owned by one of the states of the United States) block a web site because someone started an embarrassing petition on that web site?
From what I've read this was spammed. If it was blocked because of that then it's an entirely separate issue than "it's the government, transparency!"
Because Nasa has been testing off the shelf laptops and Android devices on the ISS for the last 3 years and have found no problems
at all. Off the shelf. Go to Dell, buy a laptop. Launch. Use for over a year. No reported problems.
Isn't the ISS shielded where the sensitive humans are using the non shielded devices?
Catholic organizations, as a consequent of their tax exempt status, SHOULD have strings attached to what they can do, regardless of whether they take government money. Othe tax exempt organizations do, why not the churche
Why just the Catholics, why not all tax exempt religious organizations i.e. Buddhists, Mormons etc.? I think a better question might be, why does the church fill such a massive role in taking care of people? Why does the system depend so much on these 3rd parties? Yesterday I heard numbers as high as 1 in 9 are treated at a Catholic funded facility.
If you (voluntarily) get unusual benefits from the government, you should have unusual requirements. And you don't have the right to complain that you didn't want those requirements unless you first stop takeing the advantage.
I think you're mistaking the last sentence of my comment "I cede the point to the paid by taxes part as I'm ignorant of the funding sources." I'm referring to the school in this case as it's the main thread topic, your point is redundant as we agree.
I'm not disagreeing with that, in fact I addressed that in another comment before you posted your comment citing that I'm also ignorant of the schools funding sources (I mentioned this here, 10 minutes before you posted this)
It's still early and I completely misread that as "is your workplace."
So if they pay their inflated tuition to this school, regardless of the network usage policy they signed before they use it, they should get unfettered access?
No. If I was an institution that didn't want other people's say in things I wouldn't want any part of government funding even if it's the smallest amount because the money comes with so many strings attached concerning policy. Look at what is happening to Catholic organizations regarding birth control. Please don't misconstrue this as support of censorship, simply private network rules. I cede the point to the paid by taxes part as I'm ignorant of the funding sources.
They're paying me more than that. I also have the concept of an acceptable use policy which I signed at employment much like what the students do and understand the internet is a series of private networks with various terms and conditions. You're not one of those silly people who thinks you have a right to use private property are you? Granted I guess you could consider this "government" censorship since it's the school system, but my comment is from the employment slide of things.
So, if my site, ThingOneBlogs.com, violates Sharia Law in some other country, and I don't cooperate with the people who literally want to cut my hands off -- would you consider me in the wrong? (By the way, the preceding sentence is an image of Mohammed.)
Does the country you reside in have extradition agreements in place with the country regarding the laws you're breaking? Have you translated your site in to the local language and rewarding people for doing actionable things on a commercial scale? Do you use financial institutions in this country which you use to pay people in the country where what you're doing is illegal? Do you have a business presence in this country where you are agreeing to follow their laws? Do you have 500+ servers in this country with actionable material? Does your company generate millions of dollars of "business" doing actionable things on a commercial scale in of both of your countries?
I really don't think New Zealand should be deporting Germans for breaking American copyright laws.
It's pretty much illegal anywhere you go in the first world to profit off of someone else's work. To avoid problems it's really simple: don't operate a business with 500+ servers in a country where what you're doing is illegal. Especially when you're making millions of dollars and paying people through financial institutions based in said country where your activities are actionable. You have to question the logic of becoming a resident in a country with extradition agreements to the one you're breaking laws in on a commercial scale.
Not telling somebody something is not the same as keeping a secret.
I understand what you're saying about not telling every detail. That's a high level view. In regards to passwords specifically, not the relationship between your bowel movents and your wife, are passwords secrets? Enlighten us how/why they are not.
If you receive mail at a workplace, according to the U.S. Postal Service, mail is delivered when it reaches the workplace. Accordingly, employers do not violate federal law if they open personal mail addressed to employees.
So, email is private...But communications that you target towards a specific person are presumptively private.
In lay speak: it's as private as a post card. Courts have found that employers are generally free to read employee email messages, as long as there's a valid business purpose for doing so.
some email systems automatically copy all messages that pass through them
some create backup copies of new messages as they arrive, and
some employers that use "keylogger" software might even have copies of draft email messages that you never sent -- and we all know how bad these can be.
Slashdot Mirror
After several recommendations from a friend I finally tried the "nasal douche" and I've become a believer. I've got both the Neti pot and squeeze bottle. I like the squeeze bottle best.
Next round i predict semi anon software that your grandma can run where they mix in some plausible deniability using encrypted cache stores just to make it extra painful for the *.A.As and may i say i hope it hurts.
Share uses encryption to hide the identity of who is transferring or what they are transferring. It is non-centralized so it cannot be easily shut down and it supports multiple source "swarm" downloading. All files are transferred encrypted so they must be decrypted upon download completion. In the meantime they are stored in encrypted form in a "Cache" folder. This folder is also used to allow recently downloaded files to be shared among the network based on priorities.
WinNY is another app older app like WinMX.
There apps use strings to populate the menus and dialog text so they can be localized. I had an interest in this years ago, and simply put, it comes down to convenience and affluence. BTW Steam sale today, $2.49 for Magicka...
"and I find it absurd to assert that completely blocking a web site is in any way appropriate response to emails."
being ambiguous. You were not referring to the website in question but a hypothetical one. Let's skip all the pedantry: the problem isn't the content but how it was distributed. There's a lesson in there somewhere...
"School resources" are still used to read personal email, so the problem of using school resources for something that doesn't violate the AUP couldn't have been avoided by using a different email address when using the university resources to do this.
True only if you they're accessing from campus, you know you can send and receive email from off campus? Don't use your school email account to do things you agreed not to with it. Why is this such a challenge for you (and the students) to understand?
I disagree with your definition of spam (and I believe your definition is contrary to most or all of the common definitions
Except it's not mine, I used the first one returned by Google because I had a hunch you'd have an issue with the definition. Definition of spam per Google, yet another link with an aggregate from multiple dictionary sources. We're in the information age and you're at a computer, take some initiative and back up your claims. So far it's been all about how you feel, not about what the facts are about this situation.
and I find it absurd to assert that completely blocking a web site is in any way appropriate response to emails.
What if it was a gambling or malware site?
Just "You don't get any special priviledges for practicing your religion."
That's the idea but in practice it's simply not true, for example: During the California State Bar Exam which occurs over a period of three days in the fall one of the days fell upon a Jewish Holiday, those who celebrated the day were able to take the same test as those who were not absent.
Teaching something or refusing to teach something or performing some act or refusing to perform some act because of religious doctrine should disqualify one from accepting taxation benefits or governmental grants.
Agreed.
Otherwise, you have unequal application of the rules, which, without a good reason, often ends up being illegal.
Welcome to the US where selective enforcement is a reality. This whole situation could be avoided by simply using personal email instead of school resources.
I don't believe the use of an online poll site violates the AUP, nor is there anything in there about the enforcement, likely a stern talking to or less for a first offense, and on from there, not a complete blocking of the offending site, including services unrelated to the "breach" you assert happened.
This isn't about what you believe. This is about what students agreed to and school policy. I'm not a lawyer nor do I know what their internal protocols are for blocking things (I'm very curious about this), or any additional agreements students sign when enrolling as I've never attended ASU, if you have please enlighten me. I've cited what their use policy is, quoting specifically the portions which apply to my points. Where are yours?
You emphasized things, but didn't indicate how an on-line poll is a violation
Please re-read my above posts concerning spam. Perhaps definitions for these words may shed some light on why:
spam, verb: Send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet.
Advertising, noun: the promotion of goods or services.
Officials say spam emails caused ASU to block access to petition site ASU with a 2011 enrollment of 72254, if you sent that many messages out it's easy to consider that volume spam. Hell email providers limit you to ~450 an hour so arguably any more than that is bulk.
Was this a dick move? Arguably. However, I didn't agree to abide by the University's rules and proceed to violate them. I'm not familiar with Arizona state laws regarding contract laws and rights, in my lay understanding as long as what you're agreeing to isn't illegal it's solid.
So we are only discussing civil rights, not "loaded" civil rights, so it's ok to infringe on our civil rights as long as they aren't "loaded"? So making the atheists sit outside would be fine because nobody likes the pretentious atheist assholes, not even other atheists?
This isn't civil rights, this is breach of contract. Don't agree to follow rules and cry foul when caught.
If the owners establish an acceptable usage policy, then fail to follow it, did they wrong those who paid for access to the network?
The owners did not violate it, users did by direct violation of acceptable use (see below), otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this. Since you've obviously not read it, I'll cite it for you:
"...Users of ASU’s computing and communications resources are required to comply with this policy, other applicable ASU and regents’ policies and state and federal laws. When necessary, enforcement will be consistent with other applicable Board of Regents’ policies and ASU administrative policies and procedures."
AND
"Use of ASU computer resources for private business or commercial activities, fund-raising or advertising on behalf of non-ASU organizations is prohibited." emphasis mine.
You can't only serve Blacks in the alley out back anymore,
Irrelevant. We're discussing a blocked website, not loaded civil rights based upon skin color.
Let me ask you this, are networks are private property? Are the owners free establish acceptable use policies? Why not?
So now is my opinion a lie? HAH! Where did I quote and state factually that AK Marc said something false and quote it as such? You're quick to call others liars, and insane ramblers and fail to clarify your ambiguous points. As informed and reasonable as you represent yourself you're ignorant of the massive idiocy involved in the school system regarding zero tolerance, yet when it applies to a site which violates a policy you blather on about it being selective.
"Private property" like the public university you paid for in taxes and by tuition?
I provided some examples of publicly funded property which has restrictions, not unlike a university. You've just insulted me, I'm not sure how that makes me an insane liar... enjoy your evening/morning and stay classy.
If it's a school that teaches or promulgates religious doctrines, then it should not qualify for the same benefits as a school that doesn't. The refusal to teach or support birth control is in support of a religious doctrine.
The first sentence I agree. To the second: "Thou shalt not murder." is religious doctrine too, should schools which teach tolerance be held to the same scrutiny (after all the religion(s) which teach this and instilled this message in present society were around much longer than the "non-religious" organizations who make use of these morals)?
P.S.: I didn't mean to single out Catholic organizations more than other religious organizations, but the article was about a Catholic organization. I would have the same opinion of Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon or Hindu, Moslem, or Pagan organizations. But it is true that the major religions, especially including Catholics, have taken much more advantage of taxation relief than more minor religions typically have.
I'd like to see how this plays out for Muslims, honestly. *prepares popcorn*
"Private property" like the public university you paid for in taxes and by tuition?
Oh, since it's publicly funded you can go anywhere and do anything, do you go to the deans office and type messages from there? How does that work for parks which close after dark, or public libraries, or exploring your Police Department of your own volition (they're public servants and tax payers paid for all of it)? Are you able to look up whatever you want online from a computer at a public school as a tax payer?
The difference is nobody has claimed that work is required to provide open access. The issue is, can a public university (an organization not just a private company who subsists primarily on public funds, like the Ivy League, but an organization owned by one of the states of the United States) block a web site because someone started an embarrassing petition on that web site?
From what I've read this was spammed. If it was blocked because of that then it's an entirely separate issue than "it's the government, transparency!"
Because Nasa has been testing off the shelf laptops and Android devices on the ISS for the last 3 years and have found no problems at all. Off the shelf. Go to Dell, buy a laptop. Launch. Use for over a year. No reported problems.
Isn't the ISS shielded where the sensitive humans are using the non shielded devices?
Catholic organizations, as a consequent of their tax exempt status, SHOULD have strings attached to what they can do, regardless of whether they take government money. Othe tax exempt organizations do, why not the churche
Why just the Catholics, why not all tax exempt religious organizations i.e. Buddhists, Mormons etc.? I think a better question might be, why does the church fill such a massive role in taking care of people? Why does the system depend so much on these 3rd parties? Yesterday I heard numbers as high as 1 in 9 are treated at a Catholic funded facility.
If you (voluntarily) get unusual benefits from the government, you should have unusual requirements. And you don't have the right to complain that you didn't want those requirements unless you first stop takeing the advantage.
I think you're mistaking the last sentence of my comment "I cede the point to the paid by taxes part as I'm ignorant of the funding sources." I'm referring to the school in this case as it's the main thread topic, your point is redundant as we agree.
I'm not disagreeing with that, in fact I addressed that in another comment before you posted your comment citing that I'm also ignorant of the schools funding sources (I mentioned this here, 10 minutes before you posted this)
It's still early and I completely misread that as "is your workplace."
So if they pay their inflated tuition to this school, regardless of the network usage policy they signed before they use it, they should get unfettered access?
Sites get blocked for a variety of reasons, see bomb making, porn, file sharing. I made no mention of twitter, are you projecting again?
No. If I was an institution that didn't want other people's say in things I wouldn't want any part of government funding even if it's the smallest amount because the money comes with so many strings attached concerning policy. Look at what is happening to Catholic organizations regarding birth control. Please don't misconstrue this as support of censorship, simply private network rules. I cede the point to the paid by taxes part as I'm ignorant of the funding sources.
They're paying me more than that. I also have the concept of an acceptable use policy which I signed at employment much like what the students do and understand the internet is a series of private networks with various terms and conditions. You're not one of those silly people who thinks you have a right to use private property are you? Granted I guess you could consider this "government" censorship since it's the school system, but my comment is from the employment slide of things.
My workplace blocks websites, where is the media?
So, if my site, ThingOneBlogs.com, violates Sharia Law in some other country, and I don't cooperate with the people who literally want to cut my hands off -- would you consider me in the wrong? (By the way, the preceding sentence is an image of Mohammed.)
Does the country you reside in have extradition agreements in place with the country regarding the laws you're breaking? Have you translated your site in to the local language and rewarding people for doing actionable things on a commercial scale? Do you use financial institutions in this country which you use to pay people in the country where what you're doing is illegal? Do you have a business presence in this country where you are agreeing to follow their laws? Do you have 500+ servers in this country with actionable material? Does your company generate millions of dollars of "business" doing actionable things on a commercial scale in of both of your countries?
I really don't think New Zealand should be deporting Germans for breaking American copyright laws.
It's pretty much illegal anywhere you go in the first world to profit off of someone else's work. To avoid problems it's really simple: don't operate a business with 500+ servers in a country where what you're doing is illegal. Especially when you're making millions of dollars and paying people through financial institutions based in said country where your activities are actionable. You have to question the logic of becoming a resident in a country with extradition agreements to the one you're breaking laws in on a commercial scale.
Dude, you're getting a cell?
Not telling somebody something is not the same as keeping a secret.
I understand what you're saying about not telling every detail. That's a high level view. In regards to passwords specifically, not the relationship between your bowel movents and your wife, are passwords secrets? Enlighten us how/why they are not.
So, email is private...But communications that you target towards a specific person are presumptively private.
In lay speak: it's as private as a post card. Courts have found that employers are generally free to read employee email messages, as long as there's a valid business purpose for doing so.