The first thing most people would do is probably go see a doctor. Which is might be a good idea any way for many people who don't see them often. That doctor is then going to either take 23&Me's results for what they are and attempt to confirm them with other kinds of tests, might be mammography for BRCA or some kind of reflex test for Huntingtons; or he will simply order more genetic testing from a traditional lab.
Worst case someone is out a few insurance co-pays.. The only way its harmful is if a person takes the results and does something rash like; oh I am dying of huntingtons better quit my job, sell all my possessions and travel the world spending everything I've got because hell there are only a few years left. The truth is though the sort of person who would do that without gathering some additional facts is probably quite vulnerable to me walking up to them on the street telling them "the spirts speak to me and they tell me you've got six months to make your peace."
The government inst protecting anyone from anything here, simply infantalizing the public as always.
My point was exactly that its along time again the incident in China was 1989. More than 20 years. Stuff has changed in China too. Neither event is especially predictive of events today.
I don't know what propoganda you have been reading but in practical terms this is just not the case. China has a working modern industrial base, and natural resources to power it. The Chinese also have a command economy and a central bank run by the ruling party.
Yes they have lots of their wealth invested in our bonds, which they would very likely be deprived of if a armed conflict broke out. It would not derail their economy though. Right now all that money owed in bonds is effectively in the mattress for some future use. Compared to our side the trade where all that money is doing work in the present day economy. The price shock on the issuing of new debt with a major buyer suddenly out of the market might very well do us more harm than any good that could come of the write down. We'd have at least a short term economic disruption on our hands; China would be much more business as usual. That is just the financial part...Now think about all the supply chain issues we would face.
Yea but you are going to have to pay an intern at least minimum wage. Depending on what country they are calling from, it might be cheaper and more effective to hire a local hit-man.
No calling party pays for long distance in the US, unless its a collect call. When its a collect call the operator (usually automated) calls and asks if your will accept. You might be thinking in terms of cellular in which case the called party is on the hook for the air time.
Are you so sure its a scam? Are you sure you were the one being scammed? That sounds like an awful lot of persistence and effort for some confidence man to go thru.
I would think by now the nominal scam-er would have determined you are not being taken in by it and moved on to try their grift on some other mark.
If I were you I'd get a credit report and make sure someone had not stolen my identity and opened a bunch of other credit lines that these guys are now trying to collect on because some other fraudster used your name.
GOP can quite easily be accused of willfully sabotaging the process through the ACA lawsuits
Attempting to sabotage it maybe, succeeding no. There was never even so much as a stay issued, as far as I am aware, preventing the administration from getting started on implementation. If I am wrong on that please correct me but I don't think the court cases could have had much impact on the implementation.
The medicare expansion issue is going to create a coverage gap, in the states that did not do it. That is about the only *problem* the legal challenges successfully created.
As far as states not implementing their own exchanges the law always intended to provide a federal solution for them; so that isn't much of an excuse for its failure.
But how would a traditional relational database scale to the 1 billion, or 1,000 billion users, huh? Did you think about the need to future-proof the application?
I don't know if you are kidding or not but I'll try anyway.
The US population might hit 1 billion inside the period where something form of the ACA is intact in a recognizable way. Unlikely but its possible. Using partitioning schemes it should be fairly simple to scale on traditional database technologies because for most queries you don't need to know about Abby to handle a transaction regarding Bob. There are some where you do but even those are mostly simple 1:1 update operations, you might need to set Abby's spouse attribute to Bob's SS number or something; never the less there are lots natural ways to partition the data which should make scaling out across more RDBMS servers workable; at least out to the 1 billion mark.
At 1,000 billion we will probably be so concerned with were our next glass of water is coming from that who has health insurance and who is claiming to be President for that matter won't really matter to anyone.
Bullshit. Since the law has been passed almost the entire implementation has been up to the administration. Which in case you had not noticed is lead by partisans in favor of the affordable care act.
If the GOP can be accused of anything material in terms of interfering with the implementation it would preventing the law from being amended, and if it needs amending there is your proof it was bad law to begin with. Sorry Obama owns this and really HE owns it not even the larger DNC as its HIS branch of government that has been responsible for implementation from the moment HE signed the thing.
*IF* it fails its either because it was unworkable in the first place as written and should not have been enacted or because the Obama administration failed to execute. Those are really the only honest high level conclusions.
The argument well because they had to pass the Senate bill as is it did not get the usual fixes and tweaking is why its got so many problems is also bogus. They had to pass the Senate bill by abusing the budget reconciliation process to deny the minority party in the House at the time its rights; they knew if usual procedures were followed it would never have become law. So again it either should not have been enacted or the administration has failed to execute.
If all you do is highway driving cold air might work to your favor, in practice most drives see poorer gas mileage in winter months.
Otherwise cold air makes engines idle faster which uses more fuel. This was worse before injection engines became the norm, but to avoid running lean and possibly damaging the engine and to meat emissions, the computer control will still add more gas. This is true when you don't need the power as well, rolling along thru town at 30mph and 1400 rpm.
If enough people start putting in solar arrays and going off grid and or feeding back to the grid it will undermine the electric operators.
Delivered electricity costs might very well go way up for traditional customers. Distribution is a high fixed overhead. Either you sell enough generation or your really screw a certain groups of customers with high fixed minimum charges.
Don't misunderstand I am opposed to doing anything to discourage people from going off grid, installing solar or selling back to the grid. I am also against doing anything specific to encourage it. Government should just stay out.
But consider this their could come a day when having reliable electricity available at your home means paying very high monthly fees to be connected to a grid with fewer and few customers, or being able to invest and maintain an solar array and some kind of storage bank, be it kinetic, capacitance, or chemical batteries. That might create some haves and have nots out of what has become a pretty universal condition presently.
The next thing you know some prick like Obama is going to be arguing for an individual grid connection mandate; because its only affordable if we all participate.
Or you know we could look for solutions that don't require reduction of carbon emmisions. We could work on atmospheric scrubbing, or other climate engineering technology.
The omg china and the bricks won't cut so we can't do anything crowd is wrong.
The lets cut emissions and slit our economic wrist crowd even though china and the bricks won't are also wrong?
A large portion of the world can't or won't reduce emmisions is simply one of the constraints on the problem a real solution just needs to accommodate it. The current debate would be like if all the people who drempt of flight said, well the universe won't shut of gravity so screw it.
I for one tend to agree with you in that, I think the duress is almost always intended. I also think probably a majority of our fellow citizens are going to respond
"but wait these are dedicated public servants who only want to keep us safe not violate our rights"
So I prefer to argue that it is virtually impossible for them not to infringe on peoples rights regardless of intent. I think liberties will be best protected by a decision that law enforcements role as an authority is inherently coercive and anything they "ask" you to do can never truly be considered consensual. "Would you mind if I took a look thru you bag mam?" unless precipitated by probable cause should remain an illegal search no matter what your wife's answer is. Anything found in said search should be "fruit of the poison tree."
I think its true most people would have an incredibly difficult time standing up to an officer. Every encounter I have had has been incredibly stressful; I'd rather a face a dressing down by management at my company. Its not easy to keep cool and think clearly. The best thing anyone can do for themselves right now is know that little police speech, have it rehearsed, and plan to use it when confronted.
Maybe this was not necessary when communities were smaller and the officer is some guy you went to school with but most of our country isnt characterized that way now so we need legal protection.
Its funny, I would apply almost all those same vague criticisms to Gartner.
I wish people would just quick subscribing to the pay to play crap opinion pieces they try to pass off as research. Its painful obvious to anyone who actually has to/use/administer/support/deploy an IT product where it falls in the "magic quadrant" has more to do with the market cap of the company behind it, that the products own merits.
But Apple certainly does have the financial resources it would take to build their own island in international waters, floating or fixed to the sea floor in some way.
What is stopping them from 'building' their own country?
The question and there are some cases before the court starting to look at this is can you give permission or is it really likely that almost all normal people feel a certain amount of duress even if it isn't intended. We don't let people waive other rights for this reason, you can't sell yourself into slavery to provide for someone else for example.
How many people really are going to say no to an office how many know they can, how many know when they can?
"I am sorry sir I would prefer to be on my way now, am I free to leave?" Is a phrase everyone should rehearse and keep in mind.
You can get PVC pipe ( admittedly I have not seen this in much smaller than 1/2" which is entirely to big ) that can handle several hundred PSI. That is plenty enough to propel a small stone projectile with lethal force.
Perhaps you can't print the breach but if you could find some PVC tube of adequate strength, its just a matter of integrating it into your otherwise printed gun. I am not suggesting its easy, just possible. A resourceful determined actor could very possibly make such a weapon and do so without arousing suspicion.
It would not be great weapon but might be good enough for you kill someone you can get fairly near to but not necessarily close enough to attack effectively with an edge weapon. Think politician working there way though an airport with a couple of security personnel around them. So not the weapon James Bond super spy who plans to getaway with it is going go for, but rather some fanatic who is willing to risk his fingers getting blown off because his best case scenario is being shot to death immediately after his attack anyway.
For a proxy service to be profitable it would have to have hundreds of customers per day.
I don't see why, you are not going to need a very powerful VPN to play SSL/Webproxy for a handful of users and they don't cost much, tens of dollars per month. Get just a handful of users to pay you $30 and you probably well in the black.
Suppose you did have a legitimate business to use a front? Lets say I have a motel. I could negotiate with my out of state online gambling customers to a let them book rooms at a "special g-rate", which tells me I can double book the room (ie rent it again to a physical customer) and give the grate access to my poxy (which is old linux box under the desk at the business office).
I am sure I could make plenty of money because it adds almost no additional overhead; no matter how cheap I have to make the service to find takers..
Well you can make a shell with a cardboard casing, stone bullet, and any contact explosive.
Would it be as efficient or reliable as a bass casing, lead bullet, and modern primer, no. That does not mean it would be in adequate for a political assassination in airport or something though.
They have been but one of the reasons for that was to comply with this law, which has now expired.
Trouble is if you are a criminal with the facility to print a weapon you what incentive do you have for not breaking one more law when you already are intent on committing a serious felony?
This is a prefect case of if you criminalize guns that undetectable by metal detectors than only criminals will have undetectable guns. Now mind you I can't think of to many reasons a non criminal *needs* a completely metal free gun; but as a practical matter I don't see what this really accomplishes. When the law was originally conceived it was to prevent the legitimate mass manufacture of such weapons which would have reduced the availability of them and that might have been societally useful; now that we are talking about a weapon the user is likely to produce themselves I am not sure what the point is.
I suppose its an extra change a prosecutor might be able to hang someone on, who has been able to evade other serious charges on technicalities though.
My job is also mostly about risk identification and mitigation as well. I am not a believer in root cause analysis. Proximate cause analysis is more interesting and more useful, which is why its what the legal system usually aims for. Your root cause analysis may be correct. We might indeed prevent a considerable portion of future international terrorism by dealing with the military industrial complex and putting in some cooler heads to run the CIA.
That would not do anything to address all the other crazy reasons someone might decide to use an airliner as guided missile. Root cause analysis fallaciously assumes there is some single point up a decision tree that lead to branch where the event was possible. In the real world there is often more than one way to get somewhere.
The proximate cause of the towers getting hit on the other hand was "passengers were able to gain the ability to alter the flight path of the aircraft" A secured cockpit door addresses that. It addresses it no matter if the would be perp does it because the CIA install an oppressive regime that denies him his freedom in east whocaresisatan or because the voices in my head tell me to smash things.
I agree the rational thing is not to overreact. Doing nothing though is not always the answer either. When something bad happens its always worth trying to understand why and how and what it would take to prevent it or reduce the risk. Then you way your options.
Re-enforced cockpit doors locked during flight are a good response. They don't infringe on freedoms in a way much of anyone would find objectionable. Little Timmy can't get his cockpit tour anymore on a long flight but that is about it. The cost is low in the context of commercial aircraft maintenance. The risk of and potential consequences from a terrorist being on an aircraft are drastically reduced by this. Its a good response.
The rest of it however is a waste of money and time, and if we read our Constitution honestly not legal. A private company running an airport or airline could implement whatever security they want but government is runs up against the first and fourth amendment or should.
I have the right to peacefully assemble, which implies a right to travel to the assembly and my fourth amendment rights to be secure in my person and effects. If I want to assemble with people in California and I am in New York, air travel my be my only option for getting there in time, since it isn't a choice government should be barred from expecting my to waive my fourth amendment rights to exercise my first amendment rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose they do, what would be the real harm?
The first thing most people would do is probably go see a doctor. Which is might be a good idea any way for many people who don't see them often. That doctor is then going to either take 23&Me's results for what they are and attempt to confirm them with other kinds of tests, might be mammography for BRCA or some kind of reflex test for Huntingtons; or he will simply order more genetic testing from a traditional lab.
Worst case someone is out a few insurance co-pays.. The only way its harmful is if a person takes the results and does something rash like; oh I am dying of huntingtons better quit my job, sell all my possessions and travel the world spending everything I've got because hell there are only a few years left. The truth is though the sort of person who would do that without gathering some additional facts is probably quite vulnerable to me walking up to them on the street telling them "the spirts speak to me and they tell me you've got six months to make your peace."
The government inst protecting anyone from anything here, simply infantalizing the public as always.
My point was exactly that its along time again the incident in China was 1989. More than 20 years. Stuff has changed in China too. Neither event is especially predictive of events today.
And we live in a Country where the national gaurd uses live fire on protesting college students, what is your point exactly?
I don't know what propoganda you have been reading but in practical terms this is just not the case. China has a working modern industrial base, and natural resources to power it. The Chinese also have a command economy and a central bank run by the ruling party.
Yes they have lots of their wealth invested in our bonds, which they would very likely be deprived of if a armed conflict broke out. It would not derail their economy though. Right now all that money owed in bonds is effectively in the mattress for some future use. Compared to our side the trade where all that money is doing work in the present day economy. The price shock on the issuing of new debt with a major buyer suddenly out of the market might very well do us more harm than any good that could come of the write down. We'd have at least a short term economic disruption on our hands; China would be much more business as usual. That is just the financial part...Now think about all the supply chain issues we would face.
Yea but you are going to have to pay an intern at least minimum wage. Depending on what country they are calling from, it might be cheaper and more effective to hire a local hit-man.
No calling party pays for long distance in the US, unless its a collect call. When its a collect call the operator (usually automated) calls and asks if your will accept. You might be thinking in terms of cellular in which case the called party is on the hook for the air time.
Are you so sure its a scam? Are you sure you were the one being scammed? That sounds like an awful lot of persistence and effort for some confidence man to go thru.
I would think by now the nominal scam-er would have determined you are not being taken in by it and moved on to try their grift on some other mark.
If I were you I'd get a credit report and make sure someone had not stolen my identity and opened a bunch of other credit lines that these guys are now trying to collect on because some other fraudster used your name.
GOP can quite easily be accused of willfully sabotaging the process through the ACA lawsuits
Attempting to sabotage it maybe, succeeding no. There was never even so much as a stay issued, as far as I am aware, preventing the administration from getting started on implementation. If I am wrong on that please correct me but I don't think the court cases could have had much impact on the implementation.
The medicare expansion issue is going to create a coverage gap, in the states that did not do it. That is about the only *problem* the legal challenges successfully created.
As far as states not implementing their own exchanges the law always intended to provide a federal solution for them; so that isn't much of an excuse for its failure.
But how would a traditional relational database scale to the 1 billion, or 1,000 billion users, huh? Did you think about the need to future-proof the application?
I don't know if you are kidding or not but I'll try anyway.
The US population might hit 1 billion inside the period where something form of the ACA is intact in a recognizable way. Unlikely but its possible. Using partitioning schemes it should be fairly simple to scale on traditional database technologies because for most queries you don't need to know about Abby to handle a transaction regarding Bob. There are some where you do but even those are mostly simple 1:1 update operations, you might need to set Abby's spouse attribute to Bob's SS number or something; never the less there are lots natural ways to partition the data which should make scaling out across more RDBMS servers workable; at least out to the 1 billion mark.
At 1,000 billion we will probably be so concerned with were our next glass of water is coming from that who has health insurance and who is claiming to be President for that matter won't really matter to anyone.
Bullshit. Since the law has been passed almost the entire implementation has been up to the administration. Which in case you had not noticed is lead by partisans in favor of the affordable care act.
If the GOP can be accused of anything material in terms of interfering with the implementation it would preventing the law from being amended, and if it needs amending there is your proof it was bad law to begin with. Sorry Obama owns this and really HE owns it not even the larger DNC as its HIS branch of government that has been responsible for implementation from the moment HE signed the thing.
*IF* it fails its either because it was unworkable in the first place as written and should not have been enacted or because the Obama administration failed to execute. Those are really the only honest high level conclusions.
The argument well because they had to pass the Senate bill as is it did not get the usual fixes and tweaking is why its got so many problems is also bogus. They had to pass the Senate bill by abusing the budget reconciliation process to deny the minority party in the House at the time its rights; they knew if usual procedures were followed it would never have become law. So again it either should not have been enacted or the administration has failed to execute.
Even the tax pays win in the sense it's probably way cheaper than transcontenintal warfare.
If all you do is highway driving cold air might work to your favor, in practice most drives see poorer gas mileage in winter months.
Otherwise cold air makes engines idle faster which uses more fuel. This was worse before injection engines became the norm, but to avoid running lean and possibly damaging the engine and to meat emissions, the computer control will still add more gas. This is true when you don't need the power as well, rolling along thru town at 30mph and 1400 rpm.
If enough people start putting in solar arrays and going off grid and or feeding back to the grid it will undermine the electric operators.
Delivered electricity costs might very well go way up for traditional customers. Distribution is a high fixed overhead. Either you sell enough generation or your really screw a certain groups of customers with high fixed minimum charges.
Don't misunderstand I am opposed to doing anything to discourage people from going off grid, installing solar or selling back to the grid. I am also against doing anything specific to encourage it. Government should just stay out.
But consider this their could come a day when having reliable electricity available at your home means paying very high monthly fees to be connected to a grid with fewer and few customers, or being able to invest and maintain an solar array and some kind of storage bank, be it kinetic, capacitance, or chemical batteries. That might create some haves and have nots out of what has become a pretty universal condition presently.
The next thing you know some prick like Obama is going to be arguing for an individual grid connection mandate; because its only affordable if we all participate.
Or you know we could look for solutions that don't require reduction of carbon emmisions. We could work on atmospheric scrubbing, or other climate engineering technology.
The omg china and the bricks won't cut so we can't do anything crowd is wrong.
The lets cut emissions and slit our economic wrist crowd even though china and the bricks won't are also wrong?
A large portion of the world can't or won't reduce emmisions is simply one of the constraints on the problem a real solution just needs to accommodate it. The current debate would be like if all the people who drempt of flight said, well the universe won't shut of gravity so screw it.
TheCarp,
I for one tend to agree with you in that, I think the duress is almost always intended. I also think probably a majority of our fellow citizens are going to respond
"but wait these are dedicated public servants who only want to keep us safe not violate our rights"
So I prefer to argue that it is virtually impossible for them not to infringe on peoples rights regardless of intent. I think liberties will be best protected by a decision that law enforcements role as an authority is inherently coercive and anything they "ask" you to do can never truly be considered consensual. "Would you mind if I took a look thru you bag mam?" unless precipitated by probable cause should remain an illegal search no matter what your wife's answer is. Anything found in said search should be "fruit of the poison tree."
I think its true most people would have an incredibly difficult time standing up to an officer. Every encounter I have had has been incredibly stressful; I'd rather a face a dressing down by management at my company. Its not easy to keep cool and think clearly. The best thing anyone can do for themselves right now is know that little police speech, have it rehearsed, and plan to use it when confronted.
Maybe this was not necessary when communities were smaller and the officer is some guy you went to school with but most of our country isnt characterized that way now so we need legal protection.
Its funny, I would apply almost all those same vague criticisms to Gartner.
I wish people would just quick subscribing to the pay to play crap opinion pieces they try to pass off as research. Its painful obvious to anyone who actually has to /use/administer/support/deploy an IT product where it falls in the "magic quadrant" has more to do with the market cap of the company behind it, that the products own merits.
That is interesting. Yea Yea Sealand I a know....
But Apple certainly does have the financial resources it would take to build their own island in international waters, floating or fixed to the sea floor in some way.
What is stopping them from 'building' their own country?
perhaps an omni-directed energy weapon.
The question and there are some cases before the court starting to look at this is can you give permission or is it really likely that almost all normal people feel a certain amount of duress even if it isn't intended. We don't let people waive other rights for this reason, you can't sell yourself into slavery to provide for someone else for example.
How many people really are going to say no to an office how many know they can, how many know when they can?
"I am sorry sir I would prefer to be on my way now, am I free to leave?" Is a phrase everyone should rehearse and keep in mind.
You can get PVC pipe ( admittedly I have not seen this in much smaller than 1/2" which is entirely to big ) that can handle several hundred PSI. That is plenty enough to propel a small stone projectile with lethal force.
Perhaps you can't print the breach but if you could find some PVC tube of adequate strength, its just a matter of integrating it into your otherwise printed gun. I am not suggesting its easy, just possible. A resourceful determined actor could very possibly make such a weapon and do so without arousing suspicion.
It would not be great weapon but might be good enough for you kill someone you can get fairly near to but not necessarily close enough to attack effectively with an edge weapon. Think politician working there way though an airport with a couple of security personnel around them. So not the weapon James Bond super spy who plans to getaway with it is going go for, but rather some fanatic who is willing to risk his fingers getting blown off because his best case scenario is being shot to death immediately after his attack anyway.
For a proxy service to be profitable it would have to have hundreds of customers per day.
I don't see why, you are not going to need a very powerful VPN to play SSL/Webproxy for a handful of users and they don't cost much, tens of dollars per month. Get just a handful of users to pay you $30 and you probably well in the black.
Suppose you did have a legitimate business to use a front? Lets say I have a motel. I could negotiate with my out of state online gambling customers to a let them book rooms at a "special g-rate", which tells me I can double book the room (ie rent it again to a physical customer) and give the grate access to my poxy (which is old linux box under the desk at the business office).
I am sure I could make plenty of money because it adds almost no additional overhead; no matter how cheap I have to make the service to find takers..
Well you can make a shell with a cardboard casing, stone bullet, and any contact explosive.
Would it be as efficient or reliable as a bass casing, lead bullet, and modern primer, no. That does not mean it would be in adequate for a political assassination in airport or something though.
They have been but one of the reasons for that was to comply with this law, which has now expired.
Trouble is if you are a criminal with the facility to print a weapon you what incentive do you have for not breaking one more law when you already are intent on committing a serious felony?
This is a prefect case of if you criminalize guns that undetectable by metal detectors than only criminals will have undetectable guns. Now mind you I can't think of to many reasons a non criminal *needs* a completely metal free gun; but as a practical matter I don't see what this really accomplishes. When the law was originally conceived it was to prevent the legitimate mass manufacture of such weapons which would have reduced the availability of them and that might have been societally useful; now that we are talking about a weapon the user is likely to produce themselves I am not sure what the point is.
I suppose its an extra change a prosecutor might be able to hang someone on, who has been able to evade other serious charges on technicalities though.
My job is also mostly about risk identification and mitigation as well. I am not a believer in root cause analysis. Proximate cause analysis is more interesting and more useful, which is why its what the legal system usually aims for. Your root cause analysis may be correct. We might indeed prevent a considerable portion of future international terrorism by dealing with the military industrial complex and putting in some cooler heads to run the CIA.
That would not do anything to address all the other crazy reasons someone might decide to use an airliner as guided missile. Root cause analysis fallaciously assumes there is some single point up a decision tree that lead to branch where the event was possible. In the real world there is often more than one way to get somewhere.
The proximate cause of the towers getting hit on the other hand was "passengers were able to gain the ability to alter the flight path of the aircraft" A secured cockpit door addresses that. It addresses it no matter if the would be perp does it because the CIA install an oppressive regime that denies him his freedom in east whocaresisatan or because the voices in my head tell me to smash things.
I agree the rational thing is not to overreact. Doing nothing though is not always the answer either. When something bad happens its always worth trying to understand why and how and what it would take to prevent it or reduce the risk. Then you way your options.
Re-enforced cockpit doors locked during flight are a good response. They don't infringe on freedoms in a way much of anyone would find objectionable. Little Timmy can't get his cockpit tour anymore on a long flight but that is about it. The cost is low in the context of commercial aircraft maintenance. The risk of and potential consequences from a terrorist being on an aircraft are drastically reduced by this. Its a good response.
The rest of it however is a waste of money and time, and if we read our Constitution honestly not legal. A private company running an airport or airline could implement whatever security they want but government is runs up against the first and fourth amendment or should.
I have the right to peacefully assemble, which implies a right to travel to the assembly and my fourth amendment rights to be secure in my person and effects. If I want to assemble with people in California and I am in New York, air travel my be my only option for getting there in time, since it isn't a choice government should be barred from expecting my to waive my fourth amendment rights to exercise my first amendment rights.