No, the point is that if spam=unsolicited email, and she didn't solicit emails about an "upcoming basketball game, art exhibit, Last Lecture speech, etc", then she can sue them for violating their own policy on spam.
Lame? Of course. But so is their draconian reaction to her email.
If you also read the complaint, it is alleged that she was instructed the correct way to send the message and refused to do so. The compliant makes it sound like she was in a pissing contest with the network administrator. Not a good person to piss off if you want to send email.
Yes, many school administrators have the opinion that their department policy is teh law, regardless of what the student may have signed or what the university guidelines actually state.
For example, I knew someone at my university who registered a domain name to his dorm room computer. He got an email from the campus security admin telling him that was against university policy, and to take it down. The only thing the machine was serving was an image of the domain name, but he immediately did as requested. Then the student checked the universities guidelines on network usage, but was unable to find any policy on registering a domain to a campus ip address. The student asked the security admin to point out where this policy was written down. The security admin responded by trying to get the student suspended from the school.
If CA is like the US, unpopular legislation is worked out behind closed doors, and the debate period and the actual vote are just for show. This allows the legislative body to pass crappy bills quickly before the public can offer too much protest.
You saw this with the FISA bill this year. Harry Reid introduced the version from the Intelligence Committee that had telecom immunity, and ignored the version from the Judiciary Committee that didn't. Measures that Democrats wanted had to have 60 votes, while measures Republicans wanted only needed 50. Reid, who honors holds from Senator Inhofe, Troglodyte-OK, ignored a hold from fellow Democrat Chris Dodd.
You saw the same thing with the Wall Street bailout - calls to D.C. were 100 to 1 against, but it passed anyway with minimal oversight provisions.
Translation: when some government fails somewhere on some issue, it's an indictment of the very concept of government. When corporations fail on a massive scale, it means capitalism is teh awesome. Sorry, but this argument was weak sauce the first time I heard it, when it was used against unions.
The obvious problem with your logic is that a typical dose of heroin, coke, or meth can kill a user.
The obvious problem with your logic is if that were true, we wouldn't have heroin, coke or meth users because they'd all die after the first use of the drug.
The issue isn't "is it possible to die", because you can die from drinking too much water or eating a cup of table salt. It's how likely you are to die. The government's fearmongering over drugs resembles it's fearmongering over your chances of actually dying in a terrorist attack.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Whoosh. Go back and reread the part where I talked about how Common Defense would be as limited as General Welfare, and try again.
The government is inefficient, eh? Like when the government appointed CEO of General Moters presided over a loss of 70 billion dollars for the company? The government institutions of Enron and Worldcom that imploded earlier this decade, destroying tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions in shareholder revenue? How about the government financial firms like Citigroup, AIG and Bear Sterns that created a default credit swap market twice the size of the stock market with nothing to back it up?
Oh, you mean those weren't government industries at all, but private business that have put trillions of dollars in the shitter? Huh, interesting.
Ah yes, the insipid cliche. Here's another one: "correlation does not imply causation".
Ah, the insipid cliche of the Red Herring. Just read the damn link - movement conservatives backed Bush to the hilt in the 2000 election, the run up to the Iraq War, his foreign policy, his re-election in 2004, and his trampling of the Constitution. As Greenwald points out, Bush's supporters and critics can agree on one thing - Bush does not change. What has actually changed? Bush's approval ratings, which plunged during Katrina and they've never recovered.
Conservatism has failed America and the world at every level on every issue - by laying it's failures on Bush, conservatives are acting just like delusional Communists: conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.
Tax & Spend for the general welfare is in the Constitution. Regulation for the general welfare isn't.
Says who. That's why I laid out the problem of the selective strict-Constitutionalist: you have to throw the baby (much of our defense spending) along with the bath water (Social Security).
Congress' board modern regulation power is found in the Commerce Clause.
And the case that set that precedent was one of the more insane rulings SCOTUS has made. I wish they had based their argument on General Welfare instead, so you could now make the legal argument that Prohibition 2.0 is harmful to the nation's welfare. Too bad the founders didn't put the word "directly" in a couple places, as in "Congress has the power to regulate matters that directly impact interstate commerce" or "government has the right to take privately held land as long as it is used directly for the public interest." i.e. no taking apt buildings via eminent domain to make room for a shopping mall.
So, I stopped paying attention.
That's convenient.
And considering the US passed an Amendment term limiting the President in order to prevent another FDR from ever happening (as the only way he left office was by death), I don't think I am out of line there
Only if you ignore the reasons why it was passed - remember how much the Republicans regretted those term limits when Reagan was finishing his second term.
Maybe you got set off my me mis-typing "precedent: prior legal decision" as "president" (which would have been capitalized if I had meant that).
Oh, how the fuck would me no what proper english are? I'd be screwed without spell checking in browsers.
But I have a feeling that you were half-cocked and ready to go off anyhow.
I'm always ready to put the dying horse that is movement conservatism out of its misery. It's based on two things: elitist opposition to the New Deal, and racist opposition to the Civil Rights movement, wrapped up with pretty gun nut ribbons and religious bigotry. Useful conservatism is when people act as the government's sense of caution - can we afford this program, is the taxpayer getting his money worth, stuff like that. But the elitist, racist, less government for the sake of less government, tax cuts (mostly on the rich) for the sake of tax cuts movement conservatism - has deliciously earned the slow, painful death it's experiencing right now.
You seem to have a skewed view on what conservatism is.
Oh, I know exactly what movement conservatism is: an elitist backlash to the New Deal, and a racist backlash to the Civil Rights movement, wrapped up with pretty gun nut ribbons and religious bigotry.
Other than those 3 aspects, they need to stay out of everyone's lives and let the people solve their own problems.
Sorry Hoover, but we already tried it your way and it was an absolute disaster. Socialized medicine provides better care for less money. Public research gets more results than private for the same amount of money. Public utilities cost less money - Dennis Kucinich was tagged one of the worst mayors in the country for refusing to sell the cities power plant, forcing Cleveland into bankruptcy. But in the long term he saved the community hundreds of millions of dollars. The FDA ensures that people don't routinely die from contaminated food or bad medicine, and the lack of regulation is what has gotten us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Less government for the sake of less government is as asinine as more government for the sake of more government. The right question is, what is the right amount of government for the situation. We keep trying it your way until the the economy starts collapsing, when we re-learn the lesson that conservatism is a philosophy that has failed at every level on every issue.
The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush. Sorry, but movement conservatism has been proven to have no clothes. The problem conservatives have with Bush isn't that he's not a conservative, but that he's unpopular. Another problem they dodge is the fact that if Bush actually had succeeded in accomplishing more conservative goals (privatizing Social Security, banning abortion, eliminating Medicare and Medicade) he would be even more unpopular with the American public than he is now.
I have to say, that us that did vote for Bush were fooled into thinking he was a conservative
No, you got exactly what you voted for. And any ignorance you can claim in 2000 was more than dispelled by 2004 - everyone knew he was an incompetent warmongering Constitution trampling jackass, as opposed to merely an incompetent jackass.
Movement conservatism is much like Communism - it can never fail, it can only be failed. Or, as Digby noted:
"Conservative" is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals.
George W. Bush will not achieve a place in the Republican pantheon. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. (And a conservative can only fail because he is too liberal.)
and Atrios:
The interesting paradox is, as I've written before, that they'll dump Bush and transfer the cult onto the next Daddy figure that comes along.
The next Daddy Figure was Fred Thompson, but he had more important things to do in the primary (taking a nap).
Those who voted for Bush (and more importantly, those who re-elected him) own a large part of this mess.
I don't buy it. You say you are the most right wing guy on Slashdot.
Believe me, you can take his word for it - check his posting history. Stork definitely earned his wingnut merit badge for consistent irrationality and Kool Aid drinking. Too bad he's going to have that merit badge repoed for a moments rationality.
Oh my Gosh. Here I am the most right wing guy on slashdot and I'm about to go and defend Obama's proposals for infrastructure spending in general, and national broadband and school computing in particular.
Sniff...I'm so proud of you, stork. But you do realize you're going to have to give up your wingnut merit badge for being rational, right?
Re:Preaching to the Choir?
on
Obama's "ZuneGate"
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Here's where I call you a fanboy to cover up my lame inadequacies and ignore reality...
Fixed that for you.
No, the clickwheel is still annoying to operate inside a pocket, especially in tight pockets, even when both thumbs are fully functional.
Uh, no. The screen is on the top of the device, with the clickwheel at the bottom. Once know which side is up (a.0002 second operation for a non-putz), you have up (menu), down (pause), left (back), right (next) and center (select). If that's too hard for you, you should give up any hope of using an mp3 player, driving a car, or getting laid.
Or how do I start a second playlist again?
Uh, you go to your on-the-go playlist and make a new one. Does mental retardation run in your family?
And about structure: I'll take my personal directory structure over tag soup any day, thanks.
A distinction without a difference. The aforementioned playlist, artist, genre, podcast already covers every possible way to organize your music, the only problem is you wouldn't have an excuse to engage in rhetorical masturbation over it. And given how disable your hands are, that could take a very long time.
Your comment makes me question whether you've had a friend or family become addicted to drugs.
What if I have? What is the minimum number of addicts, or depth of the gutters they have fallen into, before my opinion is valid?
There is most definitely a victim.
And I say there's a health problem. Even if you do consider them victims, just how is throwing said victim in jail and permanently screwing up their life with a felony record going to help?
Re:"soon-to-be Leader of the Free World"
on
Obama's "ZuneGate"
·
· Score: 1
No, that's just common sense. A citizenship, willingly held, implies some degree of loyalty to the state in which it is held. A person who holds citizenship of another state cannot be trusted to make impartial decisions when issues on which these two states may be in a disagreement.
Yeah, that was the argument against JFK - he'd be more loyal to the Pope than America. Or that Romney would be too much of a Mormon. Or that Obama would be too black.
You know, the usual asinine, indefensible bullshit.
Yes, since muggers in areas heavy with gun nuts announce their intentions 500 yards in advance, so the gun nut has enough time to get out his weapon, cock it, and take the safety off.
Slashdot Mirror
A single, highly school related email does not spam make. Too bad, so sad for the network nazi at MSU.
But if that's the University's counter-counter argument, she was also using her email account for the purpose of relaying school related messages.
No, the point is that if spam=unsolicited email, and she didn't solicit emails about an "upcoming basketball game, art exhibit, Last Lecture speech, etc", then she can sue them for violating their own policy on spam.
Lame? Of course. But so is their draconian reaction to her email.
If you also read the complaint, it is alleged that she was instructed the correct way to send the message and refused to do so. The compliant makes it sound like she was in a pissing contest with the network administrator. Not a good person to piss off if you want to send email.
Yes, many school administrators have the opinion that their department policy is teh law, regardless of what the student may have signed or what the university guidelines actually state.
For example, I knew someone at my university who registered a domain name to his dorm room computer. He got an email from the campus security admin telling him that was against university policy, and to take it down. The only thing the machine was serving was an image of the domain name, but he immediately did as requested. Then the student checked the universities guidelines on network usage, but was unable to find any policy on registering a domain to a campus ip address. The student asked the security admin to point out where this policy was written down. The security admin responded by trying to get the student suspended from the school.
Spam is unsolicited bulk email, regardless of whether or not it is well written, relevant, or reasonable.
Then the student can counter-sue if the University ever her sent her spam over an upcoming basketball game, art exhibit, Last Lecture speech, etc.
If CA is like the US, unpopular legislation is worked out behind closed doors, and the debate period and the actual vote are just for show. This allows the legislative body to pass crappy bills quickly before the public can offer too much protest.
You saw this with the FISA bill this year. Harry Reid introduced the version from the Intelligence Committee that had telecom immunity, and ignored the version from the Judiciary Committee that didn't. Measures that Democrats wanted had to have 60 votes, while measures Republicans wanted only needed 50. Reid, who honors holds from Senator Inhofe, Troglodyte-OK, ignored a hold from fellow Democrat Chris Dodd.
You saw the same thing with the Wall Street bailout - calls to D.C. were 100 to 1 against, but it passed anyway with minimal oversight provisions.
Translation: when some government fails somewhere on some issue, it's an indictment of the very concept of government. When corporations fail on a massive scale, it means capitalism is teh awesome. Sorry, but this argument was weak sauce the first time I heard it, when it was used against unions.
The obvious problem with your logic is that a typical dose of heroin, coke, or meth can kill a user.
The obvious problem with your logic is if that were true, we wouldn't have heroin, coke or meth users because they'd all die after the first use of the drug.
The issue isn't "is it possible to die", because you can die from drinking too much water or eating a cup of table salt. It's how likely you are to die. The government's fearmongering over drugs resembles it's fearmongering over your chances of actually dying in a terrorist attack.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Whoosh. Go back and reread the part where I talked about how Common Defense would be as limited as General Welfare, and try again.
The government is inefficient, eh? Like when the government appointed CEO of General Moters presided over a loss of 70 billion dollars for the company? The government institutions of Enron and Worldcom that imploded earlier this decade, destroying tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions in shareholder revenue? How about the government financial firms like Citigroup, AIG and Bear Sterns that created a default credit swap market twice the size of the stock market with nothing to back it up?
Oh, you mean those weren't government industries at all, but private business that have put trillions of dollars in the shitter? Huh, interesting.
Ah yes, the insipid cliche. Here's another one: "correlation does not imply causation".
Ah, the insipid cliche of the Red Herring. Just read the damn link - movement conservatives backed Bush to the hilt in the 2000 election, the run up to the Iraq War, his foreign policy, his re-election in 2004, and his trampling of the Constitution. As Greenwald points out, Bush's supporters and critics can agree on one thing - Bush does not change. What has actually changed? Bush's approval ratings, which plunged during Katrina and they've never recovered.
Conservatism has failed America and the world at every level on every issue - by laying it's failures on Bush, conservatives are acting just like delusional Communists: conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.
For all the whining of "Slashdot's liberal bias", the wingnuts sure have no shortage of mod points. I'm 1-1 so far, lets see which way it goes. :)
Tax & Spend for the general welfare is in the Constitution. Regulation for the general welfare isn't.
Says who. That's why I laid out the problem of the selective strict-Constitutionalist: you have to throw the baby (much of our defense spending) along with the bath water (Social Security).
Congress' board modern regulation power is found in the Commerce Clause.
And the case that set that precedent was one of the more insane rulings SCOTUS has made. I wish they had based their argument on General Welfare instead, so you could now make the legal argument that Prohibition 2.0 is harmful to the nation's welfare. Too bad the founders didn't put the word "directly" in a couple places, as in "Congress has the power to regulate matters that directly impact interstate commerce" or "government has the right to take privately held land as long as it is used directly for the public interest." i.e. no taking apt buildings via eminent domain to make room for a shopping mall.
So, I stopped paying attention.
That's convenient.
And considering the US passed an Amendment term limiting the President in order to prevent another FDR from ever happening (as the only way he left office was by death), I don't think I am out of line there
Only if you ignore the reasons why it was passed - remember how much the Republicans regretted those term limits when Reagan was finishing his second term.
Maybe you got set off my me mis-typing "precedent: prior legal decision" as "president" (which would have been capitalized if I had meant that).
Oh, how the fuck would me no what proper english are? I'd be screwed without spell checking in browsers.
But I have a feeling that you were half-cocked and ready to go off anyhow.
I'm always ready to put the dying horse that is movement conservatism out of its misery. It's based on two things: elitist opposition to the New Deal, and racist opposition to the Civil Rights movement, wrapped up with pretty gun nut ribbons and religious bigotry. Useful conservatism is when people act as the government's sense of caution - can we afford this program, is the taxpayer getting his money worth, stuff like that. But the elitist, racist, less government for the sake of less government, tax cuts (mostly on the rich) for the sake of tax cuts movement conservatism - has deliciously earned the slow, painful death it's experiencing right now.
You seem to have a skewed view on what conservatism is.
Oh, I know exactly what movement conservatism is: an elitist backlash to the New Deal, and a racist backlash to the Civil Rights movement, wrapped up with pretty gun nut ribbons and religious bigotry.
Other than those 3 aspects, they need to stay out of everyone's lives and let the people solve their own problems.
Sorry Hoover, but we already tried it your way and it was an absolute disaster. Socialized medicine provides better care for less money. Public research gets more results than private for the same amount of money. Public utilities cost less money - Dennis Kucinich was tagged one of the worst mayors in the country for refusing to sell the cities power plant, forcing Cleveland into bankruptcy. But in the long term he saved the community hundreds of millions of dollars. The FDA ensures that people don't routinely die from contaminated food or bad medicine, and the lack of regulation is what has gotten us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Less government for the sake of less government is as asinine as more government for the sake of more government. The right question is, what is the right amount of government for the situation. We keep trying it your way until the the economy starts collapsing, when we re-learn the lesson that conservatism is a philosophy that has failed at every level on every issue.
More translation: put on airs of moral superiority and declare victory. Maybe that will work for you too, someday.
The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush. Sorry, but movement conservatism has been proven to have no clothes. The problem conservatives have with Bush isn't that he's not a conservative, but that he's unpopular. Another problem they dodge is the fact that if Bush actually had succeeded in accomplishing more conservative goals (privatizing Social Security, banning abortion, eliminating Medicare and Medicade) he would be even more unpopular with the American public than he is now.
I have to say, that us that did vote for Bush were fooled into thinking he was a conservative
No, you got exactly what you voted for. And any ignorance you can claim in 2000 was more than dispelled by 2004 - everyone knew he was an incompetent warmongering Constitution trampling jackass, as opposed to merely an incompetent jackass.
Movement conservatism is much like Communism - it can never fail, it can only be failed. Or, as Digby noted:
The next Daddy Figure was Fred Thompson, but he had more important things to do in the primary (taking a nap).
Those who voted for Bush (and more importantly, those who re-elected him) own a large part of this mess.
yes yes yes yes please.
Even if they only did a few major corridors (east coast, west coast, CA to FL), that would be awesome.
I don't buy it. You say you are the most right wing guy on Slashdot.
Believe me, you can take his word for it - check his posting history. Stork definitely earned his wingnut merit badge for consistent irrationality and Kool Aid drinking. Too bad he's going to have that merit badge repoed for a moments rationality.
Oh my Gosh. Here I am the most right wing guy on slashdot and I'm about to go and defend Obama's proposals for infrastructure spending in general, and national broadband and school computing in particular.
Sniff...I'm so proud of you, stork. But you do realize you're going to have to give up your wingnut merit badge for being rational, right?
Here's where I call you a fanboy to cover up my lame inadequacies and ignore reality...
Fixed that for you.
No, the clickwheel is still annoying to operate inside a pocket, especially in tight pockets, even when both thumbs are fully functional.
Uh, no. The screen is on the top of the device, with the clickwheel at the bottom. Once know which side is up (a .0002 second operation for a non-putz), you have up (menu), down (pause), left (back), right (next) and center (select). If that's too hard for you, you should give up any hope of using an mp3 player, driving a car, or getting laid.
Or how do I start a second playlist again?
Uh, you go to your on-the-go playlist and make a new one. Does mental retardation run in your family?
And about structure: I'll take my personal directory structure over tag soup any day, thanks.
A distinction without a difference. The aforementioned playlist, artist, genre, podcast already covers every possible way to organize your music, the only problem is you wouldn't have an excuse to engage in rhetorical masturbation over it. And given how disable your hands are, that could take a very long time.
Your comment makes me question whether you've had a friend or family become addicted to drugs.
What if I have? What is the minimum number of addicts, or depth of the gutters they have fallen into, before my opinion is valid?
There is most definitely a victim.
And I say there's a health problem. Even if you do consider them victims, just how is throwing said victim in jail and permanently screwing up their life with a felony record going to help?
No, that's just common sense. A citizenship, willingly held, implies some degree of loyalty to the state in which it is held. A person who holds citizenship of another state cannot be trusted to make impartial decisions when issues on which these two states may be in a disagreement.
Yeah, that was the argument against JFK - he'd be more loyal to the Pope than America. Or that Romney would be too much of a Mormon. Or that Obama would be too black.
You know, the usual asinine, indefensible bullshit.
Usability. The click-wheel is awesome but at the same time it's fairly hard to operate the player without looking (e.g. inside a pocket).
Maybe if you had your thumbs amputated.
Playlists. So I have this fancy scroll-wheel navigation but am not allowed to create playlists on the player? What were they thinking?
Um, you can. Press and hold the center button over the song you want to add to an on-the-go playlist.
No raw directory structure.
You can sort by artist, genre, song, playlist, podcast...how much more structure do you need?
Yes, since muggers in areas heavy with gun nuts announce their intentions 500 yards in advance, so the gun nut has enough time to get out his weapon, cock it, and take the safety off.