Maybe this approach should be re-revisited for domain names in general. Is it fair that one person gets amazon.com, even though there is a region, at least one bookstore, and a tribe of warrior women vying for the name?
The region got its name after a Spanish explorer sailed up the Amazon river and got his ass kicked by a tribe whom he mistakenly thought were all women. The Spaniard went back home and told his story to the Holy Roman Emporer, who then decreed the river be called "Amazonas".
Greek mythology > Amazon River > bookstore in Minnesota > Amazon.com Since Greek mythology can't really call dibs, I'd give this one to Brazil and Peru.
I know I am pissing into the wind in asking people to call their senators and congressmen and voice your opposition to the new bill that gives the government warrantless, suspicionless access to your email and anything you store in the cloud, like your google docs.
Looks like the Prosecutors and Police aren't getting anything for Christmas this year.
Once government can read all of your email (not just what you leave on GMail longer than 6 months) on a whim without suspicion, they'll be able to come after all of their opposition.
They can already do that. The bill just more people do the same thing
But someone's "belief system" shouldn't exempt them from following the rules and laws of the land. Otherwise pedo Mormons could marry 13 year-olds, hardcore Muslims could keep their female children out of schools, and fundie Christians could stalk those who are having abortions.
Your first statement is flat out wrong and your second is a fallacious slippery slope argument.
We don't force conscientious objectors to serve in the military. We don't force religious parents to vaccinate their children. We don't even force the Amish to pay Social Security or Medicare taxes.
About the only time we do force people to violate their belief systems is when it involves safety or imminent health issues.
Your pedo mormon and fundie christian examples fall under the safety umbrella and If fundie Muslims wants to keep their female children out of school, they are welcome to do so, as long as they file the appropriate notice of intent to homeschool and get an education plan approved.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yep, looks like she's standing up for her 1st amendment rights.
The school also wanted her parents to sign an agreement stating they would publicly support the program. The parents refused, which sounds like they are standing up for another 1st amendment right..
I am more upset at the lawyers who are costing teachers jobs and I doubt their parents are in it for their child. They have a free lottery ticket at someone elses expense. Perhaps if parents were not so sue happy American schools could successful compete with Asian and European counterparts.
Lol wut? You seem to be ignoring important cultural factors when it comes to lawsuits.
Asia and Europe are polar opposites when it comes to litigation. In Asia, almost nobody sues because they have a cultural aversion to litigation and the court systems are fucked. In Europe, lawsuits are less common because the public supports strong government regulatory bodies that ultimately limit the need for people to sue.
In the good old US of A, every sues because the libertarians/conservatives think regulation is bad and civil lawsuits are the solution. As a bonus, those same libertarians/conservatives want tort reform because all those civil lawsuits are expensive.
At work you have to do what your boss says or you will be shown the door. What is so different with school.
School is not voluntary. Work is. Homeschooling, while good/bad, isn't an option for everyone.
"In the event that you change your stance on wearing the ID with the battery and chip removed as has been offered to you on two occasions, we will be more than willing to rescind this withdrawal notice."
That seems reasonable, except for the fact that she was also told her original pre-RFID card would be valid for all 4 years she was enrolled at the school.
Everything aside, the zero tolerance policies that most school administrators (officially or unofficially) adopt is an injustice all its own.
The Iron Dome system is so effective that I saw one article reporting complaints from the military that citizens are going outside when they hear the warning alarms.
Why would anyone go outside when you know missiles are incoming? Because they want to watch the Iron Dome shoot down a rocket.
dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns
after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations objected to the legislation
Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy's original bill
The voters have NOT indicated they're willing to trade those away for a sense of security. The parties are NOT selling the voters what they want.
This is a naked power grab by the portion of our government that would prefer a police state.
Actually, when they are eatten they are called "squab". But, I've heard they are delicious.
Cooked *right, pigeons are wonderfully delicious. You eat 'em straight up, bones and everything. I had it overseas and it was so good that I seriously thought about starting my own restaraunt here at home.
*I say this having eaten pigeon that was cooked very very poorly
If I'm a police officer, I'm going to be dragging my ass responding to any call you make, if I respond at all... because you're being a nuisance.
This is what police enforcement in developing countries is like. I'd expect better in the USA, regardless of how the police feel about the complaint or its source.
If the police feel that someone is repeatedly making frivolous complaints, they can get a judge to order the person to stop. The police should never take it upon themselves to unilaterally ignore the-boy-who-cried-wolf.
JDownloader is the program I use to automate downloading from filehosts. You still have to type in the CAPTCHA (if required), but everything else happens automagically.
You forgot to name the biggest problem with this scheme: information
Can you imagine if people were making bets based on unskewed polls and information from the conservative mediabubble?
The betting market would bear no relation to reality and people would lose their shirts because they've been told day in and day out that [Candidate] is a sure thing.
I've also got some choice words for the rest of the news organizations as well. It's to their benefit to portray a race as close, even if it isn't, just to keep people tuned in.
The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.
To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement. There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative--more heat than light--and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.
As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.
"Disgust" was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.
Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.
The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms. Coulter's (and the student organizers') opinions, or do we use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy--and one another--stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community, and in the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.
Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President
Compare and contrast with
Mr. Lukianoff says that the Fordham-Coulter affair took campus censorship to a new level: "This was the longest, strongest condemnation of a speaker that I've ever seen in which a university president also tried to claim that he was defending freedom of speech."
I guess in the print edition, the WSJ and Lukianoff can assume most people won't actually read the statement being attacked.
Probably more "fool" then attention seeker, but it should be a wake-up call that anyone who wants to travel should know better than to wear a piece of art around lest you tick off security check points.
You suggest 300+ million Americans should self-censor in order to placate the TSA. I suggest that XY,000 TSA agents learn how to do their jobs better.
One of these suggestions chills free speech, the other does not.
Or a long series of unions taking a bigger and bigger piece of the pie till not enough was left to run the business on.
Your point of view is directly contradicted by reality, as the average American wage has stayed mostly flat since the late 60s and union membership has never been lower.
The claim that if unions went away today those laws would go away is totally wrong. That is what many people think. If unions would go away, companies would force their workers to work 20 hours a day 7 days a week for 30 hours of pay at a really low rate. Their pensions would go away. That is not going to happen. Unions keep on repeating this to get people to vote the union way.
The economy has grown in leaps and bounds since [arbitrary date], the stock market is higher than ever, unions are weaker than ever, pensions are almost entirely nonexistent, and out of all that wealth... workers have been paid just enough to keep up with inflation. Oh yea, worker productivity has almost doubled over the same period of time and black lung is making a comeback in amongst coal miners.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it ain't the unions.
But why call him a racist for apparently being a watchdog against voter fraud?
I have nothing to say about that particular case, but this entire election cycle, "voter fraud" has been a convienent phrase in a Republican campaign to disenfranchise minority and liberal voters.
It's going to end up at the Supreme Court, because various state level courts have issued differing opinions on the practical effects of anti-voter fraud laws.
2) some part of the government competing with the private sector, to wit UPS, FedEx, etc, even when those carriers aren't that interested in first-class mail.
A) USPS was there first B) UPS/FedEx/other are interested in first class mail, but only for profitable areas. C) UPS and FedEx subcontract a lot of rural package deliveries to USPS, because that's cheaper for them.
Because I'm lazy, I'll just copy and paste a comment I made in another thread about TPM
Ever since TPM was created, we're always just a few bits and bytes away from having it leveraged against us, by them. And by "us" I mean "the computer users." By "them" I mean "the hardware manufacturers and software/media companies."
Example: The newest motherboards don't *need* the ability to disable trusted boot. Heck, it'd have been easier to not include it! We're more or less at the mercy of a small number of companies and their design decisions.
I recently found out, while looking at new laptops, that Lenovo & HP like to put whitelists of wireless cards into the BIOS. Someone hacked the BIOS and other cards will work, but for whatever reason, Lenovo/HP doesn't want you to use a storebought card.
Oh, c'mon ! Pakistan isn't an "allied country". Them Pakis actively support the Talibans.
We have active drone campaigns against our "allies" Yemen and Somalia. Our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and the UAE are notorious for funding terrorism.
That should tell you a lot about the quality of our "allies" in the Middle East and Asia.
And we can see how that worked out. Why would this be different?
Because what's best for the policeman's union may not be what's best for the general public?
We have an opportunity for a fully accountable police force. These eyeglass cams are going everywhere that dashcams won't and I'd rather not see that accountability get neutered.
Anyone who has a subpoena from a court, either because they are charged with an offense, or because they have a civil suit against the police. This is exactly how it works with any other evidence collected by the police. Was this supposed to be a hard question?
It's not supposed to be a hard question, but like many things in life, in practice it is more difficult than you would expect.
Especially since you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of my post, where I go into detail about other situations where someone might want to review the footage.
And I didn't make those scenarios up. They are positions taken by police unions when dashcams were being fitted to cars.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that everyone in the Salt Lake PD gets a camera. Now the question becomes: who gets to review the footage and for what reason.
That's where the real devil is. The union is going to fight for the most restrictive conditions possible in order to limit reviews of the footage. Because, god forbid, the bosses troll through the footage looking for misconduct instead of only checking it when allegations are made.
So don't think that equipping the police with cameras is a panacea. My guess is that it won't be accessible under public records laws and the footage will only be used in court cases or when formal complaints are made.
Hardlined police boxes with a wireless AP would make for a vastly more robust network than using the commercial LTE towers. Sometimes the old ways are best.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this approach should be re-revisited for domain names in general. Is it fair that one person gets amazon.com, even though there is a region, at least one bookstore, and a tribe of warrior women vying for the name?
The region got its name after a Spanish explorer sailed up the Amazon river and got his ass kicked by a tribe whom he mistakenly thought were all women.
The Spaniard went back home and told his story to the Holy Roman Emporer, who then decreed the river be called "Amazonas".
Greek mythology > Amazon River > bookstore in Minnesota > Amazon.com
Since Greek mythology can't really call dibs, I'd give this one to Brazil and Peru.
I know I am pissing into the wind in asking people to call their senators and congressmen and voice your opposition to the new bill that gives the government warrantless, suspicionless access to your email and anything you store in the cloud, like your google docs.
I think you missed the follow-up
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/20/2122223/that-was-fast-leahy-drops-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill
Looks like the Prosecutors and Police aren't getting anything for Christmas this year.
Once government can read all of your email (not just what you leave on GMail longer than 6 months) on a whim without suspicion, they'll be able to come after all of their opposition.
They can already do that.
The bill just more people do the same thing
But someone's "belief system" shouldn't exempt them from following the rules and laws of the land. Otherwise pedo Mormons could marry 13 year-olds, hardcore Muslims could keep their female children out of schools, and fundie Christians could stalk those who are having abortions.
Your first statement is flat out wrong and your second is a fallacious slippery slope argument.
We don't force conscientious objectors to serve in the military.
We don't force religious parents to vaccinate their children.
We don't even force the Amish to pay Social Security or Medicare taxes.
About the only time we do force people to violate their belief systems is when it involves safety or imminent health issues.
Your pedo mormon and fundie christian examples fall under the safety umbrella and If fundie Muslims wants to keep their female children out of school, they are welcome to do so, as long as they file the appropriate notice of intent to homeschool and get an education plan approved.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yep, looks like she's standing up for her 1st amendment rights.
The school also wanted her parents to sign an agreement stating they would publicly support the program.
The parents refused, which sounds like they are standing up for another 1st amendment right..
I am more upset at the lawyers who are costing teachers jobs and I doubt their parents are in it for their child. They have a free lottery ticket at someone elses expense. Perhaps if parents were not so sue happy American schools could successful compete with Asian and European counterparts.
Lol wut?
You seem to be ignoring important cultural factors when it comes to lawsuits.
Asia and Europe are polar opposites when it comes to litigation.
In Asia, almost nobody sues because they have a cultural aversion to litigation and the court systems are fucked.
In Europe, lawsuits are less common because the public supports strong government regulatory bodies that ultimately limit the need for people to sue.
In the good old US of A, every sues because the libertarians/conservatives think regulation is bad and civil lawsuits are the solution.
As a bonus, those same libertarians/conservatives want tort reform because all those civil lawsuits are expensive.
At work you have to do what your boss says or you will be shown the door. What is so different with school.
School is not voluntary. Work is.
Homeschooling, while good/bad, isn't an option for everyone.
Read the letter linked from infowars:
http://static.infowars.com/2012/11/i/general/Hernandez_RFID-ID-john_jay_letter.jpg
"In the event that you change your stance on wearing the ID with the battery and chip removed as has been offered to you on two occasions, we will be more than willing to rescind this withdrawal notice."
That seems reasonable, except for the fact that she was also told her original pre-RFID card would be valid for all 4 years she was enrolled at the school.
Everything aside, the zero tolerance policies that most school administrators (officially or unofficially) adopt is an injustice all its own.
Israel completely withdrew from Gaza.
And moved the settlers into the West Bank... another area that had formerly been Palestinian land.
But your argument would be wrong even if they didn't.
Please enlighten us.
Just saying "no you are wrong" isn't very helpful
The Iron Dome system is so effective that I saw one article reporting complaints from the military that citizens are going outside when they hear the warning alarms.
Why would anyone go outside when you know missiles are incoming?
Because they want to watch the Iron Dome shoot down a rocket.
Did you RTFA?
dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns
after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations objected to the legislation
Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy's original bill
The voters have NOT indicated they're willing to trade those away for a sense of security.
The parties are NOT selling the voters what they want.
This is a naked power grab by the portion of our government that would prefer a police state.
Actually, when they are eatten they are called "squab". But, I've heard they are delicious.
Cooked *right, pigeons are wonderfully delicious. You eat 'em straight up, bones and everything.
I had it overseas and it was so good that I seriously thought about starting my own restaraunt here at home.
*I say this having eaten pigeon that was cooked very very poorly
If I'm a police officer, I'm going to be dragging my ass responding to any call you make, if I respond at all... because you're being a nuisance.
This is what police enforcement in developing countries is like.
I'd expect better in the USA, regardless of how the police feel about the complaint or its source.
If the police feel that someone is repeatedly making frivolous complaints, they can get a judge to order the person to stop.
The police should never take it upon themselves to unilaterally ignore the-boy-who-cried-wolf.
JDownloader is the program I use to automate downloading from filehosts.
You still have to type in the CAPTCHA (if required), but everything else happens automagically.
Mipony and Orbit Downloader are also legit.
You forgot to name the biggest problem with this scheme: information
Can you imagine if people were making bets based on unskewed polls and information from the conservative mediabubble?
The betting market would bear no relation to reality and people would lose their shirts because they've been told day in and day out that [Candidate] is a sure thing.
I've also got some choice words for the rest of the news organizations as well.
It's to their benefit to portray a race as close, even if it isn't, just to keep people tuned in.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/GIF /jif, gif/
Pronunciation:
::twitch::
I'm not surprised the Wall Street Journal allowed Mr. Lukianoff to mischaracterize the contents of Fordham's statement.
Read it for yourself and see if it really matches the tone of WSJ's article : http://www.fordham.edu/Campus_Resources/eNewsroom/topstories_2601.asp
November 9, 2012
The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.
To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement. There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative--more heat than light--and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.
As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.
"Disgust" was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.
Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.
The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms. Coulter's (and the student organizers') opinions, or do we use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy--and one another--stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community, and in the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.
Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President
Compare and contrast with
Mr. Lukianoff says that the Fordham-Coulter affair took campus censorship to a new level:
"This was the longest, strongest condemnation of a speaker that I've ever seen in which a university president also tried to claim that he was defending freedom of speech."
I guess in the print edition, the WSJ and Lukianoff can assume most people won't actually read the statement being attacked.
Probably more "fool" then attention seeker, but it should be a wake-up call that anyone who wants to travel should know better than to wear a piece of art around lest you tick off security check points.
You suggest 300+ million Americans should self-censor in order to placate the TSA.
I suggest that XY,000 TSA agents learn how to do their jobs better.
One of these suggestions chills free speech, the other does not.
Or a long series of unions taking a bigger and bigger piece of the pie till not enough was left to run the business on.
Your point of view is directly contradicted by reality, as the average American wage has stayed mostly flat since the late 60s and union membership has never been lower.
The claim that if unions went away today those laws would go away is totally wrong. That is what many people think. If unions would go away, companies would force their workers to work 20 hours a day 7 days a week for 30 hours of pay at a really low rate. Their pensions would go away. That is not going to happen. Unions keep on repeating this to get people to vote the union way.
The economy has grown in leaps and bounds since [arbitrary date], the stock market is higher than ever, unions are weaker than ever,
pensions are almost entirely nonexistent, and out of all that wealth... workers have been paid just enough to keep up with inflation.
Oh yea, worker productivity has almost doubled over the same period of time and black lung is making a comeback in amongst coal miners.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it ain't the unions.
But why call him a racist for apparently being a watchdog against voter fraud?
I have nothing to say about that particular case, but this entire election cycle, "voter fraud" has been a convienent phrase in a Republican campaign to disenfranchise minority and liberal voters.
It's going to end up at the Supreme Court, because various state level courts have issued differing opinions on the practical effects of anti-voter fraud laws.
2) some part of the government competing with the private sector, to wit UPS, FedEx, etc, even when those carriers aren't that interested in first-class mail.
A) USPS was there first
B) UPS/FedEx/other are interested in first class mail, but only for profitable areas.
C) UPS and FedEx subcontract a lot of rural package deliveries to USPS, because that's cheaper for them.
Because I'm lazy, I'll just copy and paste a comment I made in another thread about TPM
Ever since TPM was created, we're always just a few bits and bytes away from having it leveraged against us, by them.
And by "us" I mean "the computer users."
By "them" I mean "the hardware manufacturers and software/media companies."
Example: The newest motherboards don't *need* the ability to disable trusted boot. Heck, it'd have been easier to not include it!
We're more or less at the mercy of a small number of companies and their design decisions.
I recently found out, while looking at new laptops, that Lenovo & HP like to put whitelists of wireless cards into the BIOS.
Someone hacked the BIOS and other cards will work, but for whatever reason, Lenovo/HP doesn't want you to use a storebought card.
Oh, c'mon ! Pakistan isn't an "allied country". Them Pakis actively support the Talibans.
We have active drone campaigns against our "allies" Yemen and Somalia.
Our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and the UAE are notorious for funding terrorism.
That should tell you a lot about the quality of our "allies" in the Middle East and Asia.
And we can see how that worked out. Why would this be different?
Because what's best for the policeman's union may not be what's best for the general public?
We have an opportunity for a fully accountable police force.
These eyeglass cams are going everywhere that dashcams won't and I'd rather not see that accountability get neutered.
Anyone who has a subpoena from a court, either because they are charged with an offense, or because they have a civil suit against the police. This is exactly how it works with any other evidence collected by the police. Was this supposed to be a hard question?
It's not supposed to be a hard question, but like many things in life, in practice it is more difficult than you would expect.
Especially since you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of my post,
where I go into detail about other situations where someone might want to review the footage.
And I didn't make those scenarios up. They are positions taken by police unions when dashcams were being fitted to cars.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that everyone in the Salt Lake PD gets a camera.
Now the question becomes: who gets to review the footage and for what reason.
That's where the real devil is.
The union is going to fight for the most restrictive conditions possible in order to limit reviews of the footage.
Because, god forbid, the bosses troll through the footage looking for misconduct instead of only checking it when allegations are made.
So don't think that equipping the police with cameras is a panacea.
My guess is that it won't be accessible under public records laws
and the footage will only be used in court cases or when formal complaints are made.
Hardlined police boxes with a wireless AP would make for a vastly more robust network than using the commercial LTE towers.
Sometimes the old ways are best.