Under the first prong of the test as originally formulated, certain commercial speech is not entitled to protection; the informational function of advertising is the First Amendment concern and if it does not accurately inform the public about lawful activity, it can be suppressed.18
Second, if the speech is protected, the interest of the government in regulating and limiting it must be assessed. The State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech.19
Third, the restriction cannot be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the asserted purpose.20 Instead, the regulation must ''directly advance'' the governmental interest. The Court resolves this issue with reference to aggregate effects, and does not limit its consideration to effects on the challenging litigant.Supp.31
Fourth, if the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction on commercial speech, the excessive restriction cannot survive.21 The Court has rejected the idea that a ''least restrictive means'' test is required. Instead, what is now required is a ''reasonable fit'' between means and ends, with the means ''narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.''22
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amend me nt01/17.html
I'd say that sums up my point.
The Supreme Court is designated the interpreter of the Constitution as relates to law, so this "works."
Note that Non-profit organizations and political organizations are not covered under this because they are not "advertising." They have no commercial interest (ostensibly).
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. I'll lean on "not."
You have the right to express your opinion in a publc forum. You do NOT have the right to have people listen. This is the crux of the argument AGAINST telemarketing. The telemarketers insist that they have free speech rights - the problem is that if an individual did what they are doing, it would be considered harrassment and would possibly warrant a restraining order.
"Corporate Speech" is anything that advertises a product or service. If you are giving an unbiased (read: unfunded) opinion, you're back into the realm of Free Speech.
So if Nike is paying you to say that Nike shoes are great, that is NOT protected speech. If, however, you write a review for a magazine saying that you've found that Nike shoes are the most comfortable that you've ever owned, without coercion, that IS protected speech.
Some of the same people who decry smoking are riding around town in Explorers, blowing exhaust in my face as I walk to work.
God forbid my smoking somehow affect your ability to pollute the air ten times worse.
If you're anti-smoking, you'd better be anti-driving and anti-shipping as well, since aircraft, seacraft, and landcraft all generate many magnitudes more pollution than those of us who smoke.
WMP will not ever tell you to "obtain a license" for your media unless the media you already have is DRM'd.
There is a slightly annoying box that pops up at some point which tells you that you should check your music for legality before ripping it, but that rarely pops up.
Please don't post random bullshit about "why WMP sucks." There's already enough FUD out there about it.
Also: Roxio did not license burning tech from Microsoft, it was the other way around. Please make at least a minor attempt to get your facts straight. WMP even says that some portions were licensed from Roxio.
If you find yourself constantly reinstalling Windows, you have problems. An exception can be made in the case of W95/98/SE, but if you have NT, 2k, or XP, you should never have to reinstall unless you start fiddling around with OS core components that you need to stay away from until you've developed an appropriate level of maturity. Understand that if you fiddle with core components in Windows, something WILL crash, and you WILL have to reinstall.
Actually, a verbal agreement is a legally binding one.
You just need witnesses.
This kind of agreement, however, is NOT legally binding, as there's no (legal) signature attached. (Is there? I haven't even bothered looking at the page)
After reading the idiot post before this, I was happy to see someone who has a clue responding to it.
I find it amazing how many people accuse Windowsupdate of things like these without, apparently, ever bothering to read the damned site.
Re:vote its important!
on
Congress@Work
·
· Score: 1
I live in GA. Apart from brokering military contracts for Lockheed/Martin (AFAIK, they provide more jobs in this state than anyone, excepting the military) , our state's representatives don't really have too much wrong with them.
On the other hand, I see representatives from most other states that I would vote against in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, since I live in GEORGIA, and not in "most other states," I have no control over this.
I'm only responsible for the quality of the legislators in my state, so stop blaming all of these problems on those of us who chose to not vote.
I do, however, agree that petitioning is a good way to get things changed - unfortunately, there is no law stating that the government *MUST* put to a vote anything that is petitioned with XYZ^3 signatures - if that was the case, then all of those criminal marijuana laws would have been repealed by this time.
"The current climate of blood donation will probably to push things to a head. There really is no incentive to give, apart from conscience,"
You just said that the only thing stopping the Biomeds from, essentially, stealing organs is religious conscience.
But you won't give blood because the only "incentive" is conscience and wanting to, oh, I dunno, help the FUCKING KID THAT WAS HIT BY A MAC TRUCK LAST WEEK? You know why the Red Cross wants to know when those 6 months are up? Because there isn't enough god-damned blood to go around to all the people that need it. The kids that are hit by drunk drivers, cancer patients, AIDS patients...
And even the mothers who are in the hospital giving birth, who happen to have an artery rupture. Yes, look at your children and then imagine children somewhere that don't have a mother because your no-good, worthless ass didn't fucking give blood.
The person will then sue the doctor because that person will probably NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE DAMNED MEDICINE.
That, and the medicines you talk about are RARELY distributed and used in mass quantities because *gasp* THEY'D HAVE TO SELL THEM FOR LESS IF THEY MADE MORE.
You aren't helping to "better humanity" by charging out the ass for the cure.
That's like saying Microsoft is "bettering the software industry" by charging more money for its OSes.
Oh, or how about the RIAA is helping to "better music" by helping to set the price of a CD at $20?
Why do the majority seem only interested in money?
on
Who Owns Your Body?
·
· Score: 2
I notice that a large majority of the posts concerning this topic are all about "I don't mind if they make money off of me," or "I want to get my money out of it if they're selling these things based off of me."
Why the hell are so few people concerned about the fact that they are *SELLING* all of these "sought-after" medicines to people who CANNOT AFFORD THEM because of all the bullshit treatments they've paid for?
"They would have no incentive" to create these medicines, the article has said, if they couldn't make money off of them. What the fuck is this? Here's an incentive: YOUR FUCKING CHILDREN. Nothing pisses me off like people that say they want to "help humanity" and "fight disease" and then turn around and sell the work they do for shitloads of money, or who start mass-producing this medicine and charging 100-200x the production costs. NOTHING has a higher markup than the Biotech industry, with the possible exception of Nike shoes.
Wait, you voted for Bush?
And you don't like corporations sticking their fingers into everything you hold dear?
This is why some people shouldn't be ALLOWED to vote.
Re:1960's Mechanical Technology seems to work OK
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
This is, I must agree, the best possible solution. The Lever Machines are the single greatest piece of Election technology to date, and most likely in the future.
1) They are IMPOSSIBLE to rig, except from the manufacturing process, and easy to test and confirm their working status.
2) You absolutely cannot vote for multiple candidates.
3) They are completely anonymous.
4) You can easily and immediately correct your votes.
and, most importantly:
5) They are nearly indestructible. Unless you shoot, run over, or drop them from tall buildings, these machines stand up to the test of time. Spare parts are almost never used, except in VERY rare cases. I'd not be surprised to find out that maintenance manuals don't even exist for them.
Point 1:
Most of the land in the Midwest is farmland, reservation land, etc. I personally, as I have stated before, do not wish to live in a shithole. Why are you all so concerned about these workers that you'll destroy the environment and cause so much pollution that it makes life here impossible?
Point 2: Uhh... 2%? That's a blatant lie (No, not on your part). I could walk around Atlanta and find more than 2% of the population out on the street.
Point 3: How does the flood of cheap mexican workers INCREASE the job pool? They don't start businesses. They lower the average working wage. Their children are lazy (But I'll freely admit that the parents work their asses off). The money they earn here isn't cycled through the economic system, they send it back to Mexico. If you don't believe THAT, then you should check out your nearest Western Union on payday.
I don't recall that I said anything about my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.
Would you like to hear about my great-grandfather? The German Immigrant who became a citizen JUST so he could join the US Military, fight overseas AGAINST Germany, and gain a Purple Heart in the process?
As opposed to the majority of them, who simply came here and hid, hoping never to see the country again. That's what the rest of their friends did. They came on a boat like rats, and hid like rats from an exterminator when they arrived.
Some of these people are worthwhile. A teacher at school's husband applied for a green card a year ago. He's getting one. Why? They were persistent. They called the consulate OFTEN. They wrote letters. They talked to the INS. Congressmen. You don't wait until they're throwing you out to call up and say 'Hey, where's my green card?' You do something about it.
Unrestricted immigration? We have an extrememly high unemployment rate. You want it to go up? Do you LIKE having a job? Do you enjoy being able to eat? How about your friends? Your parents? We have immigration laws in this country because, as it is, we have TOO MANY PEOPLE and NOT ENOUGH SPACE. I for one do NOT want to live in the United States of China.
How can you be wrong about anything relating to a piece of literature or art?
Mark Twain expressed it best in the preface to Huck Finn when he said that anyone attempting to analyze his work should and would be drug into the street and shot.
Literature is for one to enjoy AS IT IS; no, that is not quite right... it is for one to enjoy as one THINKS it is. A TRUE author or artist gives his work not to a single viewpoint, but to many seperate ones.
While you may be missing out on the viewpoints of others, why does that matter? Weishaupt's Illuminatus thought of the individual as weak. They valued the mass over the person. They do not now exist. There is a pattern here.
I can vouch for ALL of the people out there that decided not to go to college. And hell, I work at Kroger!
The largest problem with those that go to college is... well, everything, honestly. Why did YOU take up a secondary education? Honestly? That's right... you can admit it...
More Money.
I guarantee that, in a survey of 5,000 college-bound teens, at least 4500 of them will give that same answer. No one goes to a college/university to learn. Why? Because you DON'T.
College, people, is the same trite nonsense that you went through for 12-13 years. Boring, repetitive assignments, subjects which you care nothing about.
"But what about those that go and learn that they enjoy (X)?" The answer to that is simple - those people are the ones that spent their school-lives listening to the teachers and not the books. The same as most of those going into secondary, public school teachers are, at the majority-point, only teaching to make a living. Why? Because most states have severely lacking teaching requirements. Alabama, for instance - a state driver's license and a high-school diploma. That's all.
Everyone had a teacher that 'touched' (for lack of a better word) them in one way or another. I'm willing to bet also that those teachers were not teaching the subjects they WANTED to teach, but instead were teaching "assigned" classes. Language teachers, for instance, do NOT wish to teach Math classes. Yet it happens every day. People who care more about Pythagoras than a theorem. Is it wrong that they care more about a man or a time than an equation? No, of course not. That's what sparked them to become a teacher in the first place. They should teach it. In context.
My first day of college: I walk into class, sit down, and get handed a sheet outlining the "attendance policy." Attendance policy? Is this high-school again? I'm not paying someone $4,000/year to tell me what I can and cannot do. I'm paying them $4,000/year to give me a small slip of paper that says exactly what I knew before I gave you the money. Wow. I can learn.
Gosh. What an experience. I've just paid someone to put me through complete rubbish. What happened to "Come if you want, all I care about is what you know"? THAT is college. THAT is caring. Not giving a student an assignment for the sake of work. You work for the sake of learning, not to have something to do.
I walk into my math class. We are handed a pre-test. I see square roots. This is a college math class. Trig? Naah. Calculus? Nope, not here. Review. Review. Review. Why do I hate math? I've just given you all three reasons. Here's a hint: They start with an "R."
What college was this? I'm not telling you. This could be Harvard. This could be MIT. This could be Cowlick State University. It doesn't matter. All colleges and universities in the "good ol' USA" are the same. If I could go to school in Europe, I would. Gladly. I'd go for a doctorate. Why? You LEARN. You learn what you WANT to learn. I'm going for a B.S., and that's what I'm given.
And if I see one more post from a "College Graduate" that can't write properly, has no communications skills, and who can't spell... I'm going to scream.
I believe it is every seller's responsibility to disclose known nonobvious flaws in their product. When someone is renting something to me (which is a more apt description - you "rent" part of their internet connection), I expect that nonobivous flaws which develop over time will be disclosed to me as well.
It is NOT the ISP's responsibility to inform its customers that it is being blocked, it is the customer's responsibility to request the information.
My problem is with the ISP misrepresenting their product. The blocker is doing exactly what they said they'd do.
The ISP hasn't misrepresented their product. The ISP provides internet service, exactly what it implies. They don't say when you sign up that 'We are not blocked by any censoring software.' The blocking product is supposed to censor offensive, hateful, and/or pornographic content (whether it is appropriate for THEM to decide what content is such is another topic). The blocker says NOTHING about censoring a perfectly clean, well-written, and neutral document such as a resume.
After all, sites such as bellsouth.net, mindspring.com, etc. can be bannned... And search engines can be banned, as well. Would you like to connect one day to find out that your censoring software has blocked yahoo.com, metacrawler.com, webcrawler.com, excite.com, hotbot.com, ad nauseum? And what about NEWS sites? cnn.com, msnbc.com, nbc.com, fox.com, nytimes.com, and many other sites have reported on the Clinton 'penisgate' scandal, as well as reports of hate crimes, etc. Cyber Patrol probably blocks many of these sites, actually... I should go check the blocked lists.
I believe it is every seller's responsibility to disclose known nonobvious flaws in their product. When someone is renting something to me (which is a more apt description - you "rent" part of their internet connection), I expect that nonobivous flaws which develop over time will be disclosed to me as well. It is NOT the ISP's responsibility to inform its customers that it is being blocked, it is the customer's responsibility to request the information. My problem is with the ISP misrepresenting their product. The blocker is doing exactly what they said they'd do. The ISP hasn't misrepresented their product. The ISP provides internet service, exactly what it implies. They don't say when you sign up that 'We are not blocked by any censoring software.' The blocking product is supposed to censor offensive, hateful, and/or pornographic content (whether it is appropriate for THEM to decide what content is such is another topic). The blocker says NOTHING about censoring a perfectly clean, well-written, and neutral document such as a resume. After all, sites such as bellsouth.net, mindspring.com, etc. can be bannned... And search engines can be banned, as well. Would you like to connect one day to find out that your censoring software has blocked yahoo.com, metacrawler.com, webcrawler.com, excite.com, hotbot.com, ad nauseum? And what about NEWS sites? cnn.com, msnbc.com, nbc.com, fox.com, nytimes.com, and many other sites have reported on the Clinton 'penisgate' scandal, as well as reports of hate crimes, etc. Cyber Patrol probably blocks many of these sites, actually... I should go check the blocked lists.
Slashdot Mirror
Under the first prong of the test as originally formulated, certain commercial speech is not entitled to protection; the informational function of advertising is the First Amendment concern and if it does not accurately inform the public about lawful activity, it can be suppressed.18
d me nt01/17.html
Second, if the speech is protected, the interest of the government in regulating and limiting it must be assessed. The State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech.19
Third, the restriction cannot be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the asserted purpose.20 Instead, the regulation must ''directly advance'' the governmental interest. The Court resolves this issue with reference to aggregate effects, and does not limit its consideration to effects on the challenging litigant.Supp.31
Fourth, if the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction on commercial speech, the excessive restriction cannot survive.21 The Court has rejected the idea that a ''least restrictive means'' test is required. Instead, what is now required is a ''reasonable fit'' between means and ends, with the means ''narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.''22
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amen
I'd say that sums up my point.
The Supreme Court is designated the interpreter of the Constitution as relates to law, so this "works."
Note that Non-profit organizations and political organizations are not covered under this because they are not "advertising." They have no commercial interest (ostensibly).
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. I'll lean on "not."
You have the right to express your opinion in a publc forum. You do NOT have the right to have people listen. This is the crux of the argument AGAINST telemarketing. The telemarketers insist that they have free speech rights - the problem is that if an individual did what they are doing, it would be considered harrassment and would possibly warrant a restraining order.
"Corporate Speech" is anything that advertises a product or service. If you are giving an unbiased (read: unfunded) opinion, you're back into the realm of Free Speech.
So if Nike is paying you to say that Nike shoes are great, that is NOT protected speech. If, however, you write a review for a magazine saying that you've found that Nike shoes are the most comfortable that you've ever owned, without coercion, that IS protected speech.
Glad you got to this one before me.
Some of the same people who decry smoking are riding around town in Explorers, blowing exhaust in my face as I walk to work.
God forbid my smoking somehow affect your ability to pollute the air ten times worse.
If you're anti-smoking, you'd better be anti-driving and anti-shipping as well, since aircraft, seacraft, and landcraft all generate many magnitudes more pollution than those of us who smoke.
WMP will not ever tell you to "obtain a license" for your media unless the media you already have is DRM'd.
There is a slightly annoying box that pops up at some point which tells you that you should check your music for legality before ripping it, but that rarely pops up.
Please don't post random bullshit about "why WMP sucks." There's already enough FUD out there about it.
Also: Roxio did not license burning tech from Microsoft, it was the other way around. Please make at least a minor attempt to get your facts straight. WMP even says that some portions were licensed from Roxio.
If you find yourself constantly reinstalling Windows, you have problems. An exception can be made in the case of W95/98/SE, but if you have NT, 2k, or XP, you should never have to reinstall unless you start fiddling around with OS core components that you need to stay away from until you've developed an appropriate level of maturity. Understand that if you fiddle with core components in Windows, something WILL crash, and you WILL have to reinstall.
Actually, a verbal agreement is a legally binding one.
You just need witnesses.
This kind of agreement, however, is NOT legally binding, as there's no (legal) signature attached.
(Is there? I haven't even bothered looking at the page)
After reading the idiot post before this, I was happy to see someone who has a clue responding to it.
I find it amazing how many people accuse Windowsupdate of things like these without, apparently, ever bothering to read the damned site.
I live in GA. Apart from brokering military contracts for Lockheed/Martin (AFAIK, they provide more jobs in this state than anyone, excepting the military) , our state's representatives don't really have too much wrong with them.
On the other hand, I see representatives from most other states that I would vote against in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, since I live in GEORGIA, and not in "most other states," I have no control over this.
I'm only responsible for the quality of the legislators in my state, so stop blaming all of these problems on those of us who chose to not vote.
I do, however, agree that petitioning is a good way to get things changed - unfortunately, there is no law stating that the government *MUST* put to a vote anything that is petitioned with XYZ^3 signatures - if that was the case, then all of those criminal marijuana laws would have been repealed by this time.
"The current climate of blood donation will probably to push things to a head. There really is no incentive to give, apart from conscience,"
You just said that the only thing stopping the Biomeds from, essentially, stealing organs is religious conscience.
But you won't give blood because the only "incentive" is conscience and wanting to, oh, I dunno, help the FUCKING KID THAT WAS HIT BY A MAC TRUCK LAST WEEK? You know why the Red Cross wants to know when those 6 months are up? Because there isn't enough god-damned blood to go around to all the people that need it. The kids that are hit by drunk drivers, cancer patients, AIDS patients...
And even the mothers who are in the hospital giving birth, who happen to have an artery rupture. Yes, look at your children and then imagine children somewhere that don't have a mother because your no-good, worthless ass didn't fucking give blood.
The person will then sue the doctor because that person will probably NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE DAMNED MEDICINE.
That, and the medicines you talk about are RARELY distributed and used in mass quantities because *gasp* THEY'D HAVE TO SELL THEM FOR LESS IF THEY MADE MORE.
You aren't helping to "better humanity" by charging out the ass for the cure.
That's like saying Microsoft is "bettering the software industry" by charging more money for its OSes.
Oh, or how about the RIAA is helping to "better music" by helping to set the price of a CD at $20?
I notice that a large majority of the posts concerning this topic are all about "I don't mind if they make money off of me," or "I want to get my money out of it if they're selling these things based off of me."
Why the hell are so few people concerned about the fact that they are *SELLING* all of these "sought-after" medicines to people who CANNOT AFFORD THEM because of all the bullshit treatments they've paid for?
"They would have no incentive" to create these medicines, the article has said, if they couldn't make money off of them. What the fuck is this? Here's an incentive: YOUR FUCKING CHILDREN. Nothing pisses me off like people that say they want to "help humanity" and "fight disease" and then turn around and sell the work they do for shitloads of money, or who start mass-producing this medicine and charging 100-200x the production costs. NOTHING has a higher markup than the Biotech industry, with the possible exception of Nike shoes.
Age Of Empires 2 is like this. Limited resources, to be sure, except for food which you produce in quantity enough to purchase anything else you need.
:-)
If this rehashes another comment, sorry, but I'm not reading through the mass.
Wait, you voted for Bush?
And you don't like corporations sticking their fingers into everything you hold dear?
This is why some people shouldn't be ALLOWED to vote.
This is, I must agree, the best possible solution. The Lever Machines are the single greatest piece of Election technology to date, and most likely in the future.
1) They are IMPOSSIBLE to rig, except from the manufacturing process, and easy to test and confirm their working status.
2) You absolutely cannot vote for multiple candidates.
3) They are completely anonymous.
4) You can easily and immediately correct your votes.
and, most importantly:
5) They are nearly indestructible. Unless you shoot, run over, or drop them from tall buildings, these machines stand up to the test of time. Spare parts are almost never used, except in VERY rare cases. I'd not be surprised to find out that maintenance manuals don't even exist for them.
Point 1:
Most of the land in the Midwest is farmland, reservation land, etc. I personally, as I have stated before, do not wish to live in a shithole. Why are you all so concerned about these workers that you'll destroy the environment and cause so much pollution that it makes life here impossible?
Point 2: Uhh... 2%? That's a blatant lie (No, not on your part). I could walk around Atlanta and find more than 2% of the population out on the street.
Point 3: How does the flood of cheap mexican workers INCREASE the job pool? They don't start businesses. They lower the average working wage. Their children are lazy (But I'll freely admit that the parents work their asses off). The money they earn here isn't cycled through the economic system, they send it back to Mexico. If you don't believe THAT, then you should check out your nearest Western Union on payday.
I don't recall that I said anything about my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.
Would you like to hear about my great-grandfather? The German Immigrant who became a citizen JUST so he could join the US Military, fight overseas AGAINST Germany, and gain a Purple Heart in the process?
As opposed to the majority of them, who simply came here and hid, hoping never to see the country again. That's what the rest of their friends did. They came on a boat like rats, and hid like rats from an exterminator when they arrived.
Some of these people are worthwhile. A teacher at school's husband applied for a green card a year ago. He's getting one. Why? They were persistent. They called the consulate OFTEN. They wrote letters. They talked to the INS. Congressmen. You don't wait until they're throwing you out to call up and say 'Hey, where's my green card?' You do something about it.
Unrestricted immigration? We have an extrememly high unemployment rate. You want it to go up? Do you LIKE having a job? Do you enjoy being able to eat? How about your friends? Your parents? We have immigration laws in this country because, as it is, we have TOO MANY PEOPLE and NOT ENOUGH SPACE. I for one do NOT want to live in the United States of China.
How can you be wrong about anything relating to a piece of literature or art?
Mark Twain expressed it best in the preface to Huck Finn when he said that anyone attempting to analyze his work should and would be drug into the street and shot.
Literature is for one to enjoy AS IT IS; no, that is not quite right... it is for one to enjoy as one THINKS it is. A TRUE author or artist gives his work not to a single viewpoint, but to many seperate ones.
While you may be missing out on the viewpoints of others, why does that matter? Weishaupt's Illuminatus thought of the individual as weak. They valued the mass over the person. They do not now exist. There is a pattern here.
I can vouch for ALL of the people out there that decided not to go to college. And hell, I work at Kroger!
The largest problem with those that go to college is... well, everything, honestly. Why did YOU take up a secondary education? Honestly? That's right... you can admit it...
More Money.
I guarantee that, in a survey of 5,000 college-bound teens, at least 4500 of them will give that same answer. No one goes to a college/university to learn. Why? Because you DON'T.
College, people, is the same trite nonsense that you went through for 12-13 years. Boring, repetitive assignments, subjects which you care nothing about.
"But what about those that go and learn that they enjoy (X)?" The answer to that is simple - those people are the ones that spent their school-lives listening to the teachers and not the books. The same as most of those going into secondary, public school teachers are, at the majority-point, only teaching to make a living. Why? Because most states have severely lacking teaching requirements. Alabama, for instance - a state driver's license and a high-school diploma. That's all.
Everyone had a teacher that 'touched' (for lack of a better word) them in one way or another. I'm willing to bet also that those teachers were not teaching the subjects they WANTED to teach, but instead were teaching "assigned" classes. Language teachers, for instance, do NOT wish to teach Math classes. Yet it happens every day. People who care more about Pythagoras than a theorem. Is it wrong that they care more about a man or a time than an equation? No, of course not. That's what sparked them to become a teacher in the first place. They should teach it. In context.
My first day of college: I walk into class, sit down, and get handed a sheet outlining the "attendance policy." Attendance policy? Is this high-school again? I'm not paying someone $4,000/year to tell me what I can and cannot do. I'm paying them $4,000/year to give me a small slip of paper that says exactly what I knew before I gave you the money. Wow. I can learn.
Gosh. What an experience. I've just paid someone to put me through complete rubbish. What happened to "Come if you want, all I care about is what you know"? THAT is college. THAT is caring. Not giving a student an assignment for the sake of work. You work for the sake of learning, not to have something to do.
I walk into my math class. We are handed a pre-test. I see square roots. This is a college math class. Trig? Naah. Calculus? Nope, not here. Review. Review. Review. Why do I hate math? I've just given you all three reasons. Here's a hint: They start with an "R."
What college was this? I'm not telling you. This could be Harvard. This could be MIT. This could be Cowlick State University. It doesn't matter. All colleges and universities in the "good ol' USA" are the same. If I could go to school in Europe, I would. Gladly. I'd go for a doctorate. Why? You LEARN. You learn what you WANT to learn. I'm going for a B.S., and that's what I'm given.
And if I see one more post from a "College Graduate" that can't write properly, has no communications skills, and who can't spell... I'm going to scream.
I believe it is every seller's responsibility to disclose known nonobvious flaws in their product. When someone is renting something to me (which is a more apt description - you "rent" part of their internet connection), I expect that nonobivous flaws which develop over time will be disclosed to me as well.
It is NOT the ISP's responsibility to inform its customers that it is being blocked, it is the customer's responsibility to request the information.
My problem is with the ISP misrepresenting their product. The blocker is doing exactly what they said they'd do.
The ISP hasn't misrepresented their product. The ISP provides internet service, exactly what it implies. They don't say when you sign up that 'We are not blocked by any censoring software.' The blocking product is supposed to censor offensive, hateful, and/or pornographic content (whether it is appropriate for THEM to decide what content is such is another topic). The blocker says NOTHING about censoring a perfectly clean, well-written, and neutral document such as a resume.
After all, sites such as bellsouth.net, mindspring.com, etc. can be bannned...
And search engines can be banned, as well. Would you like to connect one day to find out that your censoring software has blocked yahoo.com, metacrawler.com, webcrawler.com, excite.com, hotbot.com, ad nauseum?
And what about NEWS sites? cnn.com, msnbc.com, nbc.com, fox.com, nytimes.com, and many other sites have reported on the Clinton 'penisgate' scandal, as well as reports of hate crimes, etc. Cyber Patrol probably blocks many of these sites, actually... I should go check the blocked lists.
I believe it is every seller's responsibility to disclose known nonobvious flaws in their product. When someone is renting something to me (which is a more apt description - you "rent" part of their internet connection), I expect that nonobivous flaws which develop over time will be disclosed to me as well. It is NOT the ISP's responsibility to inform its customers that it is being blocked, it is the customer's responsibility to request the information. My problem is with the ISP misrepresenting their product. The blocker is doing exactly what they said they'd do. The ISP hasn't misrepresented their product. The ISP provides internet service, exactly what it implies. They don't say when you sign up that 'We are not blocked by any censoring software.' The blocking product is supposed to censor offensive, hateful, and/or pornographic content (whether it is appropriate for THEM to decide what content is such is another topic). The blocker says NOTHING about censoring a perfectly clean, well-written, and neutral document such as a resume. After all, sites such as bellsouth.net, mindspring.com, etc. can be bannned... And search engines can be banned, as well. Would you like to connect one day to find out that your censoring software has blocked yahoo.com, metacrawler.com, webcrawler.com, excite.com, hotbot.com, ad nauseum? And what about NEWS sites? cnn.com, msnbc.com, nbc.com, fox.com, nytimes.com, and many other sites have reported on the Clinton 'penisgate' scandal, as well as reports of hate crimes, etc. Cyber Patrol probably blocks many of these sites, actually... I should go check the blocked lists.