Tell that to AT&T. I imagine they had something to do with this... if not a majority reason, certainly a hand in the dismissal of Google Voice. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't. I despise AT&T with more venom than a spitting Cobra, so it's easy for me to see their stake in this... and even _if_ it's none of AT&T's business, they are probably squawking about "bandwidth" at the very least, because we've read tons of articles already about capacity problems as the influx of iPhone users on their network is causing a headache for bandwidth as much as customer (lack of) service they are already widely known for.
I am sure Apple isn't completely innocent (I know they aren't), but to let AT&T off the hook on this matter is just letting the bully get away with giving its customers a collective swirly...
I was thinking the same thing (typing on my Logitech Wave)... I would think that before this presentation, most people figured the attack vector YOUR KEYBOARD would be low if not miniscule. This is most likely a disturbing trend we're going to see more of before it's all said and done (and you know what they say, after all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.) I remember they used to attempt keyboard hacks by listening via the internal microphone, as well as using other nefarious spy-like techniques to gather your passwords. No more. No need to flutter in like Tom Cruise and attach a keylogger to the back of a connector.. now you just cause a firmware update. *facepalm* This is going to make all these thrillers seem so pedestrian.:)
I have littlesnitch on my Macs, so in the unlikely event my keyboard is compromised (God forbid), at least I'll have a clue it's trying to squawk out of turn.:) Yes, I realize it's not perfect... but at least I'm performing my due diligence in the face of an unpatched vulnerability.:) *sigh* This is getting silly, to be honest. The KEYBOARD? Really? adjusts tinfoil hat....
And yet Apple STILL doesn't have remote exploits that infect your machine WHILE CONNECTING TO THE PATCH SERVER. *cough* Not all vulnerabilities are created equal. But sarcasm aside... I wonder, tinfoil hat on and all, if this is "desired" behavior? I wouldn't put it past the government to _want_ this sort of ability....
What we really need to do is go back to the basics of fighters that require really good pilots to work... I mean, we have the best trained pilots in the world... so why not adopt the Soviet "quantity not quality" and cut our budgets in half? Trouble is, we've got a Defense Department that still thinks we're fighting a superior adversary and need to "out-tech" them. When the truth is, have enough nukes to scare anyone who isn't crazy, and enough cheap planes to scare those who aren't afraid of the nukes.:)
The difference between us and the USSR is, when the USSR went tango-uniform, no one flinched (except the Russians, and most of Eastern Europe of course.) If we go the way of the Dodo, China's economy will suffer greatly, and all that money they have (a figure was quoted at $800 billion) tied up in our debt will waffle them right back to the Cultural Revolution. China's got a stake in our survival (even if they don't want to admit it), and if we collapse into a balkanized bunch of tiny republics, China will deteriorate right along with us. I mean, it's all speculation anyway... but we see the symbiotic relationship the US and China has. Europe won't be able to take up the slack for all the cheap goods being shoveled out of China... Who needs 35 million tons of tiny American Flags anyway, if the US goes TU?
The F-14 solved one problem (and solved it well)... anti-ship missile defense. They were "fleet defense" in an era where missiles could take out a carrier from miles away. The F-14 was designed to defend against that very thing, and to be a air-superiority fighter in an era of Bears and Fishbeds. (among others). When they became costly to maintain, and the role of the carrier defense model became more about airwing defense than fleet defense (and more importantly multi-role emphasis like the F/A-18), the Tomcat became obsolete. I figure the end of the Cold War signaled the end of the need for such single-role planes that didn't adapt well to changing missions (I mean there was the "bombcat"... probably not all that practical.)
But you're right, they didn't see much action, and the action they did see was as escorts and "bombcats" during Destert Storm, and a few run-ins with some Lybians (who never even saw the F'14s before they were shot out of the sky by the Tomcats.) It was an amazing plane, that if you ask any pilots who flew them, would agree it had no equal and there is nothing like it anymore. (F-14 squadrons that transferred to the F/A-18s had commemorative patches made with the slogan "I drank the Kool-Aid") The end of an era. Anytime, Baby!
Come to think of it, isn't the F-35 a multi-role fighter like the F/A-18? The F-22 is an F-14 style single-role air superiority fighter that is supposed to replace the aging F-15 eagle, but I could be wrong about the Raptor's role in that respect.
Here in America, I think it's more of a State/local issue, with the exception of Interstate Highways (possibly.) I'd rather my state/local governments handle this than the heavy-handed Feds. They're screwing this country up enough... Congress wouldn't get it right and they'd ban sneezing while driving or some such nonsense.:) Most cities around me have a ban on cellphone driving with HEFTY fines for doing it in a school zone. Would it be simpler to just make it a federal ban? Possibly, but considering federal power's already invasive enough... I'd rather their "land grab" of this regulatory nature not succeed.
I think we're in good company on Slashdot, because there's enough of a libertarian tinge to the general commenter/user, if mild in most cases, and I think the consensus is that "more government == bad news". I find that there are at least a few staunchly individualistic commenters who have a personal 'non-libertarian' viewpoint on a (or a few) specific subjects, where the prevailing wisdom would favor a more "liberal" (for lack of a better term) position. Whatever that issue (or issues) may be, it doesn't detract from the overall belief that we are the captains of our own destiny and failure is not necessarily the fault of "the man" or "the system". Granted, "the system" can make things less than ideal, but it's those willing to overcome that who succeed. We, as a collective group, don't do enough to applaud that. We focus on the small, yet vocal, group of people who feel victimized by the prevailing system and/or culture. Consequently, the festering resentment that people who have overcome feel towards those less fortunate tends to surface in the least likely of places. I am not so callous as to say that anything we do to help the less fortunate is somehow an "enabler" of their misfortune and habits, but I do think we can overdo it and institutionalizing it sometimes leads to a self-perpetuating dilemma. And I think there's a reason for that sentiment....
The problem exists when there are organizations that exist solely on the notion that there is no solution to (insert ailment/dilemma here). Those organizations are not going to go gently into that good night, and in spite of us outgrowing past biases and oddly reactionary sentiments, these organizations will continue to fight tooth and nail to keep the wound festering. It's inevitable that whoever gets rich off the misery of others is going to do his damnedest to make sure the dough rolls in in perpetuity.
Perhaps one day we will look back and laugh at the idiocy of the past.:)
Amen. As unpopular as that sentiment is, I feel it needs to be shouted from the rooftops (I'm glad we're adults here in this regard and you were modded as insightful.) Simply saying the offensive word, or laughing about something offensive to someone else does not a hostile workplace make. People have lost sight of the _real_ hostile workplace and used their litigious "victim" sentiments to derail things like free speech and individual responsibility (meaning of course that victims are projecting their faults upon those external factors that should really not affect you when you've become a thinking, rational adult.) Sometimes it's just a word and doesn't reveal a clandestine network of white supremacists who are setting up to undermine civil rights and the peace and happiness of minorities. Everyone is xenophobic and racist to a degree, I don't care what color you are. And no amount of lawsuits, threats to civil liberty, and Al Sharpton speeches will make that go away. Sometimes simply moving on and not being a whiner about it is the best course of action.
Take the Firefighters case from Connecticut. Not enough blacks passed the test... nullify the test and not promote anyone. How is that not discrimination? I guess it would've been if they nullified the results because not enough whites passed. Simply put, the White and Hispanic firefighters were singled out because of their skin color... and no one seems to want to say "yep." *shrug* I'm sure I'll be modded troll or flamebait for this, but I've got karma to burn... and this needs to be said more than anything in the universe. We need to move beyond this petty nonsense and "minorities" need to stop using race as a crutch for their own failures. It's just that simple. The "victim" mentality is getting tiresome and is masking the real injustices by "crying wolf" too many times. Yes, real discrimination and hostile workplaces DO exist, but for every one that does, we have 300000 of them like this which are stupid, over-hyped nonsense that doesn't constitute a "mildly irritating" workplace even if you squint. And, for those who make their millions off the backs of these sorts of hyper-sensitive people, may YOUR millions crush you to a steamy pile of sanctimonious goo. (Al Sharpton, I'm looking at YOU... you prick.)
Well put. While I despise Neo-Nazi ideals, I do not feel their point of view should come under some nebulous "hate crime" anything. (There are already laws on the books to prosecute those who murder/rape/assault someone else... why make it "more wrong" by attaching a "hate crime" penalty too? Stupid... very stupid.) Clearly, there are people who will hate you because you're gay, catholic, muslim, black, fat, thin, asian... whatever, and they always will. Hate crime legislation does nothing to stop them from hating you, but it gives those in power to determine what is free and not free. The trouble with these sorts of "feel good" legislation initiatives is that we (at least in the US) are one or two elections away from electing an altogether nasty character who is bent on crushing opposition and dissent. (The Hate crime legislation makes it easier for him/her to circumvent the 1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights in general). Because we allow this sort of erosion of free speech in the name of "stamping out hate" or "thinking of the children", we are accomplices in the destruction of freedom and personal liberty when someone who doesn't feel the same way decides to tip the tables in favor of the opposite.... Liking someone's opinion and tolerating it because you want the same consideration is not "enabling hate", but protecting individual liberty. The UK government has done nothing to stamp out Neo-Nazism with these cases, in fact, I would be willing to bet that they are providing the opposite effect. But don't tell a bureaucrat that... they'll probably make that illegal too.:)
It's chilling, but I'll be damned if I can make a dent in people's perception of this sort of thing. The "one day the opposition will be in power, do you want them to have power over you like you have over your opposition?" doesn't work. And I can't figure out why.
And the word "pleased" should never occur. It's not the sanctions, punishment, or contempt of court. It's the bloody godlike smugness that should have NO part in court. EMOTION... should be barred at the door. The Law is not about emotion... That's all I'm saying.
Nope. Because I don't fuck up. But thanks for asking. I said it wasn't right... just because I'm correct in that it actually OCCURS underscores the problem. It shouldn't happen to EITHER side. Emotion and justice should be mutually exclusive. However, it isn't and that, my court-familiar friend, is a travesty. It's not hollywood... and judges aren't "stars". Though some think they are. And they don't hide it well at all.
Well, not to feed the trolls Mr. AC, but "deeply concerned" is a judge's way of saying "I'm not happy." Judges shouldn't be "happy" "sad" "pissed" "livid".... get it? Probably not. Reason much?
Now there's something to think about. Having another judge examine the court order of the original judge would get us near to a bias-free zone... so that judges wouldn't feel empowered to lean on either party if the parties did (or appeared to) scoff at a court order regarding procedure, mention of evidence, that sort of thing... Very good insight.:)
It would be nice if the judge could objectively smell bullshit from a mile off, too. But the bigger picture is, of course, the interjection of a sort of godlike dominion over the proceedings. That is something I have an extreme distaste for. I don't know if the order itself is the nonsense we have to put up with when judges think they're our mommies and daddies in black robes, but I suspect these sorts of things are the byproduct of a culture of godlike superiority judges feel when behind the bench (for some reason... not all judges do, but most have a smug air about them that does not belong in a court of law.) There's a difference between enforcing the rules of law and the courts themselves and simply acting like a spoiled child with a gavel.... I know there are judges who do not, but it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bushel.
Like I said, it SHOULDN'T be that way. I'm well aware it _is_ that way. I wasn't born yesterday. And the South hasn't been that way since they allowed black judges. But it exists EVERYWHERE for those who happen to be the opposite color of the man behind the podium... Let's not kid ourselves and resort to blanket statements that apply to the entire justice system....
Imploring the Justice System to uphold its ideals is a solid fact I am not going to keep mum about, so please get used to it....
The problem here is "pissing off" the judge. Why should that be possible? I know the judge is only human after all, but for fuck's sake, now we have to worry the judge "doesn't like you" in a case? Justice indeed.
I am not excusing the professor(s) conduct in this matter, but I am not excusing a judge who should be putting his/her bias in the closet next to the raincoats either. Judges who act with willful contempt for either party (or favor... take the DeCSS case as an example) in a case should be thrown off the bench (preferably from a great distance up...) Bias has no purpose in black robes... Justice is blind.... and it should be a Vulcan.:) The trouble is, this sort of thing is difficult to prove... and even more difficult to get anything done about when you do have evidence... *sigh* I need a beer.:)
Are you kidding? I still own a 1979 Monte Carlo with an 8-track that WORKS. I have only two left... one of them being The Eagles Hotel California.... the other being something I'm not proud of saying...:)
That's where it gets tricky. I don't know how far it can go... and no one has tested it beyond being kicked out of the airport (that I am aware of)... but the TSA has that nebulous "federal" authority that makes them sometimes complete jerkoffs, but I do not know how far their ass-hattery can go if thoroughly pissed about something. I guess I wouldn't put it past them... but in this particular case, I agree it seemed highly unlikely to get that far. My contention is that it probably _can_ get that far... which is where we possibly diverge. *shrug* I certainly hope I'm wrong about that... time will tell, and I'm sure our assumptions will be tested sooner rather than later, as things go with this sort of stuff. If not an exactly the same case, it'd be something else, with perhaps the same circumstances, but a more gloomy TSA disposition at the time.... I've little faith in the post 9/11 hysterics ever returning to normal.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I didn't... but that's another matter altogether.
Tell that to AT&T. I imagine they had something to do with this... if not a majority reason, certainly a hand in the dismissal of Google Voice. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't. I despise AT&T with more venom than a spitting Cobra, so it's easy for me to see their stake in this... and even _if_ it's none of AT&T's business, they are probably squawking about "bandwidth" at the very least, because we've read tons of articles already about capacity problems as the influx of iPhone users on their network is causing a headache for bandwidth as much as customer (lack of) service they are already widely known for.
I am sure Apple isn't completely innocent (I know they aren't), but to let AT&T off the hook on this matter is just letting the bully get away with giving its customers a collective swirly...
I was thinking the same thing (typing on my Logitech Wave)... I would think that before this presentation, most people figured the attack vector YOUR KEYBOARD would be low if not miniscule. This is most likely a disturbing trend we're going to see more of before it's all said and done (and you know what they say, after all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.) I remember they used to attempt keyboard hacks by listening via the internal microphone, as well as using other nefarious spy-like techniques to gather your passwords. No more. No need to flutter in like Tom Cruise and attach a keylogger to the back of a connector.. now you just cause a firmware update. *facepalm* This is going to make all these thrillers seem so pedestrian. :)
:) Yes, I realize it's not perfect... but at least I'm performing my due diligence in the face of an unpatched vulnerability. :) *sigh* This is getting silly, to be honest. The KEYBOARD? Really? adjusts tinfoil hat....
I have littlesnitch on my Macs, so in the unlikely event my keyboard is compromised (God forbid), at least I'll have a clue it's trying to squawk out of turn.
And yet Apple STILL doesn't have remote exploits that infect your machine WHILE CONNECTING TO THE PATCH SERVER. *cough* Not all vulnerabilities are created equal. But sarcasm aside... I wonder, tinfoil hat on and all, if this is "desired" behavior? I wouldn't put it past the government to _want_ this sort of ability....
What we really need to do is go back to the basics of fighters that require really good pilots to work... I mean, we have the best trained pilots in the world... so why not adopt the Soviet "quantity not quality" and cut our budgets in half? Trouble is, we've got a Defense Department that still thinks we're fighting a superior adversary and need to "out-tech" them. When the truth is, have enough nukes to scare anyone who isn't crazy, and enough cheap planes to scare those who aren't afraid of the nukes. :)
Now that's a policy I can get behind.
The difference between us and the USSR is, when the USSR went tango-uniform, no one flinched (except the Russians, and most of Eastern Europe of course.) If we go the way of the Dodo, China's economy will suffer greatly, and all that money they have (a figure was quoted at $800 billion) tied up in our debt will waffle them right back to the Cultural Revolution. China's got a stake in our survival (even if they don't want to admit it), and if we collapse into a balkanized bunch of tiny republics, China will deteriorate right along with us. I mean, it's all speculation anyway... but we see the symbiotic relationship the US and China has. Europe won't be able to take up the slack for all the cheap goods being shoveled out of China... Who needs 35 million tons of tiny American Flags anyway, if the US goes TU?
The F-14 solved one problem (and solved it well)... anti-ship missile defense. They were "fleet defense" in an era where missiles could take out a carrier from miles away. The F-14 was designed to defend against that very thing, and to be a air-superiority fighter in an era of Bears and Fishbeds. (among others). When they became costly to maintain, and the role of the carrier defense model became more about airwing defense than fleet defense (and more importantly multi-role emphasis like the F/A-18), the Tomcat became obsolete. I figure the end of the Cold War signaled the end of the need for such single-role planes that didn't adapt well to changing missions (I mean there was the "bombcat"... probably not all that practical.)
But you're right, they didn't see much action, and the action they did see was as escorts and "bombcats" during Destert Storm, and a few run-ins with some Lybians (who never even saw the F'14s before they were shot out of the sky by the Tomcats.) It was an amazing plane, that if you ask any pilots who flew them, would agree it had no equal and there is nothing like it anymore. (F-14 squadrons that transferred to the F/A-18s had commemorative patches made with the slogan "I drank the Kool-Aid") The end of an era. Anytime, Baby!
Come to think of it, isn't the F-35 a multi-role fighter like the F/A-18? The F-22 is an F-14 style single-role air superiority fighter that is supposed to replace the aging F-15 eagle, but I could be wrong about the Raptor's role in that respect.
Here in America, I think it's more of a State/local issue, with the exception of Interstate Highways (possibly.) I'd rather my state/local governments handle this than the heavy-handed Feds. They're screwing this country up enough... Congress wouldn't get it right and they'd ban sneezing while driving or some such nonsense. :) Most cities around me have a ban on cellphone driving with HEFTY fines for doing it in a school zone. Would it be simpler to just make it a federal ban? Possibly, but considering federal power's already invasive enough... I'd rather their "land grab" of this regulatory nature not succeed.
I think we're in good company on Slashdot, because there's enough of a libertarian tinge to the general commenter/user, if mild in most cases, and I think the consensus is that "more government == bad news". I find that there are at least a few staunchly individualistic commenters who have a personal 'non-libertarian' viewpoint on a (or a few) specific subjects, where the prevailing wisdom would favor a more "liberal" (for lack of a better term) position. Whatever that issue (or issues) may be, it doesn't detract from the overall belief that we are the captains of our own destiny and failure is not necessarily the fault of "the man" or "the system". Granted, "the system" can make things less than ideal, but it's those willing to overcome that who succeed. We, as a collective group, don't do enough to applaud that. We focus on the small, yet vocal, group of people who feel victimized by the prevailing system and/or culture. Consequently, the festering resentment that people who have overcome feel towards those less fortunate tends to surface in the least likely of places. I am not so callous as to say that anything we do to help the less fortunate is somehow an "enabler" of their misfortune and habits, but I do think we can overdo it and institutionalizing it sometimes leads to a self-perpetuating dilemma. And I think there's a reason for that sentiment....
:)
The problem exists when there are organizations that exist solely on the notion that there is no solution to (insert ailment/dilemma here). Those organizations are not going to go gently into that good night, and in spite of us outgrowing past biases and oddly reactionary sentiments, these organizations will continue to fight tooth and nail to keep the wound festering. It's inevitable that whoever gets rich off the misery of others is going to do his damnedest to make sure the dough rolls in in perpetuity.
Perhaps one day we will look back and laugh at the idiocy of the past.
Amen. As unpopular as that sentiment is, I feel it needs to be shouted from the rooftops (I'm glad we're adults here in this regard and you were modded as insightful.) Simply saying the offensive word, or laughing about something offensive to someone else does not a hostile workplace make. People have lost sight of the _real_ hostile workplace and used their litigious "victim" sentiments to derail things like free speech and individual responsibility (meaning of course that victims are projecting their faults upon those external factors that should really not affect you when you've become a thinking, rational adult.) Sometimes it's just a word and doesn't reveal a clandestine network of white supremacists who are setting up to undermine civil rights and the peace and happiness of minorities. Everyone is xenophobic and racist to a degree, I don't care what color you are. And no amount of lawsuits, threats to civil liberty, and Al Sharpton speeches will make that go away. Sometimes simply moving on and not being a whiner about it is the best course of action.
Take the Firefighters case from Connecticut. Not enough blacks passed the test... nullify the test and not promote anyone. How is that not discrimination? I guess it would've been if they nullified the results because not enough whites passed. Simply put, the White and Hispanic firefighters were singled out because of their skin color... and no one seems to want to say "yep." *shrug* I'm sure I'll be modded troll or flamebait for this, but I've got karma to burn... and this needs to be said more than anything in the universe. We need to move beyond this petty nonsense and "minorities" need to stop using race as a crutch for their own failures. It's just that simple. The "victim" mentality is getting tiresome and is masking the real injustices by "crying wolf" too many times. Yes, real discrimination and hostile workplaces DO exist, but for every one that does, we have 300000 of them like this which are stupid, over-hyped nonsense that doesn't constitute a "mildly irritating" workplace even if you squint. And, for those who make their millions off the backs of these sorts of hyper-sensitive people, may YOUR millions crush you to a steamy pile of sanctimonious goo. (Al Sharpton, I'm looking at YOU... you prick.)
Well put. While I despise Neo-Nazi ideals, I do not feel their point of view should come under some nebulous "hate crime" anything. (There are already laws on the books to prosecute those who murder/rape/assault someone else... why make it "more wrong" by attaching a "hate crime" penalty too? Stupid... very stupid.) Clearly, there are people who will hate you because you're gay, catholic, muslim, black, fat, thin, asian... whatever, and they always will. Hate crime legislation does nothing to stop them from hating you, but it gives those in power to determine what is free and not free. The trouble with these sorts of "feel good" legislation initiatives is that we (at least in the US) are one or two elections away from electing an altogether nasty character who is bent on crushing opposition and dissent. (The Hate crime legislation makes it easier for him/her to circumvent the 1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights in general). Because we allow this sort of erosion of free speech in the name of "stamping out hate" or "thinking of the children", we are accomplices in the destruction of freedom and personal liberty when someone who doesn't feel the same way decides to tip the tables in favor of the opposite.... Liking someone's opinion and tolerating it because you want the same consideration is not "enabling hate", but protecting individual liberty. The UK government has done nothing to stamp out Neo-Nazism with these cases, in fact, I would be willing to bet that they are providing the opposite effect. But don't tell a bureaucrat that... they'll probably make that illegal too. :)
It's chilling, but I'll be damned if I can make a dent in people's perception of this sort of thing. The "one day the opposition will be in power, do you want them to have power over you like you have over your opposition?" doesn't work. And I can't figure out why.
And the word "pleased" should never occur. It's not the sanctions, punishment, or contempt of court. It's the bloody godlike smugness that should have NO part in court. EMOTION... should be barred at the door. The Law is not about emotion... That's all I'm saying.
Nope. Because I don't fuck up. But thanks for asking. I said it wasn't right... just because I'm correct in that it actually OCCURS underscores the problem. It shouldn't happen to EITHER side. Emotion and justice should be mutually exclusive. However, it isn't and that, my court-familiar friend, is a travesty. It's not hollywood... and judges aren't "stars". Though some think they are. And they don't hide it well at all.
Well, not to feed the trolls Mr. AC, but "deeply concerned" is a judge's way of saying "I'm not happy." Judges shouldn't be "happy" "sad" "pissed" "livid".... get it? Probably not. Reason much?
Most don't, and most can't... (I blame lawyers) You've spent a lot of time in court, I see....
Now there's something to think about. Having another judge examine the court order of the original judge would get us near to a bias-free zone... so that judges wouldn't feel empowered to lean on either party if the parties did (or appeared to) scoff at a court order regarding procedure, mention of evidence, that sort of thing... Very good insight. :)
It would be nice if the judge could objectively smell bullshit from a mile off, too. But the bigger picture is, of course, the interjection of a sort of godlike dominion over the proceedings. That is something I have an extreme distaste for. I don't know if the order itself is the nonsense we have to put up with when judges think they're our mommies and daddies in black robes, but I suspect these sorts of things are the byproduct of a culture of godlike superiority judges feel when behind the bench (for some reason... not all judges do, but most have a smug air about them that does not belong in a court of law.) There's a difference between enforcing the rules of law and the courts themselves and simply acting like a spoiled child with a gavel.... I know there are judges who do not, but it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bushel.
Like I said, it SHOULDN'T be that way. I'm well aware it _is_ that way. I wasn't born yesterday. And the South hasn't been that way since they allowed black judges. But it exists EVERYWHERE for those who happen to be the opposite color of the man behind the podium... Let's not kid ourselves and resort to blanket statements that apply to the entire justice system....
Imploring the Justice System to uphold its ideals is a solid fact I am not going to keep mum about, so please get used to it....
The problem here is "pissing off" the judge. Why should that be possible? I know the judge is only human after all, but for fuck's sake, now we have to worry the judge "doesn't like you" in a case? Justice indeed.
:) The trouble is, this sort of thing is difficult to prove... and even more difficult to get anything done about when you do have evidence... *sigh* I need a beer. :)
I am not excusing the professor(s) conduct in this matter, but I am not excusing a judge who should be putting his/her bias in the closet next to the raincoats either. Judges who act with willful contempt for either party (or favor... take the DeCSS case as an example) in a case should be thrown off the bench (preferably from a great distance up...) Bias has no purpose in black robes... Justice is blind.... and it should be a Vulcan.
..Ironic that this little propaganda film is the first time the RIAA actually told the truth. :)
"googling something" is a helluva lot less creepy than "binging something" :)
Sheesh, even *I* have my limits. :)
I _wish_ it were that cheesy. No, it's (dramatic pause....) Elvis "Aloha Hawaii"..... *hangs head in shame*
Are you kidding? I still own a 1979 Monte Carlo with an 8-track that WORKS. I have only two left... one of them being The Eagles Hotel California.... the other being something I'm not proud of saying... :)
That's where it gets tricky. I don't know how far it can go... and no one has tested it beyond being kicked out of the airport (that I am aware of)... but the TSA has that nebulous "federal" authority that makes them sometimes complete jerkoffs, but I do not know how far their ass-hattery can go if thoroughly pissed about something. I guess I wouldn't put it past them... but in this particular case, I agree it seemed highly unlikely to get that far. My contention is that it probably _can_ get that far... which is where we possibly diverge. *shrug* I certainly hope I'm wrong about that... time will tell, and I'm sure our assumptions will be tested sooner rather than later, as things go with this sort of stuff. If not an exactly the same case, it'd be something else, with perhaps the same circumstances, but a more gloomy TSA disposition at the time.... I've little faith in the post 9/11 hysterics ever returning to normal.