My nephew was written a ticket by a police officer for cursing when he ran his knee into the corner of the desk because "using inapporpriate language in school is illegal." They are no longer even pretending that children have any rights in school. The problem that I have with this is that the children then grow up thinking that this is how things are suppose to be, and don't complain when they get their rights taken away as an adult. The schools are there to eductate. I keep hearing paid advertisements on the radio about teaching the children by example as well as what you tell them and make them read. Either the schools think they are magically exempt from this principle, or someone is trying to teach people how to comply.
There are laws about threatening people. Let the police use them. Don't give the school the authority to proscecute criminal behavior based on "policy." If they want to give a kid extra homework for cursing that is one thing, but to give them a ticket?!? To give a kid extra homework for threatening someone life... also not real productive. The schools need to seperate policy from law. Don't give teacher the power to punish for crimes without a trial, and don't give the justice system the power to proscecute for not following policy.
Going into a school is now harder than entering a military base. When I had to enter a military base, they checked my ID and then gave it back. The school takes your ID and refuses to return it as long as you are on campus. When I asked what they were doing with my ID, the lady that was carring it off, told me "not to worry about it", and another one said "they have to have it." When I stated rather loudly that I was making a formal request to know what they were doing with my ID card and my personal information, another teacher pulled me aside and said that they were faxing them to the police station for a criminal background check. I live in one of the few states where it is illegal not to have your ID on you. I am very uncomfortable with they keeping possession of it.
I was told by another teacher that school policy overrulled state law because it was to protect the children. On further questioning, she told me the same applied to the Bill of Rights. My solution was to not go to the school. Now they are trying to pass a law making a request for a parent teacher conference the same as a court supeana, if you don't show up, then you get a $500.00 fine, and a criminal record.
I was told that I had to fill out a notarized statement about residence. Then I was told that I had to use their notary, and that she was only available from 8am - 11am and 2pm-3pm on two days during the middle of the week before school starts. The whole purpose of getting something notarized is to veryify that you are the one that signed it, why does it have to be done in person, and why can't they set it up so that people could do it before or after work, or maybe even during lunch?
When started making calls to the school board I was told the the Principle of the school gets to decide how she wants things done. How is that for a democracy. The schools make up there own rules as they go. When I asked to see this policy in writting, it took two weeks to get an email back. When I asked what law gave them the right to enforce this policy, I was told it was because the school had too many people from out of the district trying to get in the school. They were completely at a loss when I explained that there is a difference between a law or ordinace granting them power, and a reason as to why they want to do it.
The teacher routinely send home letters requesting that the children send money the next day, that have very generic descriptions about what the money is for. They say things like we are having a party and need money for snacks. Then at the bottom ask the kids to also bring a drinks and cookies for the party. They make sure that they tell the kids that if they don't bring the money they don't ge
I personally feel that the "sixth" method is to include detailed instructions on how to do the installation. If step by step instructions are given, then it usually doesn't matter what method. If the computer needs specific pachages, make sure that they are listed and also include step by step instructions if they are not. If the package does not play well with a particular distribution, note it in the instructions instead of leaving someone to spend hours searching knowledge bases and chat room archives that include the helpfull replies that solved a problem in an earlier version, but no version numbers to let you know it is not for the version you have now. Also include details on how to wipe the program and configuration files so you can rerun the install from the beging if things go wrong. It can be a nightmare if you enter a question wrong on the installation, but the program stores your answer instead of asking again if you rerun the install.
I am not sure about Canadian laws and policies, but being punished for that kind of behavior in the US automatically disqualifies you for the type of security clearance that would be needed to do it for a living. It is one of the reasons that most law enforcment computer experts can't handle anything tougher than getting around a windows login password. You have to practice a skill to be good at it, and they are not allowed to practice their skill without a warrent, which means it's not practice.
I have a pretty good idea of how far they can be stretched, but at least when a police officer uses either of those, you are given a chance to argue your case in front of a judge that should at least consider your constitutional and civil rights. In the school system, the person saying that you are guilty of "creating a distraction" is the same person that gets to decide if that policy if fair, the same person that decides if your are guilty, the same person that decides your sentence, and there is not even a pretense that you have any civil rights.
Why should they have authority as to what goes on INSIDE the campus. I personally have a problem with the fact that the school district makes, judges, and enforces their own rules, and claim that the children are not protected by the Bill of Rights until they are 18, and if all that fails tell you it is either policy, or "it's for the children" (I have been told by school employees that protecting the children is grounds to violate any constitutional rights) I know that the schools need to have some authority in order to maintain control, but right now most of what they are doing gets filed under a clause about "preventing distractions to other students" That is how they get most of the uniform and policies reguarding which christian symbols you are allowed to wear and which non-christian symbols that you are not. The school needs to be handed a list of rules that has been approved by a legislative body. Teachers need to be treated like educators first, and police officers if they do try to enforce laws, NOT policies. A police officer is not allowed to make up laws on the fly because he thinks they will distract other citizens.
If someone has made a threat to someone else, then it is verbal assult, it does not matter if you are in school or not, it does not matter if it was over the internet, the phone, or to your face. If someone spreads untrue rumors about you it is libel or slander depending on how it was spread. Our current system treats this as a civil offense not a criminal. Again it does not matter if you are in school or not. They now have police officers in every school to monitor the children. They need an official judge. Not a principle that acts like one, but a legitimate appointed/elected judge that has all powers and responsiblities of any other judge in that district that is deticated to giving children accused of a crime in school a fair trial, then just enforce the laws we already have.
Eliminating the rights of the citizens in order to maintain a proper democracy actually seems like a fairly common theme for the civilized world. I don't know if the US goverment has followed or lead, but it does seem to be in touch with the rest of the world's goverments.
I want to know if the FBI and MPAA represenatives were given extensive training in the difference in laws between the two countries concerning copyright and civil rights before teaching the police force how to properly enforce the laws as they apply.
Very well written post, but you forgot one major detail -- it's a game. I am not saying it is "only" a game, but a game none the less. On top of that, it is a game that has no clear cut way to win. The only purpose of playing a game you can't win, is to have fun playing. If you just jump to the highest level, you are not playing. The closest thing I could think of would be to have the local print shop print you out a Bachlor degree to hang on your wall when you never finished High School. I don't like many online games, because I don't have the time to invest. WoW is a lot easier to get the levels than most other MMORPGs. If you really must be high level without doing the trivial amount of work involved, then just pay someone else to level your character and be done with it, let the rest of us play our charaters, and enjoy watching them grow.
Does anyone else remeber the RIAA hiring a bunch of police officers to conduct raids of street vendors selling CDs. They didn't exactly say wether they were/or were not acting on official police business. Would then have the vendors sign a waiver saying that they voluntarily gave all the suspected materials over to the "security guards" When interviewed after the fact, these people said they were told that these people were the police, and that they thought the contract they signed was a ticket.
I know and am related to several people who work for them....nor do I have any other 'tight ties'
Most people would consider having friends and relations that work for a company as ties to said company. Wether they are "tight" would just be speculation bases on how close these people are to you and how much of a problem it would cause in your life if these people were suddenly unemployed. While the parent post's argument seemed a little far fetched at first for someone who lives in a large city where I have only spoken to three people in my entire neighborhood, yet alone know where any of them work, you have done a admiral job of showing me that people in other parts of the country where a large company employees a large percentage of the workforce, said company can have a substantial influence on the rest of the comminity, and by so doing, have backed up the parent's post quite well.
What about a coffee shop where two people might meat. What about a city park, then it would be the goverments fault.
I agree with everything in your point. I just think that limiting this to the "medium or tools" is one step towards making internet laws and physical laws seperate. What this man did is illegal. It does not matter if he did it over the internet or at the local mall. Anyone that did not have a legal resposibility to prevent this should not be held liable. If it occured at a local club that advertised that they take steps to allow only minors, then they could be held liable. If a website advertises that they verify access to chat rooms to limit it to minors only, they can be held liable. There is no reason to make an acception for "medium".
Law and Honor are two seperate entities. The law states that when two parties agree on a price and completed a transaction, the transaction if final. If Amazon wants to request that these people pay for the intended amount, they are free to do so. Charging someones account without their authorization in not the honorable or legal thing to do. A lot of people feel that they have been screwed over by a legal system that is drastically in favor of corporations. When they have a situation where for once the law is on their side, they will take it. Honor will only take a corportation so far in a world where corporations tell people that EULA that they didn't sign overrides their rights to fair use, where phone companies can send you a notice in your bill telling you that you have agreed to waive your constitutional right to a jury trial. If corporations want to play games with legal loop holes, they should not expect people to let them skirt around the legal system in order to force those people to do the honorable thing.
I can see where practice drills would be a good idea. Threatening people with proscecution, and charging millions of dollars in fees because you weren't ready is probably a bad idea.
The summary does not say there is a "Mac Tax", the title states that there is a "Vista Tax", the summary states that: "Mac users wanting to run Vista on their Macintosh, alongside Mac OS X programs, will have to buy an expensive version of Vista if they want to legally install it on their systems" and clarifies that "alongside Max OS X" is because that is virtualization. The summary as written has not been proven wrong in any way. It might be a misleading because people are reading into it what they want it to say, but it follows the rules of logic for being a correct and factualy statement.
That is like saying that because the police enforce the law, they are the ones that get to dictate what it is. I know that is what happens more than it should in the real world, but that does not make it right or correct. The network does not "own" the network because he has been hired to manage it anymore than your mechanic owns your car because he was hired to fix it. You mechanic might suggest that your particular driving style is causing excessive wear and tear, but he doesn't have the right to enforce it. I still hold to my position that if you are using a network, that network is your under the condition of the contract that you use it under. If they list you have a specific bandwidth, but failed to stipulate in the contract for what services, then having the IT director restricting those services is a change in contract, and the contract needs to be renegotiated. More componies need to get the IT directors input before the network was loaned, leased, or sold, but their failure to do so does not give the IT director supreme authority.
He did not say that he had the right to and no one else did. He said that he could understand that it was a nightmare to administer. I understand that driving a car is very hazardous, I want to continue driving, that does not mean I am telling other people not to drive. Acknowledging that it is difficult to scale does not imply not scaling up, it means that they should find a solution. By saying that he should be allowed to continue using tor, he is making the statement that asking everyone to stop using it is not the best solution.
Why is this someone elses network? It is a network that has been provided for his use. It may not be his exclusive network, but it is his network. Please clarify who you think owns it? The university? As a member of the university staff, wouldn't that make it his? or is it the exclusive network of the IT department of said university. Or maybe it is the sutdents who pay the money for said network. I am getting tired of people using the phrase "not their network" to imply that you have to take whatever is handed you. Can only call who Ma Bell wants because it's not your network, can't do anything about warrentless phone taps because it's not your network. If I have been given use of a network, then the part of the network I have been given use of is mine for the duration of that use. There might be contracts or agreements that stipulate what is or is not allowed, but when they add one sided rules after the agreement has been reached, then "it is not your network" is not an acceptable answer.
Just because you don't need tor to browse the web anonymously, does not make it a valid application for doing just that. I don't need to have firefox installed to access the web, that does not automatically exlude firefox as a legitimate application for doing just that.
Could you please explain what is incorrect about the summary. You have stated the because it is more than just Mac's that are included, that makes the statement that Mac users will have to buy a more expensive version of windows is now incorrect. If someone else says that lemons are yellow, and someone else claims that bannannas are too, lemons are still yellow.
The sumarry might have been too narrowly focused to push a personal viewpoint, however I have found nothing that would classify it as wrong.
ISP use to only provide a conection. Now almost all ISPs, especially broadband, have their own services that they want to provide. Mostly either VOIP or video downloads. To clarify, the DSL providers want to provide streaming video, and the cable providers want to provide VOIP. This has created a turf war. To add to the problem, most local goverments have different laws and regulations for phone companies and cable companies, which each is using to push the other out of their turf. A hypothetical example would be phone companies being required to give 30 days notice to the city to install phone lines on an easment, and the cable company needing a permit. This is compounded by the two fighting over things like, is streaming video over the phone regulated by FCC guidelins for broadcasting or telecomunication. Many companies have already started loosing packets or slowing them down for competitors services. As they fight over these things, they are keeping an eye on sites like google and seeing dollar signs. As they gain more control, and the regulations are straitened out to give them a level playing field, they will start providing more services as well as connections so that they can maintain some monopoly status. Net neutrality is about what the internet will be like in 10 years, not next year.
The EZ-Tag (Toll Road Pass) is exactly what I was thinking about when I read this. I just had a co-worker renue his pass, and now they are permenant widow mount only. When they started the system, they use to give you a shielded bag to put the pass in if you didn't want it read. They have readers on all major highways in town so that they can obtain "traffic flow information" With this, they will no longer need a warrent to search that database, and the database is collected for traffic information not "general survelance" so it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. To top it off, they are making plans to take out the toll booths, so that you must have a pass to use the toll road. Already have one toll road that you must have a pass to use.
I predict that in 20 years, we will all have a "national id" that has GPS built in, and tracks everyones general movement. Thanks, Judge.
Of course we will keep are basic rights to arms, speech, assembly, press... just fill out the form, pass the background check, pay for the license, and then report to your designated "Freedom Camp" where you can be sure to exercise those rights safely.
Will someone from netflicks be bringing it by bike, or will they likely put it on a plane fly it to your city, place it in a mail truck, and drive it to your house? It might have been better for the enviroment to drive to the movies instead. The problem is perspective. If you drive to the movies, then you are causing the carbon emmissions. If it wasn't you driving then it was someone else causing the carbon emmissions. The fact that it would be on your behalf would be irrelevent to most people, because it is outside of the world they have direct interaction with.
Everything we do has an economic and enviromental impact. Everyone looks at direct fuel consumption, becasue that is in their direct realm of knowledge and understanding. That is the problem that most "green" energy sources have. They talk about how much carbon emmission for operation. They don't like to talk about how much fosssil fuel was used to melt and proccess the iron to manufacture it, the cost in petrolem for the people to get to work to build it, the raw petrochemicals used to make the plastic housing. It all adds up. You can not be a functional member in modern society without having a carbon footprint. Using the fact that everyone has a carbon footprint to claim that it is inapproriate to talk about doing something to reduce it, or pointing out that something was probably more wastefull than it needed to be does not elliminate the problem. Most large problems are not sovled by everyone taking care of their share first. Most large problems are solved by ellimiating the most sever case. Then the 2nd most sever case is now the most sever case, and you ellimiate it, until the remaining cases are considered too insignificant to be part of the problem.
The problem is that no where in your reasoning is there a determination that he was likely to do harm. Hypothetically; If there is a group of people that I am worried about, I might be interested to know what they are doing. If I can't afford to hire a PI then I might have to do it myself. If I am worried about the actions of a group I also might be likely to tell jokes at their expense. Those two items together or seperately do not mean I am a threat. It probably send up a flag to investigate, but only if the investigation turns up that there is an actual threat should action be taken. Maybe start with a restraining order instead of an arrest warrent. If he violates the restraining order, then he should be arrested. In the rare cases where it it can be proven that there is a history or pattern that would cause a restraining order not be followed, then a warrent should be issued. The problem is that you are treading very close to thought crimes. You want to put someone in jail because he "followed you" (still a free country to move around), "told jokes" (he has freedom of speech), and "hates your religion" (sound like that is his religious choise and is also protected). Not because it is beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime will be commited.
"Tried to format them for dos 6.22 on three seperate drives in three different machines, "
Most of the old floppies work. All errors were on the same sector in all three drives when using the same disk. All seperate disk had errors on different sectors. I think my chances are pretty good it is the disk themselves not the drives.
Slashdot Mirror
My nephew was written a ticket by a police officer for cursing when he ran his knee into the corner of the desk because "using inapporpriate language in school is illegal." They are no longer even pretending that children have any rights in school. The problem that I have with this is that the children then grow up thinking that this is how things are suppose to be, and don't complain when they get their rights taken away as an adult. The schools are there to eductate. I keep hearing paid advertisements on the radio about teaching the children by example as well as what you tell them and make them read. Either the schools think they are magically exempt from this principle, or someone is trying to teach people how to comply.
... also not real productive. The schools need to seperate policy from law. Don't give teacher the power to punish for crimes without a trial, and don't give the justice system the power to proscecute for not following policy.
There are laws about threatening people. Let the police use them. Don't give the school the authority to proscecute criminal behavior based on "policy." If they want to give a kid extra homework for cursing that is one thing, but to give them a ticket?!? To give a kid extra homework for threatening someone life
Going into a school is now harder than entering a military base. When I had to enter a military base, they checked my ID and then gave it back. The school takes your ID and refuses to return it as long as you are on campus. When I asked what they were doing with my ID, the lady that was carring it off, told me "not to worry about it", and another one said "they have to have it." When I stated rather loudly that I was making a formal request to know what they were doing with my ID card and my personal information, another teacher pulled me aside and said that they were faxing them to the police station for a criminal background check. I live in one of the few states where it is illegal not to have your ID on you. I am very uncomfortable with they keeping possession of it.
I was told by another teacher that school policy overrulled state law because it was to protect the children. On further questioning, she told me the same applied to the Bill of Rights. My solution was to not go to the school. Now they are trying to pass a law making a request for a parent teacher conference the same as a court supeana, if you don't show up, then you get a $500.00 fine, and a criminal record.
I was told that I had to fill out a notarized statement about residence. Then I was told that I had to use their notary, and that she was only available from 8am - 11am and 2pm-3pm on two days during the middle of the week before school starts. The whole purpose of getting something notarized is to veryify that you are the one that signed it, why does it have to be done in person, and why can't they set it up so that people could do it before or after work, or maybe even during lunch?
When started making calls to the school board I was told the the Principle of the school gets to decide how she wants things done. How is that for a democracy. The schools make up there own rules as they go. When I asked to see this policy in writting, it took two weeks to get an email back. When I asked what law gave them the right to enforce this policy, I was told it was because the school had too many people from out of the district trying to get in the school. They were completely at a loss when I explained that there is a difference between a law or ordinace granting them power, and a reason as to why they want to do it.
The teacher routinely send home letters requesting that the children send money the next day, that have very generic descriptions about what the money is for. They say things like we are having a party and need money for snacks. Then at the bottom ask the kids to also bring a drinks and cookies for the party. They make sure that they tell the kids that if they don't bring the money they don't ge
I am more concerned with the fact that he has already spent 3 years in a detention center for a crime that he is yet to be convicted of.
That sounds like you are describing an IQ of exactly 100. An IQ of 100 is by definition the average person.
I personally feel that the "sixth" method is to include detailed instructions on how to do the installation. If step by step instructions are given, then it usually doesn't matter what method. If the computer needs specific pachages, make sure that they are listed and also include step by step instructions if they are not. If the package does not play well with a particular distribution, note it in the instructions instead of leaving someone to spend hours searching knowledge bases and chat room archives that include the helpfull replies that solved a problem in an earlier version, but no version numbers to let you know it is not for the version you have now. Also include details on how to wipe the program and configuration files so you can rerun the install from the beging if things go wrong. It can be a nightmare if you enter a question wrong on the installation, but the program stores your answer instead of asking again if you rerun the install.
I am not sure about Canadian laws and policies, but being punished for that kind of behavior in the US automatically disqualifies you for the type of security clearance that would be needed to do it for a living. It is one of the reasons that most law enforcment computer experts can't handle anything tougher than getting around a windows login password. You have to practice a skill to be good at it, and they are not allowed to practice their skill without a warrent, which means it's not practice.
I have a pretty good idea of how far they can be stretched, but at least when a police officer uses either of those, you are given a chance to argue your case in front of a judge that should at least consider your constitutional and civil rights. In the school system, the person saying that you are guilty of "creating a distraction" is the same person that gets to decide if that policy if fair, the same person that decides if your are guilty, the same person that decides your sentence, and there is not even a pretense that you have any civil rights.
Why should they have authority as to what goes on INSIDE the campus. I personally have a problem with the fact that the school district makes, judges, and enforces their own rules, and claim that the children are not protected by the Bill of Rights until they are 18, and if all that fails tell you it is either policy, or "it's for the children" (I have been told by school employees that protecting the children is grounds to violate any constitutional rights) I know that the schools need to have some authority in order to maintain control, but right now most of what they are doing gets filed under a clause about "preventing distractions to other students" That is how they get most of the uniform and policies reguarding which christian symbols you are allowed to wear and which non-christian symbols that you are not. The school needs to be handed a list of rules that has been approved by a legislative body. Teachers need to be treated like educators first, and police officers if they do try to enforce laws, NOT policies. A police officer is not allowed to make up laws on the fly because he thinks they will distract other citizens.
If someone has made a threat to someone else, then it is verbal assult, it does not matter if you are in school or not, it does not matter if it was over the internet, the phone, or to your face. If someone spreads untrue rumors about you it is libel or slander depending on how it was spread. Our current system treats this as a civil offense not a criminal. Again it does not matter if you are in school or not. They now have police officers in every school to monitor the children. They need an official judge. Not a principle that acts like one, but a legitimate appointed/elected judge that has all powers and responsiblities of any other judge in that district that is deticated to giving children accused of a crime in school a fair trial, then just enforce the laws we already have.
Eliminating the rights of the citizens in order to maintain a proper democracy actually seems like a fairly common theme for the civilized world. I don't know if the US goverment has followed or lead, but it does seem to be in touch with the rest of the world's goverments.
I want to know if the FBI and MPAA represenatives were given extensive training in the difference in laws between the two countries concerning copyright and civil rights before teaching the police force how to properly enforce the laws as they apply.
Very well written post, but you forgot one major detail -- it's a game. I am not saying it is "only" a game, but a game none the less. On top of that, it is a game that has no clear cut way to win. The only purpose of playing a game you can't win, is to have fun playing. If you just jump to the highest level, you are not playing. The closest thing I could think of would be to have the local print shop print you out a Bachlor degree to hang on your wall when you never finished High School. I don't like many online games, because I don't have the time to invest. WoW is a lot easier to get the levels than most other MMORPGs. If you really must be high level without doing the trivial amount of work involved, then just pay someone else to level your character and be done with it, let the rest of us play our charaters, and enjoy watching them grow.
Does anyone else remeber the RIAA hiring a bunch of police officers to conduct raids of street vendors selling CDs. They didn't exactly say wether they were/or were not acting on official police business. Would then have the vendors sign a waiver saying that they voluntarily gave all the suspected materials over to the "security guards" When interviewed after the fact, these people said they were told that these people were the police, and that they thought the contract they signed was a ticket.
I know and am related to several people who work for them....nor do I have any other 'tight ties'
Most people would consider having friends and relations that work for a company as ties to said company. Wether they are "tight" would just be speculation bases on how close these people are to you and how much of a problem it would cause in your life if these people were suddenly unemployed. While the parent post's argument seemed a little far fetched at first for someone who lives in a large city where I have only spoken to three people in my entire neighborhood, yet alone know where any of them work, you have done a admiral job of showing me that people in other parts of the country where a large company employees a large percentage of the workforce, said company can have a substantial influence on the rest of the comminity, and by so doing, have backed up the parent's post quite well.
Thank you for the enlightenment.
I'm dead again,
"So the the fifth quintuplet suddenly appears to take his brothers place"
What about a coffee shop where two people might meat. What about a city park, then it would be the goverments fault.
I agree with everything in your point. I just think that limiting this to the "medium or tools" is one step towards making internet laws and physical laws seperate. What this man did is illegal. It does not matter if he did it over the internet or at the local mall. Anyone that did not have a legal resposibility to prevent this should not be held liable. If it occured at a local club that advertised that they take steps to allow only minors, then they could be held liable. If a website advertises that they verify access to chat rooms to limit it to minors only, they can be held liable. There is no reason to make an acception for "medium".
Law and Honor are two seperate entities. The law states that when two parties agree on a price and completed a transaction, the transaction if final. If Amazon wants to request that these people pay for the intended amount, they are free to do so. Charging someones account without their authorization in not the honorable or legal thing to do. A lot of people feel that they have been screwed over by a legal system that is drastically in favor of corporations. When they have a situation where for once the law is on their side, they will take it. Honor will only take a corportation so far in a world where corporations tell people that EULA that they didn't sign overrides their rights to fair use, where phone companies can send you a notice in your bill telling you that you have agreed to waive your constitutional right to a jury trial. If corporations want to play games with legal loop holes, they should not expect people to let them skirt around the legal system in order to force those people to do the honorable thing.
I can see where practice drills would be a good idea. Threatening people with proscecution, and charging millions of dollars in fees because you weren't ready is probably a bad idea.
The summary does not say there is a "Mac Tax", the title states that there is a "Vista Tax", the summary states that: "Mac users wanting to run Vista on their Macintosh, alongside Mac OS X programs, will have to buy an expensive version of Vista if they want to legally install it on their systems" and clarifies that "alongside Max OS X" is because that is virtualization. The summary as written has not been proven wrong in any way. It might be a misleading because people are reading into it what they want it to say, but it follows the rules of logic for being a correct and factualy statement.
That is like saying that because the police enforce the law, they are the ones that get to dictate what it is. I know that is what happens more than it should in the real world, but that does not make it right or correct. The network does not "own" the network because he has been hired to manage it anymore than your mechanic owns your car because he was hired to fix it. You mechanic might suggest that your particular driving style is causing excessive wear and tear, but he doesn't have the right to enforce it. I still hold to my position that if you are using a network, that network is your under the condition of the contract that you use it under. If they list you have a specific bandwidth, but failed to stipulate in the contract for what services, then having the IT director restricting those services is a change in contract, and the contract needs to be renegotiated. More componies need to get the IT directors input before the network was loaned, leased, or sold, but their failure to do so does not give the IT director supreme authority.
He did not say that he had the right to and no one else did. He said that he could understand that it was a nightmare to administer. I understand that driving a car is very hazardous, I want to continue driving, that does not mean I am telling other people not to drive. Acknowledging that it is difficult to scale does not imply not scaling up, it means that they should find a solution. By saying that he should be allowed to continue using tor, he is making the statement that asking everyone to stop using it is not the best solution.
Why is this someone elses network? It is a network that has been provided for his use. It may not be his exclusive network, but it is his network. Please clarify who you think owns it? The university? As a member of the university staff, wouldn't that make it his? or is it the exclusive network of the IT department of said university. Or maybe it is the sutdents who pay the money for said network. I am getting tired of people using the phrase "not their network" to imply that you have to take whatever is handed you. Can only call who Ma Bell wants because it's not your network, can't do anything about warrentless phone taps because it's not your network. If I have been given use of a network, then the part of the network I have been given use of is mine for the duration of that use. There might be contracts or agreements that stipulate what is or is not allowed, but when they add one sided rules after the agreement has been reached, then "it is not your network" is not an acceptable answer.
Just because you don't need tor to browse the web anonymously, does not make it a valid application for doing just that. I don't need to have firefox installed to access the web, that does not automatically exlude firefox as a legitimate application for doing just that.
Could you please explain what is incorrect about the summary. You have stated the because it is more than just Mac's that are included, that makes the statement that Mac users will have to buy a more expensive version of windows is now incorrect. If someone else says that lemons are yellow, and someone else claims that bannannas are too, lemons are still yellow.
The sumarry might have been too narrowly focused to push a personal viewpoint, however I have found nothing that would classify it as wrong.
ISP use to only provide a conection. Now almost all ISPs, especially broadband, have their own services that they want to provide. Mostly either VOIP or video downloads. To clarify, the DSL providers want to provide streaming video, and the cable providers want to provide VOIP. This has created a turf war. To add to the problem, most local goverments have different laws and regulations for phone companies and cable companies, which each is using to push the other out of their turf. A hypothetical example would be phone companies being required to give 30 days notice to the city to install phone lines on an easment, and the cable company needing a permit. This is compounded by the two fighting over things like, is streaming video over the phone regulated by FCC guidelins for broadcasting or telecomunication. Many companies have already started loosing packets or slowing them down for competitors services. As they fight over these things, they are keeping an eye on sites like google and seeing dollar signs. As they gain more control, and the regulations are straitened out to give them a level playing field, they will start providing more services as well as connections so that they can maintain some monopoly status. Net neutrality is about what the internet will be like in 10 years, not next year.
The EZ-Tag (Toll Road Pass) is exactly what I was thinking about when I read this. I just had a co-worker renue his pass, and now they are permenant widow mount only. When they started the system, they use to give you a shielded bag to put the pass in if you didn't want it read. They have readers on all major highways in town so that they can obtain "traffic flow information" With this, they will no longer need a warrent to search that database, and the database is collected for traffic information not "general survelance" so it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. To top it off, they are making plans to take out the toll booths, so that you must have a pass to use the toll road. Already have one toll road that you must have a pass to use.
... just fill out the form, pass the background check, pay for the license, and then report to your designated "Freedom Camp" where you can be sure to exercise those rights safely.
I predict that in 20 years, we will all have a "national id" that has GPS built in, and tracks everyones general movement. Thanks, Judge.
Of course we will keep are basic rights to arms, speech, assembly, press
Will someone from netflicks be bringing it by bike, or will they likely put it on a plane fly it to your city, place it in a mail truck, and drive it to your house? It might have been better for the enviroment to drive to the movies instead. The problem is perspective. If you drive to the movies, then you are causing the carbon emmissions. If it wasn't you driving then it was someone else causing the carbon emmissions. The fact that it would be on your behalf would be irrelevent to most people, because it is outside of the world they have direct interaction with.
Everything we do has an economic and enviromental impact. Everyone looks at direct fuel consumption, becasue that is in their direct realm of knowledge and understanding. That is the problem that most "green" energy sources have. They talk about how much carbon emmission for operation. They don't like to talk about how much fosssil fuel was used to melt and proccess the iron to manufacture it, the cost in petrolem for the people to get to work to build it, the raw petrochemicals used to make the plastic housing. It all adds up. You can not be a functional member in modern society without having a carbon footprint. Using the fact that everyone has a carbon footprint to claim that it is inapproriate to talk about doing something to reduce it, or pointing out that something was probably more wastefull than it needed to be does not elliminate the problem. Most large problems are not sovled by everyone taking care of their share first. Most large problems are solved by ellimiating the most sever case. Then the 2nd most sever case is now the most sever case, and you ellimiate it, until the remaining cases are considered too insignificant to be part of the problem.
The problem is that no where in your reasoning is there a determination that he was likely to do harm. Hypothetically; If there is a group of people that I am worried about, I might be interested to know what they are doing. If I can't afford to hire a PI then I might have to do it myself. If I am worried about the actions of a group I also might be likely to tell jokes at their expense. Those two items together or seperately do not mean I am a threat. It probably send up a flag to investigate, but only if the investigation turns up that there is an actual threat should action be taken. Maybe start with a restraining order instead of an arrest warrent. If he violates the restraining order, then he should be arrested. In the rare cases where it it can be proven that there is a history or pattern that would cause a restraining order not be followed, then a warrent should be issued. The problem is that you are treading very close to thought crimes. You want to put someone in jail because he "followed you" (still a free country to move around), "told jokes" (he has freedom of speech), and "hates your religion" (sound like that is his religious choise and is also protected). Not because it is beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime will be commited.
and that possibility is why I
"Tried to format them for dos 6.22 on three seperate drives in three different machines, "
Most of the old floppies work. All errors were on the same sector in all three drives when using the same disk. All seperate disk had errors on different sectors. I think my chances are pretty good it is the disk themselves not the drives.