"How sad that you were modded "funny" when the very people you're disparaging are those responsible for protecting your right to do so."
Ah, yeah. Tell you what, you send a phalanx of lawyers to deal with the Stalins, Hitlers, and other despots with machinations of world domination and I'll send a Marine division. Then we'll discuss which did a more effective job of defending rights.
"Really people should have the same expectation of privacy in an email as they do with a postcard. None at all. It is clear text."
Except for the fact that you cannot read someone's email as a routine matter of simly handling it, as in a mail carrier. It takes extraordinary effort to access/read someone's email, akin to steaming open an envelope. Ergo, your assertion is wrong.
"Sexual predators might need to be known to the local police and school officials, but not the media."
The pervert's neighbors have a need (right?) to know. What better way to inform *all* ther neighbors than by releaseing the info to the media.
"Politicians' campaign donations need to be known to the media, but are not of special concern to local police."
This is just plain silly in that, if it is known to/published in media, the police will know by default. Besides, who is donating and how much to a politician could well become a police matter if the donor i already under scrutiny for whatever legal matter.
Privacy is one thing, and I am all for it. But a comprehensive privacy policy as the parent post suggests is not the answer.
"It looks like/. readers who don't flag stories as dupes in the firehose are those to whom we should assign blame."
Mea culpa. I read the Firehose summary, knew it seemed familiar, attributed it to memory of stories in the distant past (the threat of internet taxes has been around for years), and then voted the story up as one/.ers would find interesting. I guess the editors took me seriously and posted the story to the front page.
So, flame me as the one with the bloody mouse and guilty look.
Flagrant and obvious abuses of the legal system such as this (and other SLAP suits) should be punishable as a CRIMINAL violation. That would put a stop to the BS.
It never fails: Somebody posts something accurate and insightful (such as the parent), and the fanboyz trot out the mod points (how the hell they get them, I'll never understand) and mod the heretic/dissenter into oblivion.
Firefox DOES get more bloated with each release.
Firefox DOES have a huge memory leak, has had it throughout a number of releases going back at least a couple of years, and the developers choose to do nothing about it in favor of adding more whistles and shiny things.
Configuring Firefox to take advantage of the things that make it superior to IE IS clumsy and archaic, and the reason more "average users" will never adopt it.
I love and use Firefox. I use IE only for must-visit sites that work only with IE. That does not change the fact that Firefox is far from the perfect browser, and denying that fact does not change it.
Clearly a Linux fanboy modded the parent "Flamebait." The post is exactly right and points out precisely why more people do not use Linux--and that includes me.
I would love to get away from Microsoft, but the fact is I cannot do my job (telecommuter) if most of my apps will not run under Linux. And, no, there are not open source alternatives available.
"Can we find something else to get all in a huff about? I'm sure there's another story we can run about how the 2004 election was stolen."
Mod parent "Troll."
The First and Second Amendments are certainly worth getting a "huff" about. And only whiny-ass losers think the only things worth discussing are "Satan Bush" and how he "stole" the 2004 election.
While I applaud the editor for sticking to his values, the reality is that this is how the "consumer magazine" industry works.
I am editor of a mid-size regional magazine. For many years, I fought the advertising department over gratuitous "editorial blow-jobs" for advertisers. Once I realized it was an un-winnable battle, I adopted the strategy of coming up with creative ways to address advertisers-in-content and still provide interesting and valuable information to the readers.
I also adopted a policy of simply not reviewing shoddy products in our gear test report rather than publish negative reviews. While the perception "I've never seen a negative product review in your magazine" is accurate, at least you do not read positive reviews of crappy products.
Magazines, TV programs, and even newspapers that do not "play nice" with advertisers simply do not survive. Although individual reporters and some editors might hold the utopian (and naive) notion that they are journalistically "pure," the reality is that publishers are the CEOs of their publications, and as such are more concerned with the bottom line than with "journalistic integrity." Publication and broadcasting are, after all, for-profit businesses, so profit trumps ideals every time.
I take it a few steps farther and blackhole ALL email from foreign (non-North American) IP blocks. Cuts spam by around 80 percent. Since my company does not have any legitimate overseas contacts, this solution works perfectly.
Student Arrested Over Manuscript
Updated 5:07 PM ET December 23, 2000
MORRISTOWN, N.J. (AP) - A teen-age boy has been arrested and
accused of distributing a manuscript that included passages about
killing faculty and students.
The 17-year-old student at Roxbury High School was charged with
false public alarm. His name was not disclosed.
His parents have said the boy, arrested at his home early Friday,
uses his writing to express his troubles at school.
"He's not a violent person," his mother said Friday during a court
hearing. "His outlet is his writing."
Police said they learned that at least two students had copies of
the manuscript, but would not say how they became aware of it. The
boy's mother said some of the material had been shown to his
guidance counselor.
The writings begin: "I'm a product of today's violence."
Superior Court Judge Salem Ahto said the boy should remain in
juvenile detention pending a psychological evaluation.
%%%
Secret Service accused of threatening free speech
By Associated Press, 2/16/2001 20:48
NEW YORK (AP) The Secret Service has been accused of trampling on the free
speech rights of a college student who wrote a satirical editorial asking
Jesus to ''smite'' President Bush.
The letter was published last week in the Stony Brook Press at the State
University of New York campus in Stony Brook. It was written by Glenn
Given, 22 the paper's managing editor.
Titled ''Editorial: Dear Jesus Christ, King of all Kings, All I ask is
that you smite George W. Bush.'' It also asked Jesus to strike down Bush,
his cabinet and MTV personality Carson Daly.
A faculty member apparently contacted authorities.
Given said two Secret Service agents and a campus police officer showed up
Wednesday to interrogate him.
They had him sign waivers authorizing them to check his medical records,
threatened to charge him with a crime and searched his apartment,
according to a letter of protest sent to the Secret Service by the
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
''The editorial was clearly a form of satire and political hyperbole'' in
response to Bush's well-publicized devotion to Christianity, the letter
said. ''We believe it is inappropriate to harass a journalist, editor,
writer or citizen for exercising his or her right to free speech.''
Running. Hard drive mirrored on a server and three other networked machines--and crucial data backed up to 40mb ram drive.
I'd hate to think that all my critical apps and data depended on an internet connection and computer located gawd-knows-where and not under my direct control.
Anybody who depends solely on web-based anything for *anything* impoerant is a damned fool. Web-based backup, maybe. Keeping email messages on a server *and* downloaded copies on a local machine, definitely. All of your data and/or crucial apps, never.
Until the internet is 100 percent bulletproof, web based apps will never fly, period.
"If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend you pick up the book 'Freakonomics.' "
I have seen this book frequently referenced,Have not read it, but will.
"It tells how superman decimated the KKK in real life."
Decimated? Perhaps in a larger sense, but the KKK is alive, if not "well." I live in the "South," and can tell you that KKK beliefs/worldview are *very* alive and well; perhaps not proliferated in public forum (the odd KKK rally/march notwithstanding), but most certainly in private discourse.
Ingrained ideas (specifically racial hate, which, as previously stated, I believe is instinct/genetic memory) cannot be erased. Behavior (and, to an extent, speech) based thereon can be "regulated" as to place and means, but this only succeeds in driving the ideas and sharing of same underground. Out of sight might be out of mind, but not out of existence.
So, we are back to the original point that infringing speech is wrong, even if it is someone's notion of "hate speech." Leave speech alone, and it will rise or fall on its merits and the perception/reason of the hearer. Regulate behavior, not speech.
There was a time when speech about independence, King George, rights, and taxes to the Crown was considered sedicious and thus "unpopular" in some estimations. Government sought to quash this speech, but, firtunately,did not succeed.
Limiting free speech (and I hate to use this hackneyed phrase) is a "slippery slope." One man's "hate speech" (and I am sure there was a lot of "hate speech" directed at Great Britian in general and the Crown and it minions in particular) is another man's speech of liberty and freedom.
In the U.S., it is now possible to receive a visit from the FBI for saying/writing "I hate [president's name] and hope he dies!" It would not surprise me to witness in my lifetime the same speech-chilling penalty for "I hate [political party name] and hope they all die!"
In the days since the Virginia Tech homicidal maniac attacks, students have been arrested for writing assignments that someone found "disturbing," although no individuals or specific institutions were named.
When you start drawing lines around speech, they inevitably become blurred, usually to the detriment of free people.
"Reason and logic are tools a human can use to understand the world and make proper decisions and effective actions. It will not remove the emotion of hate, but it may change the way people deal with it. An irrational person will blame the failings in their life on another race or religion because it is easy. They will believe the illogical and unsupported accusations of rabble rousers. A rational person will understand with some certainty the real reasons for what happens in their life and will not blame it on a religion or genetic trait of others, but upon their own actions and the way our society is constructed and the limitations of our abilities. Instead of irrationally attacking others to release their emotions, they can understand those emotions and channel them to take real actions to change things for the better. Before this happens, however, they need the mental tools to do so."
Surely you realize the fallacy in this. My sig sums it succinctly: ignorance is curable, stupid is forever. One can educate the ignorant, but instiling reason or the capacity for rational thought in the stupid (inferior) mind is not possible. Sorry, education will not work, nor will coercion.
"The concept behind stopping hate rhetoric is to break that cycle where people form semi-organized self sustaining hate groups. I doubt it would work, but there is some logic to the idea that does capitalize upon human nature, rather than trying to change it."
You acknowledge the fallacy of trying to change human nature (wich I believe is instinct). Yet you reference "capitalizing" on human nature to subvert/redirect actions based thereon. I guess I do not understand. Are you suggesting infringing "hate speech" as a means to derail group-think/mob mentality? Or the sharing/proliferation of ideas?
I am not being sarcastic, I really do not understand what you mean.
"The number of different cultures with a history of violent, irrational beliefs with regard to one another, all living in close proximity is creating a lot of crime and suffering, which is increased by people who use religious and political forums to feed those same beliefs. Personally I'd rather that logic and reasoning were brought back as the cornerstones of both education, and qualification for immigration, but I do understand the difficulty of the problem."
Here is a fact damn few will acknowledge: Interracial prejudice, bigotry, and hatred has existed as long as Man has excisted, and will continue to exist as long as Man exists. The roots probably lie in interspecies or intertribal conflicts predating language. Whatever the reason, hate is a reality, and no amount of education or legislation will ever change that.
Frankly, it is probably better to give hate speech (short of calls for real-world violence) free reign rather than try to stifle it. "Venting" hatred with words relieves pent-up frustration and ameliorates violent propensities. Stifle that release, and sentiments fester then burst as acts of real violence.
Slashdot Mirror
"How sad that you were modded "funny" when the very people you're disparaging are those responsible for protecting your right to do so."
Ah, yeah. Tell you what, you send a phalanx of lawyers to deal with the Stalins, Hitlers, and other despots with machinations of world domination and I'll send a Marine division. Then we'll discuss which did a more effective job of defending rights.
Uh, I dunno where you buy your weapons, but if you paid $20k for an M16, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to discuss with you.
"Really people should have the same expectation of privacy in an email as they do with a postcard. None at all.
It is clear text."
Except for the fact that you cannot read someone's email as a routine matter of simly handling it, as in a mail carrier. It takes extraordinary effort to access/read someone's email, akin to steaming open an envelope. Ergo, your assertion is wrong.
"In a 6th circuit court decision [PDF] today 4th amendment expectation of privacy rights were extended to email."
Finally, we are getting some rights restored/extended rather than taken/curtailed.
Mod parent +5 hilarious!
"Well you don't think they would care about and/or protect our children for free right?"
Assuming that is sarcasm, who *should* pay the costs associated with shielding children from goatse et al?
Bullshit.
"Sexual predators might need to be known to the local police and school officials, but not the media."
The pervert's neighbors have a need (right?) to know. What better way to inform *all* ther neighbors than by releaseing the info to the media.
"Politicians' campaign donations need to be known to the media, but are not of special concern to local police."
This is just plain silly in that, if it is known to/published in media, the police will know by default. Besides, who is donating and how much to a politician could well become a police matter if the donor i already under scrutiny for whatever legal matter.
Privacy is one thing, and I am all for it. But a comprehensive privacy policy as the parent post suggests is not the answer.
"It looks like /. readers who don't flag stories as dupes in the firehose are those to whom we should assign blame."
/.ers would find interesting. I guess the editors took me seriously and posted the story to the front page.
Mea culpa. I read the Firehose summary, knew it seemed familiar, attributed it to memory of stories in the distant past (the threat of internet taxes has been around for years), and then voted the story up as one
So, flame me as the one with the bloody mouse and guilty look.
"Wait a little bit. The other /.ers are still trying to find a way to send a goatse over the phone."
Give the parent a +5 Hilarious. Best laugh I've had in days!
Kudos!
"In what way is property tax not the same as rent?"
It is actually more like extortion money: you pay the government to not steal everything thing you own and/or throw you in prison.
Mods on crack think the parent is "Offtopic." Mod parent up as "Insightful." The comment is 100 percent correct.
Flagrant and obvious abuses of the legal system such as this (and other SLAP suits) should be punishable as a CRIMINAL violation. That would put a stop to the BS.
It never fails: Somebody posts something accurate and insightful (such as the parent), and the fanboyz trot out the mod points (how the hell they get them, I'll never understand) and mod the heretic/dissenter into oblivion.
Firefox DOES get more bloated with each release.
Firefox DOES have a huge memory leak, has had it throughout a number of releases going back at least a couple of years, and the developers choose to do nothing about it in favor of adding more whistles and shiny things.
Configuring Firefox to take advantage of the things that make it superior to IE IS clumsy and archaic, and the reason more "average users" will never adopt it.
I love and use Firefox. I use IE only for must-visit sites that work only with IE. That does not change the fact that Firefox is far from the perfect browser, and denying that fact does not change it.
Clearly a Linux fanboy modded the parent "Flamebait." The post is exactly right and points out precisely why more people do not use Linux--and that includes me.
I would love to get away from Microsoft, but the fact is I cannot do my job (telecommuter) if most of my apps will not run under Linux. And, no, there are not open source alternatives available.
"If you're a good parent, you shouldn't have to resort to abusing them with the examples you provided."
And you have raised to teenage or adulthood how many children?
I know a guy named Vito who will get rid of any kind of body for $500.
"Can we find something else to get all in a huff about? I'm sure there's another story we can run about how the 2004 election was stolen."
Mod parent "Troll."
The First and Second Amendments are certainly worth getting a "huff" about. And only whiny-ass losers think the only things worth discussing are "Satan Bush" and how he "stole" the 2004 election.
While I applaud the editor for sticking to his values, the reality is that this is how the "consumer magazine" industry works.
I am editor of a mid-size regional magazine. For many years, I fought the advertising department over gratuitous "editorial blow-jobs" for advertisers. Once I realized it was an un-winnable battle, I adopted the strategy of coming up with creative ways to address advertisers-in-content and still provide interesting and valuable information to the readers.
I also adopted a policy of simply not reviewing shoddy products in our gear test report rather than publish negative reviews. While the perception "I've never seen a negative product review in your magazine" is accurate, at least you do not read positive reviews of crappy products.
Magazines, TV programs, and even newspapers that do not "play nice" with advertisers simply do not survive. Although individual reporters and some editors might hold the utopian (and naive) notion that they are journalistically "pure," the reality is that publishers are the CEOs of their publications, and as such are more concerned with the bottom line than with "journalistic integrity." Publication and broadcasting are, after all, for-profit businesses, so profit trumps ideals every time.
I take it a few steps farther and blackhole ALL email from foreign (non-North American) IP blocks. Cuts spam by around 80 percent. Since my company does not have any legitimate overseas contacts, this solution works perfectly.
Student Arrested Over Manuscript
Updated 5:07 PM ET December 23, 2000
MORRISTOWN, N.J. (AP) - A teen-age boy has been arrested and
accused of distributing a manuscript that included passages about
killing faculty and students.
The 17-year-old student at Roxbury High School was charged with
false public alarm. His name was not disclosed.
His parents have said the boy, arrested at his home early Friday,
uses his writing to express his troubles at school.
"He's not a violent person," his mother said Friday during a court
hearing. "His outlet is his writing."
Police said they learned that at least two students had copies of
the manuscript, but would not say how they became aware of it. The
boy's mother said some of the material had been shown to his
guidance counselor.
The writings begin: "I'm a product of today's violence."
Superior Court Judge Salem Ahto said the boy should remain in
juvenile detention pending a psychological evaluation.
%%%
Secret Service accused of threatening free speech
By Associated Press, 2/16/2001 20:48
NEW YORK (AP) The Secret Service has been accused of trampling on the free
speech rights of a college student who wrote a satirical editorial asking
Jesus to ''smite'' President Bush.
The letter was published last week in the Stony Brook Press at the State
University of New York campus in Stony Brook. It was written by Glenn
Given, 22 the paper's managing editor.
Titled ''Editorial: Dear Jesus Christ, King of all Kings, All I ask is
that you smite George W. Bush.'' It also asked Jesus to strike down Bush,
his cabinet and MTV personality Carson Daly.
A faculty member apparently contacted authorities.
Given said two Secret Service agents and a campus police officer showed up
Wednesday to interrogate him.
They had him sign waivers authorizing them to check his medical records,
threatened to charge him with a crime and searched his apartment,
according to a letter of protest sent to the Secret Service by the
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
''The editorial was clearly a form of satire and political hyperbole'' in
response to Bush's well-publicized devotion to Christianity, the letter
said. ''We believe it is inappropriate to harass a journalist, editor,
writer or citizen for exercising his or her right to free speech.''
Running. Hard drive mirrored on a server and three other networked machines--and crucial data backed up to 40mb ram drive.
I'd hate to think that all my critical apps and data depended on an internet connection and computer located gawd-knows-where and not under my direct control.
Anybody who depends solely on web-based anything for *anything* impoerant is a damned fool. Web-based backup, maybe. Keeping email messages on a server *and* downloaded copies on a local machine, definitely. All of your data and/or crucial apps, never.
Until the internet is 100 percent bulletproof, web based apps will never fly, period.
"If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend you pick up the book 'Freakonomics.' "
I have seen this book frequently referenced,Have not read it, but will.
"It tells how superman decimated the KKK in real life."
Decimated? Perhaps in a larger sense, but the KKK is alive, if not "well." I live in the "South," and can tell you that KKK beliefs/worldview are *very* alive and well; perhaps not proliferated in public forum (the odd KKK rally/march notwithstanding), but most certainly in private discourse.
Ingrained ideas (specifically racial hate, which, as previously stated, I believe is instinct/genetic memory) cannot be erased. Behavior (and, to an extent, speech) based thereon can be "regulated" as to place and means, but this only succeeds in driving the ideas and sharing of same underground. Out of sight might be out of mind, but not out of existence.
So, we are back to the original point that infringing speech is wrong, even if it is someone's notion of "hate speech." Leave speech alone, and it will rise or fall on its merits and the perception/reason of the hearer. Regulate behavior, not speech.
There was a time when speech about independence, King George, rights, and taxes to the Crown was considered sedicious and thus "unpopular" in some estimations. Government sought to quash this speech, but, firtunately,did not succeed.
Limiting free speech (and I hate to use this hackneyed phrase) is a "slippery slope." One man's "hate speech" (and I am sure there was a lot of "hate speech" directed at Great Britian in general and the Crown and it minions in particular) is another man's speech of liberty and freedom.
In the U.S., it is now possible to receive a visit from the FBI for saying/writing "I hate [president's name] and hope he dies!" It would not surprise me to witness in my lifetime the same speech-chilling penalty for "I hate [political party name] and hope they all die!"
In the days since the Virginia Tech homicidal maniac attacks, students have been arrested for writing assignments that someone found "disturbing," although no individuals or specific institutions were named.
When you start drawing lines around speech, they inevitably become blurred, usually to the detriment of free people.
"Reason and logic are tools a human can use to understand the world and make proper decisions and effective actions. It will not remove the emotion of hate, but it may change the way people deal with it. An irrational person will blame the failings in their life on another race or religion because it is easy. They will believe the illogical and unsupported accusations of rabble rousers. A rational person will understand with some certainty the real reasons for what happens in their life and will not blame it on a religion or genetic trait of others, but upon their own actions and the way our society is constructed and the limitations of our abilities. Instead of irrationally attacking others to release their emotions, they can understand those emotions and channel them to take real actions to change things for the better. Before this happens, however, they need the mental tools to do so."
Surely you realize the fallacy in this. My sig sums it succinctly: ignorance is curable, stupid is forever. One can educate the ignorant, but instiling reason or the capacity for rational thought in the stupid (inferior) mind is not possible. Sorry, education will not work, nor will coercion.
"The concept behind stopping hate rhetoric is to break that cycle where people form semi-organized self sustaining hate groups. I doubt it would work, but there is some logic to the idea that does capitalize upon human nature, rather than trying to change it."
You acknowledge the fallacy of trying to change human nature (wich I believe is instinct). Yet you reference "capitalizing" on human nature to subvert/redirect actions based thereon. I guess I do not understand. Are you suggesting infringing "hate speech" as a means to derail group-think/mob mentality? Or the sharing/proliferation of ideas?
I am not being sarcastic, I really do not understand what you mean.
"The number of different cultures with a history of violent, irrational beliefs with regard to one another, all living in close proximity is creating a lot of crime and suffering, which is increased by people who use religious and political forums to feed those same beliefs. Personally I'd rather that logic and reasoning were brought back as the cornerstones of both education, and qualification for immigration, but I do understand the difficulty of the problem."
Here is a fact damn few will acknowledge: Interracial prejudice, bigotry, and hatred has existed as long as Man has excisted, and will continue to exist as long as Man exists. The roots probably lie in interspecies or intertribal conflicts predating language. Whatever the reason, hate is a reality, and no amount of education or legislation will ever change that.
Frankly, it is probably better to give hate speech (short of calls for real-world violence) free reign rather than try to stifle it. "Venting" hatred with words relieves pent-up frustration and ameliorates violent propensities. Stifle that release, and sentiments fester then burst as acts of real violence.