My problems with Clinton include the fact that there are plenty of people who deeply despise her for a variety of reasons, and she seems to change her opinions based on what gets her votes. Her carpetbagging her way into the Senate via New York was offensive to me, even though I'm not from there, and it would be tough for me to support her over someone else from her party.
I decided to throw my lot in with Obama because of his organizing work in Chicago, where he had to convince different organizations over whom he had no control whatever to work together. I think that is badly needed in the White House now, and I don't see it changing. He seems willing to tell us things that we don't want to hear, but need to hear, and without any stridency or exaggeration.
I'm not saying my reasons are the best or the most rational, but what I've seen of elections over the years, democracy is a muddle most of the time anyway. The good thing is that in the U.S., it has survived incompetence and malfeasance, and I believe it will continue to do so, whether we get Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, or Paul come November.
They're calling you a "foreigner" while they're abroad in your country.
What's wrong with that? Turnabout is fair play. When you're abroad, call them "Ferguson":
"Well, the guide goes with the barbershop, with the billiard-table, with the gasless room, and may be with many another pretty romance of Paris. I expected to have a guide named Henri de Montmorency, or Armand de la Chartreuse, or something that would sound grand in letters to the villagers at home, but to think of a Frenchman by the name of Billfinger! Oh! This is absurd, you know. This will never do. We can't say Billfinger; it is nauseating. Name him over again; what had we better call him? Alexis du Caulaincourt?"
"Alphonse Henri Gustave de Hauteville," I suggested.
"Call him Ferguson," said Dan.
That was practical, unromantic good sense. Without debate, we expunged Billfinger as Billfinger, and called him Ferguson.
What is this thing called "TV" that everyone is talking about? We have this box with a glass front that emits light and noise in a corner of the family room, but I haven't seen anything interesting there in quite a while.
Gusanito means "little worm", or maybe "wormie". I'd have thought that was a name for a trojan download site.
(I'm proud to say I learned this bit of Spanish vocabulary from the label on a bottle of tequila.)
The information on your license can be acquired in places other than in bars. The last time I bought pseudo-ephedrine hydrochloride tablets ("Sudafed"), I had to present ID, and to my surprise, instead of writing info down in a book as had been done before, the clerk scanned the bar code on the back of the license. I am seriously considering taking a Sharpie to that thing.
I like that notion of putting users who experience the same problem into touch with one another. I can see it now -- an angry mob assembled by the frustration-detection software storms the offices in Redmond.
Unfortunately, OpenOffice can't cure everything. The version of OpenOffice that shipped with Debian "Etch" cannot open documents that I created with the OpenOffice version in "Sarge". I haven't had time to research alternatives, but it was not something that made me happy, especially when I discovered it about six months after the upgrade.
That's a good point. I'm not sure where the line is between being a tattletale and being a good citizen. When is someone an accessory to a crime by keeping silent, and when is he being a rat by telling?
I guess another scenario to look at is if you work in a government office and you suspect someone is embezzling, should you be required to report it?
I think this particular bill would be useful in snagging people who aid pornographers but not any danger for a small coffeeshop or an office network administrator. (My reading of the text says it's equally applicable to wired networks, which is not what the/. headline would have you believe.)
If I had mod points, I'd mod your comment "insightful". Somehow, though, I don't think it would work out that way. I expect the feds would seize the evidence and -- given the way things seem to go these days -- all your computer equipment as well.
I may be missing something, but I read the Fine Article, and then I read the Fine Bill, and the two don't jibe.
From TFA:
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.
That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection.
From H.R.3791 SAFE Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House) (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov):
`(a) Duty To Report-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever, while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--
`(A) complete and maintain with current information a registration with the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center, by providing the mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mail address of, and individual point of contact for, such electronic communication service provider or remote computing service provider; and
`(B) make a report of such facts or circumstances to the CyberTipline, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center.
and:
`(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--
`(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
`(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
`(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2).
The way I read it, if someone go to Joe Blow's coffee shop and Joe sees him looking at kiddie p*rn, Joe is obliged to report it, but he doesn't have to look over his patrons' shoulders. And AT&T is not obliged to set up some special wiretapping room or keep logfiles so they can rat people out.
IMHO, if you come across someone committing a serious crime, you have a moral duty to report it, and I think child pornography falls into that kind of crime. The vote (409-2) indicates that most people would agree.
I'm curious about the two congressmen/women who voted against it -- and Declan McCullagh.
Slander is saying harmful, untrue stuff about someone. It may do harm, and when it does, it's just like vandalism, only harder to clean up. If an AC eggs my house, it's a crime. Why not if he eggs my reputation?
Yeah! And why not if he eggs my feelings? That's hard to clean up, too!
I'm not sure of the point of your jest. Your reputation is presumably an asset that you can use to earn a living. For example, a potential employer could turn you down for a job because he believes some lie told about you. Or, you may have such an excellent reputation that people pay extra for something because you are associated with it, only some jerk has spread lies about you and now the stuff is discounted.
Your feelings, on the other hand, are pretty much worthless to everyone except you. No one will pay more money for something because you feel good, or less because you feel bad, unless you manage to collect damages for pain and suffering. Or maybe you're some kind of artist who can't perform anymore because someone hurt your feelings -- then you've got some damages to work with.
I guess the bottom line is that I believe Cowboy Neil or Google should protect your anonymity if you post some lie as an AC and hurt my feelings, but not if you damage my reputation (or ruin my karma). And if the bad thing is true, then it's not slander, and the question is moot.
Giving up anyones address/identity if some authority asks for it, without going through appropriate legal channels, doesn't sound good to me.
Maybe you misread TFA. Google and the plaintiffs agreed in court to give the blogger the opportunity to present his side of the case anonymously. He didn't respond, and so they gave him up for the plaintiff to defend his reputation.
Slander is saying harmful, untrue stuff about someone. It may do harm, and when it does, it's just like vandalism, only harder to clean up. If an AC eggs my house, it's a crime. Why not if he eggs my reputation?
It seems to me that "Don't allow others to use the tools you provide to do evil" fits will with "Do no evil".
why the evidence presented was not questioned as to its scientific veracity?
From what I remember of my jury service on a criminal trial a decade ago, the judge was very specific that we were supposed to consider only the evidence presented in the courtroom, and not to make decisions about whether the evidence was flawed. And I'll have to say that in the matter of the metallurgical analyses in the Post article, I'd have had to take it on faith that the FBI expert was telling the truth, because I didn't know the first thing about the variations in metallurgy that occur when mass-producing bullets.
The thing I took away from the article is that a jury shouldn't convict anyone on the basis of one thing, particularly when it's in a subject area one knows nothing about.
... here is my free, layperson's advice (worth what it cost you). That language looks very enforceable to me. I wouldn't sign it without having my attorney review it with me. There is nothing wrong with approaching your employer with a list of changes that you want in the contract, or even asking additional compensation because of these restrictive clauses. When I came across some similar language in an employment agreement that would give my employer ownership of stuff I might write that had absolutely nothing to do with the industry I'm in. I spoke with them and got them to exclude the subject area in question.
Questions I have about the language you have in there include:
What if they terminate you without cause (e.g., layoff)? I would want that covered, perhaps by a guarantee of six months' salary in the event of termination of any kind.
Where is the additional compensation? My understanding of contracts is that they involve an exchange of value. They hired you for a salary of X, without these restrictions, and now they want to continue paying you X and add these restrictions?
If you think they will fire you for not signing it, get your resume together and start looking for a job. But whatever you do, spend a hundred bucks talking with a lawyer.
I got a real good lesson on capacitors when I was in high school. I had a pocket-sized electronic flash that ran on an odd battery size. On one occasion, the thing didn't seem to charging the capacitor the way it should, and I decided that I needed to improve the connection to the battery. I disassembled the unit and inadvertently touched the contacts for its (thankfully small) capacitor.
Zap! I dropped the flash.
Thinking I had fully discharged the capacitor, I picked the flash guts up and started to bend the battery contact.
Zap!
Shaking, I used a screwdriver to short the contacts used to trigger the flash, thereby fully discharging the capacitor. Then I gingerly fixed the battery contact and reassembled the unit more carefully than anything else I have worked on in my life.
Oh, I just read this one. They've been to Cuba, a state sponsor of terror. No wonder they're on the list. Never mind that I hear Cuban cigars are perfectly legal in Canada.
TFA makes passing reference to their being convicted:
To be criminally rehabilitated, they would have to do a huge amount of paperwork and state that they were no longer going to commit the "crimes" they were convicted of.
It looks like these ladies like being arrested, and I think the convictions are coming by default when they just pay the fine. It doesn't sound like they've done anything particularly dangerous.
I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation up the bureaucratic tree finds that it was deliberate retaliation from the Bush administration, and I'd like to see what the muckraking press turns up.
Right. FISA is lawful and arguably consitutional. The big question is how much Comcast charges for illegal wiretaps. (Maybe that's why Bush has been circumventing FISA, to save money!)
Slashdot Mirror
To all who posted:
If you haven't written your congressmen/women, then do it now. Kvetching about it on /. may be fun venting, but it's not going to change anything.
My problems with Clinton include the fact that there are plenty of people who deeply despise her for a variety of reasons, and she seems to change her opinions based on what gets her votes. Her carpetbagging her way into the Senate via New York was offensive to me, even though I'm not from there, and it would be tough for me to support her over someone else from her party.
I decided to throw my lot in with Obama because of his organizing work in Chicago, where he had to convince different organizations over whom he had no control whatever to work together. I think that is badly needed in the White House now, and I don't see it changing. He seems willing to tell us things that we don't want to hear, but need to hear, and without any stridency or exaggeration.
I'm not saying my reasons are the best or the most rational, but what I've seen of elections over the years, democracy is a muddle most of the time anyway. The good thing is that in the U.S., it has survived incompetence and malfeasance, and I believe it will continue to do so, whether we get Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, or Paul come November.
What is this thing called "TV" that everyone is talking about? We have this box with a glass front that emits light and noise in a corner of the family room, but I haven't seen anything interesting there in quite a while.
Gusanito means "little worm", or maybe "wormie". I'd have thought that was a name for a trojan download site. (I'm proud to say I learned this bit of Spanish vocabulary from the label on a bottle of tequila.)
The information on your license can be acquired in places other than in bars. The last time I bought pseudo-ephedrine hydrochloride tablets ("Sudafed"), I had to present ID, and to my surprise, instead of writing info down in a book as had been done before, the clerk scanned the bar code on the back of the license. I am seriously considering taking a Sharpie to that thing.
I like that notion of putting users who experience the same problem into touch with one another. I can see it now -- an angry mob assembled by the frustration-detection software storms the offices in Redmond.
Unfortunately, OpenOffice can't cure everything. The version of OpenOffice that shipped with Debian "Etch" cannot open documents that I created with the OpenOffice version in "Sarge". I haven't had time to research alternatives, but it was not something that made me happy, especially when I discovered it about six months after the upgrade.
I was just wondering if they were still paying rent on that thing. The article leaves the matter open to question.
I guess another scenario to look at is if you work in a government office and you suspect someone is embezzling, should you be required to report it?
I think this particular bill would be useful in snagging people who aid pornographers but not any danger for a small coffeeshop or an office network administrator. (My reading of the text says it's equally applicable to wired networks, which is not what the /. headline would have you believe.)
If I had mod points, I'd mod your comment "insightful". Somehow, though, I don't think it would work out that way. I expect the feds would seize the evidence and -- given the way things seem to go these days -- all your computer equipment as well.
I may be missing something, but I read the Fine Article, and then I read the Fine Bill, and the two don't jibe.
From TFA:
From H.R.3791 SAFE Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House) (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov): and:The way I read it, if someone go to Joe Blow's coffee shop and Joe sees him looking at kiddie p*rn, Joe is obliged to report it, but he doesn't have to look over his patrons' shoulders. And AT&T is not obliged to set up some special wiretapping room or keep logfiles so they can rat people out.
IMHO, if you come across someone committing a serious crime, you have a moral duty to report it, and I think child pornography falls into that kind of crime. The vote (409-2) indicates that most people would agree.
I'm curious about the two congressmen/women who voted against it -- and Declan McCullagh.
My daughter's deceased hamster outscored me on a memory test, and that was after the little beast had been dead for a year.
I'm not sure of the point of your jest. Your reputation is presumably an asset that you can use to earn a living. For example, a potential employer could turn you down for a job because he believes some lie told about you. Or, you may have such an excellent reputation that people pay extra for something because you are associated with it, only some jerk has spread lies about you and now the stuff is discounted.
Your feelings, on the other hand, are pretty much worthless to everyone except you. No one will pay more money for something because you feel good, or less because you feel bad, unless you manage to collect damages for pain and suffering. Or maybe you're some kind of artist who can't perform anymore because someone hurt your feelings -- then you've got some damages to work with.
I guess the bottom line is that I believe Cowboy Neil or Google should protect your anonymity if you post some lie as an AC and hurt my feelings, but not if you damage my reputation (or ruin my karma). And if the bad thing is true, then it's not slander, and the question is moot.
Maybe you misread TFA. Google and the plaintiffs agreed in court to give the blogger the opportunity to present his side of the case anonymously. He didn't respond, and so they gave him up for the plaintiff to defend his reputation.
Slander is saying harmful, untrue stuff about someone. It may do harm, and when it does, it's just like vandalism, only harder to clean up. If an AC eggs my house, it's a crime. Why not if he eggs my reputation?
It seems to me that "Don't allow others to use the tools you provide to do evil" fits will with "Do no evil".
... data center cools you.
I concur. I'm moving mine farther away.
From what I remember of my jury service on a criminal trial a decade ago, the judge was very specific that we were supposed to consider only the evidence presented in the courtroom, and not to make decisions about whether the evidence was flawed. And I'll have to say that in the matter of the metallurgical analyses in the Post article, I'd have had to take it on faith that the FBI expert was telling the truth, because I didn't know the first thing about the variations in metallurgy that occur when mass-producing bullets.
The thing I took away from the article is that a jury shouldn't convict anyone on the basis of one thing, particularly when it's in a subject area one knows nothing about.
Questions I have about the language you have in there include:
If you think they will fire you for not signing it, get your resume together and start looking for a job. But whatever you do, spend a hundred bucks talking with a lawyer.
I got a real good lesson on capacitors when I was in high school. I had a pocket-sized electronic flash that ran on an odd battery size. On one occasion, the thing didn't seem to charging the capacitor the way it should, and I decided that I needed to improve the connection to the battery. I disassembled the unit and inadvertently touched the contacts for its (thankfully small) capacitor.
Zap! I dropped the flash.
Thinking I had fully discharged the capacitor, I picked the flash guts up and started to bend the battery contact.
Zap!
Shaking, I used a screwdriver to short the contacts used to trigger the flash, thereby fully discharging the capacitor. Then I gingerly fixed the battery contact and reassembled the unit more carefully than anything else I have worked on in my life.
I don't mess with capacitors anymore.
Oh, I just read this one. They've been to Cuba, a state sponsor of terror. No wonder they're on the list. Never mind that I hear Cuban cigars are perfectly legal in Canada.
It looks like these ladies like being arrested, and I think the convictions are coming by default when they just pay the fine. It doesn't sound like they've done anything particularly dangerous.
I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation up the bureaucratic tree finds that it was deliberate retaliation from the Bush administration, and I'd like to see what the muckraking press turns up.
Just send a hundred bucks to Pat Robertson.
Right. FISA is lawful and arguably consitutional. The big question is how much Comcast charges for illegal wiretaps. (Maybe that's why Bush has been circumventing FISA, to save money!)