...a Newsweek columnist wonders: have we lost our common sense when it comes to passenger screening?"
Is this from a member of the same media who seem to feel that President Bush is doing a great job and that the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland of Security are of no threat to the American way of life?
The same media who are holding on to their jobs for dear life instead of acting on their (and our) rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press? The same people who are hiding behind "what the public wants to hear" instead of "what the public needs to know". The truth.
It never ceases to amaze me how much people ignore these things until something inconveniences them. Then all of a sudden "Something MUST be done."
Who'da thunk it, but maybe the no-fly list is actually non-partisan. So much so that people who are used to special priveleges get none and may actually start getting pissed off about it.
Interesting. Very, very interesting. Can't wait to see who gets booted off or detained next.
Seems like a fair trade for lower insurance premiums.
How much are you willing to trade for life, liberty and the pursuit of happines? How big of a blue light special discount are you willing to trade for your privacy and personal information?
What if your life depended it, would you speed? What if every time you turn in the supermarket parking lot you don't use your turning signal, does the discount go away? Have they really thought this through? Have you?
First it was the little forms on the bottom of coupons. Then it was shopper cards. Then hidden little black boxes in cars. Then exposed little black boxes and let us use the info since we were going to anyway. And unconstitutional searches everywhere you bloody go from the movies to the airport.
Why don't we just have a sale. All Americans who are willing to give up ALL of their civil liberties in exchange for no taxes and discounts on everything you buy, please raise your hand. The line for your government implant is to the right (where else would it be?). The rest of you on the left are unpatriotic and can check in your citizenship unless you choose to join those on the right.
Don't you understand that what they are "requesting" today will be "mandatory" tomorrow? All these little chips and digs at our rights are just tests to see how much like sheep they can get us to act like before it's too late.
Call this flamebait, trolling, tin-foil-hat, wearing, whatever you want.
But every day we use a piece of our liberty that NOTHING short of complete and entire revolution can give us back.
So yes. Go ahead. Trade your every movement and purchase on this planet for a discount. And next year when the discount disappears but you still have to report your every move, remember this post and all the others like it that called you a fool.
WTF? Drink your own breastmilk? Can someone explain wtf this is about? I had a kid and I'll be darned if I'd have drunk my own breastmilk. That's just....ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Please elaborate?
I'd probably take my head out of my ass and familiarize myself with the world around me. It's not as if Ted Kennedy is an obscure personality. It's not as though he hasn't been one of the most prominant figures in American politics for the past 42 years. And this happened in Washington D.C. and then again in his home state? How do you excuse that level of ignorance?
Probably wasn't ignorance. Maybe he's just pissed off the wrong person and this is D.C version of being Punk'd.
Senator A: Ted still won't get on board fella's.
Senator B: *giggling like a school girl* Wait 'til he finds out he's on the no-fly list until he rolls over!
How is his advertisement raising awareness any different from a PSA or poster at the DMV asking for the same thing?
The only difference I see is that his life was at stake. Seems to me, that he not only helped himself, but he helped other people get a kidney as well.
Drivers who avoid the most dangerous times -- midnight to 4 a.m. on weekends -- get bigger discounts than those who don't.
Wtf?!
I have worked 2nd shift for the past two years.
2nd shift for me means I don't get off work until midnight. I would penalized, regardless of how well I drive, because of my WORK SCHEDULE?
This is the kind of stuff that turns even the most reasonable poster into a potty-mouthed troll. I shall refrain. I'll also be cancelling my Progressive policy and going with someone else.
From what I have read, nothing Jones has said implied in any way that any legal threats were being made. But it's now being treated as fact on Slashdot that she has, I think the usual "If you hear something repeated enough times you begin to believe it's true" has been combined with a misunderstanding of what Jones wrote.
Taken directly from Jones' site: Today I also had a very unpleasant phone call from a lawyer working with Katie Tarbox, the author of the book. She tried to convince me that I should donate the domain name to them. Somehow this would resolve my problem. OK so not only do I get walked all over, my life invaded by this book, treated badly by the publisher/author who refuse to acknowledge that they've done the wrong thing, but then I get to hand it over to them on a silver plate and I not only have suffered all this aggravation but ultimately have lost the thing that I care about. Exactly HOW does this resolve anything other than give them the thing they want which they have done everything to hijack without any care and consideration for what is right and just?
How do you construe this as Slashdot repeating speculation as fact? She doesn't sound to me like she's speculating here. She sounds very certain. Seems there can be choice to believe or not believe her, but if what she says is truth then Slashdot is spot on, this is pretty black and white with very few gray areas.
OK, so maybe you're right. There were no legal threats. Only illegal ones.
At least teen girls looking for the book and accidentally finding Girls Life Magazine will find a site they can enjoy. And it's not like GLM can't object to more traffic from their demographic. Penguin has washed their hands clean. Not a bad solution.
There's only the small fact that Katie.com is still useless for the original proprietress with no offer of compensation.
What they say: In an effort to avoid an association between the book orignator and website Katie.com, Plume and the author decide to make this change.
What it should say: In an effort to do anything and everything to get the collective Slashdot community off thousands off our asses, we're going to pretend this is our decision and give this lady back her website that we destroyed, even thought it's far too late and she can't possibly use it for anything else now.
Disgusting and shameless and they still haven't admitted any guilt. They are still claiming that this was a blameless accident and they didn't know any better.
Not good enough. I still won't buy one iota of literature from them until they admit guilt and recompense Katie Jones.
Your story about Mr. Nissan reminded me of another about the Biggs Family who was in a...well, big fight with Biggs Supermarket over the name "biggs.com".
They had posted on their site for the longest time that they weren't giving it up, but it seems they have.
Katie J. is in a no-win situation. If she offers to sell the domain or sue for damages, she'll be accused of trying to profit off of Penguin's book, and would likely lose the domain in a trademark dispute to WIPO.
I beg to differ as I hope Katie J's lawyers will.
The argument you have set up is more of a "how much can we guilt her into giving us what we want" than a litigous one. Penguin should not be allowed to present this backhanded sort of argument that basically says: Oh, yeah, if she really doesn't want to make money off the domain name, then she should prove it by simply handing over the domain name to us.
Penguin should have to prove the following.
1. Katie J knew about the book Katie.com before she set up her website. This is not possible because her site came before the book.
2. Katie J tried to make a profit off her site by deliberately using the same name as the book. Again not possible because her site came before the book.
If domain names are property, and Katie J, registered it first, then trademark or no, Katie J is entitled to either payment or to be left alone.
Why can't Penguin just admit that they need the domain and they are simply trying to get around paying her for it by bullying her. They tried the simple letter from a lawyer trick and it failed. Now they need to give up, admit that she has it, they want it and pay the woman for it.
Any five year old who's ever wanted a cookie someone else had can see through this. That's why I doubt a judge will be able to.
....except to WB and Paramount and whatever else big corporation wants to kill off their fan base for some reason.
Both companies above have waged war against their fans regarding websites.
In the case of WB, hundreds of fans had their fansites before Harry Potter was a galleon gleam in their coffers. That still didn't stop WB from sending cease and desist letters to teenie boppers the second they bought the rights for the films.
Just one more example of how corporations have more rights these days than citizens.
Black people have always known that our rights are revokable. It seems to me that only when it starts happening to white people that small things like "civil liberties" get to be a problem.
I expect this post to be marked troll or flamebait at best, but it's truly not meant to be that way. It's just the way I see the world because my husband doesn't even tell me how many times he gets pulled over by the police anymore. It's a routine occurence, not worth notice anymore.
Our church group is decidedly anti-Bush. I think most black folks are, despite the photo-op pics you'll see everywhere. Anyway, we had police officers taping our services now again because our preacher speaks out against the corrupt politics in our city and nation.
There is no need to protest because no one in authority cares and is probably behind it anyway. We simply did the next best thing and got a local cable station to air our services. No more police, they can just set the VCR now.
I see young men get harrassed by the police and their pockets turned out because their skin is dark. I know better than to go to the movies with a large purse or maybe even a purse at all on a crowded weekend day, because no matter how large the white woman's purse in front of me, mine will be the one to be searched.
As far as I can see, white people for too long have thought they were immune from this type of thing. It's probably not even the slashdot crowd. It's be the parents and the grandparents of the slashdot crowd.
I saw a post earlier here that asked, who will begin the revolution? I think it will begin right here.
According to the Stevens Point Journal, '[the] Milwaukee Public Library received 1,235 copies of Whitney Houston's 1991 recording of "The Star-Spangled Banner," 188 copies of Michael Bolton's "Timeless," 375 of "Entertainment Weekly: The Greatest Hits 1971," and 104 copies of Will Smith's "Willennium."' The recording industry obviously wouldn't want to have libraries loaning out music that people might otherwise buy."
Depends on your definition of "people".
I think Whitney Houston's performance of the National Anthem is simply the best from her pre-crack days. I've recently been thinking of gathering together a scrapbook for my mom that includes music from the year I was born: 1971. I am an old school Will Smith fan who found his most recent bit of on-screen nudity, ahem, nice.
Just because something seems pointless to you, doesn't mean it is to everyone else.
Millions of people wouldn't have known what Janet Jackson's left breast looked like.
I only know because I was out of the room during the halftime show, missed it, had no idea what occured, then within hours had various friends of mine with PVR's sending me the files via email
I still don't know what it looks like because I was replenishing the chili dip at the time of the incident. However if I want to know what it looks like, I can because we recorded it on old good old fashioned VHS (or I can just look on the internet, I suppose).
People who may still be interested, will never get to see Janet's left boob again using TIVO, because they blocked or censored the incident after they decided too many people were still fascinated with Janet's Jigglies long after the even was past.
I understand that this was an "accident" and should "never have happened", but until such time as TIVO promises to NEVER edit what I've recorded again AND that they mind their own damned business about what I watch, I consider them no better than spyware and will not be subscribing to their service any time soon.
An aside, but one more thing that is bugging me. After an hour of searching Google and other places, I've been able to find plenty of articles about TIVO and privacy, and even Janet Jackson, but not one about TIVO editing the incident afterward. Interesting. Very, very interesting.
That's a grand total of eight schools in the last nine months that have agreed to become music vendors and pay an RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) tax to avoid lawsuits against their students.
So what they're saying is: We, the all knowing and clairvoyant, RIAA know ahead of time some of your students will be guilty. We can't catch them all, but if you pay in advance, we won't sue you?
I thought organized crime was illegal? How is this any differenct from making sure some "guys" won't come along and burn down your house as long as you pay a "protection fee"?
Slashdot Mirror
...a Newsweek columnist wonders: have we lost our common sense when it comes to passenger screening?"
Is this from a member of the same media who seem to feel that President Bush is doing a great job and that the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland of Security are of no threat to the American way of life?
The same media who are holding on to their jobs for dear life instead of acting on their (and our) rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press? The same people who are hiding behind "what the public wants to hear" instead of "what the public needs to know". The truth.
It never ceases to amaze me how much people ignore these things until something inconveniences them. Then all of a sudden "Something MUST be done."
Who'da thunk it, but maybe the no-fly list is actually non-partisan. So much so that people who are used to special priveleges get none and may actually start getting pissed off about it.
Interesting. Very, very interesting. Can't wait to see who gets booted off or detained next.
Umm.. so don't speed and use your turn signal?
Seems like a fair trade for lower insurance premiums.
How much are you willing to trade for life, liberty and the pursuit of happines? How big of a blue light special discount are you willing to trade for your privacy and personal information?
What if your life depended it, would you speed? What if every time you turn in the supermarket parking lot you don't use your turning signal, does the discount go away? Have they really thought this through? Have you?
First it was the little forms on the bottom of coupons. Then it was shopper cards. Then hidden little black boxes in cars. Then exposed little black boxes and let us use the info since we were going to anyway. And unconstitutional searches everywhere you bloody go from the movies to the airport.
Why don't we just have a sale. All Americans who are willing to give up ALL of their civil liberties in exchange for no taxes and discounts on everything you buy, please raise your hand. The line for your government implant is to the right (where else would it be?). The rest of you on the left are unpatriotic and can check in your citizenship unless you choose to join those on the right.
Don't you understand that what they are "requesting" today will be "mandatory" tomorrow? All these little chips and digs at our rights are just tests to see how much like sheep they can get us to act like before it's too late.
Call this flamebait, trolling, tin-foil-hat, wearing, whatever you want.
But every day we use a piece of our liberty that NOTHING short of complete and entire revolution can give us back.
So yes. Go ahead. Trade your every movement and purchase on this planet for a discount. And next year when the discount disappears but you still have to report your every move, remember this post and all the others like it that called you a fool.
Grabbing Twinkies of the shelf of a grocery is not illegal.
Buying Twinkies yourself and handing them out to whomever you please is legal.
WTF? Drink your own breastmilk? Can someone explain wtf this is about? I had a kid and I'll be darned if I'd have drunk my own breastmilk. That's just....ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Please elaborate?
Mod parent up. People should be persecuted for wearing a tin foil hat.
I'd probably take my head out of my ass and familiarize myself with the world around me. It's not as if Ted Kennedy is an obscure personality. It's not as though he hasn't been one of the most prominant figures in American politics for the past 42 years. And this happened in Washington D.C. and then again in his home state? How do you excuse that level of ignorance?
Probably wasn't ignorance. Maybe he's just pissed off the wrong person and this is D.C version of being Punk'd.
Senator A: Ted still won't get on board fella's.
Senator B: *giggling like a school girl* Wait 'til he finds out he's on the no-fly list until he rolls over!
Senator A: Dude?! You didn't?
Senator B: Totally.
Senator A: Sweet.
How is his advertisement raising awareness any different from a PSA or poster at the DMV asking for the same thing?
The only difference I see is that his life was at stake. Seems to me, that he not only helped himself, but he helped other people get a kidney as well.
I am so glad I'm not the only one. I also listed this as the movie I hate the most! :)
Howard the Duck.
*thinks about oversized duck condoms*
eww *shudder*
Drivers who avoid the most dangerous times -- midnight to 4 a.m. on weekends -- get bigger discounts than those who don't.
Wtf?!
I have worked 2nd shift for the past two years.
2nd shift for me means I don't get off work until midnight. I would penalized, regardless of how well I drive, because of my WORK SCHEDULE?
This is the kind of stuff that turns even the most reasonable poster into a potty-mouthed troll. I shall refrain. I'll also be cancelling my Progressive policy and going with someone else.
From what I have read, nothing Jones has said implied in any way that any legal threats were being made. But it's now being treated as fact on Slashdot that she has, I think the usual "If you hear something repeated enough times you begin to believe it's true" has been combined with a misunderstanding of what Jones wrote.
Taken directly from Jones' site:
Today I also had a very unpleasant phone call from a lawyer working with Katie Tarbox, the author of the book. She tried to convince me that I should donate the domain name to them. Somehow this would resolve my problem. OK so not only do I get walked all over, my life invaded by this book, treated badly by the publisher/author who refuse to acknowledge that they've done the wrong thing, but then I get to hand it over to them on a silver plate and I not only have suffered all this aggravation but ultimately have lost the thing that I care about. Exactly HOW does this resolve anything other than give them the thing they want which they have done everything to hijack without any care and consideration for what is right and just?
How do you construe this as Slashdot repeating speculation as fact? She doesn't sound to me like she's speculating here. She sounds very certain. Seems there can be choice to believe or not believe her, but if what she says is truth then Slashdot is spot on, this is pretty black and white with very few gray areas.
OK, so maybe you're right. There were no legal threats. Only illegal ones.
There's only the small fact that Katie.com is still useless for the original proprietress with no offer of compensation.
Reprehensible.
Their letter is one lie from beginning to end.
What they say:
In an effort to avoid an association between the book orignator and website Katie.com, Plume and the author decide to make this change.
What it should say:
In an effort to do anything and everything to get the collective Slashdot community off thousands off our asses, we're going to pretend this is our decision and give this lady back her website that we destroyed, even thought it's far too late and she can't possibly use it for anything else now.
Disgusting and shameless and they still haven't admitted any guilt. They are still claiming that this was a blameless accident and they didn't know any better.
Not good enough. I still won't buy one iota of literature from them until they admit guilt and recompense Katie Jones.
Last I heard, only Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing, even in high schools.
The only class my mother ever forced me to take was typing. It was the best thing she ever did for me.
Wow.
Your story about Mr. Nissan reminded me of another about the Biggs Family who was in a...well, big fight with Biggs Supermarket over the name "biggs.com".
They had posted on their site for the longest time that they weren't giving it up, but it seems they have.
Thanks a lot! I had just got that bloody song out of my head from the cell phone commercial!
Katie J. is in a no-win situation. If she offers to sell the domain or sue for damages, she'll be accused of trying to profit off of Penguin's book, and would likely lose the domain in a trademark dispute to WIPO.
I beg to differ as I hope Katie J's lawyers will.
The argument you have set up is more of a "how much can we guilt her into giving us what we want" than a litigous one. Penguin should not be allowed to present this backhanded sort of argument that basically says: Oh, yeah, if she really doesn't want to make money off the domain name, then she should prove it by simply handing over the domain name to us.
Penguin should have to prove the following.
1. Katie J knew about the book Katie.com before she set up her website. This is not possible because her site came before the book.
2. Katie J tried to make a profit off her site by deliberately using the same name as the book. Again not possible because her site came before the book.
If domain names are property, and Katie J, registered it first, then trademark or no, Katie J is entitled to either payment or to be left alone.
Why can't Penguin just admit that they need the domain and they are simply trying to get around paying her for it by bullying her. They tried the simple letter from a lawyer trick and it failed. Now they need to give up, admit that she has it, they want it and pay the woman for it.
Any five year old who's ever wanted a cookie someone else had can see through this. That's why I doubt a judge will be able to.
....except to WB and Paramount and whatever else big corporation wants to kill off their fan base for some reason.
Both companies above have waged war against their fans regarding websites.
In the case of WB, hundreds of fans had their fansites before Harry Potter was a galleon gleam in their coffers. That still didn't stop WB from sending cease and desist letters to teenie boppers the second they bought the rights for the films.
Just one more example of how corporations have more rights these days than citizens.
I wonder how many slashdotters are black?
Black people have always known that our rights are revokable. It seems to me that only when it starts happening to white people that small things like "civil liberties" get to be a problem.
I expect this post to be marked troll or flamebait at best, but it's truly not meant to be that way. It's just the way I see the world because my husband doesn't even tell me how many times he gets pulled over by the police anymore. It's a routine occurence, not worth notice anymore.
Our church group is decidedly anti-Bush. I think most black folks are, despite the photo-op pics you'll see everywhere. Anyway, we had police officers taping our services now again because our preacher speaks out against the corrupt politics in our city and nation.
There is no need to protest because no one in authority cares and is probably behind it anyway. We simply did the next best thing and got a local cable station to air our services. No more police, they can just set the VCR now.
I see young men get harrassed by the police and their pockets turned out because their skin is dark. I know better than to go to the movies with a large purse or maybe even a purse at all on a crowded weekend day, because no matter how large the white woman's purse in front of me, mine will be the one to be searched.
As far as I can see, white people for too long have thought they were immune from this type of thing. It's probably not even the slashdot crowd. It's be the parents and the grandparents of the slashdot crowd.
I saw a post earlier here that asked, who will begin the revolution? I think it will begin right here.
WTF? Posts bashing slashdot on slashdot are modded 5, while Posts defending on slashdot on slashdot are ignored? Dude, how fucking lame is that?
If you SG-1 folks need help from the Potter Fans, we've got your back.
According to the Stevens Point Journal, '[the] Milwaukee Public Library received 1,235 copies of Whitney Houston's 1991 recording of "The Star-Spangled Banner," 188 copies of Michael Bolton's "Timeless," 375 of "Entertainment Weekly: The Greatest Hits 1971," and 104 copies of Will Smith's "Willennium."' The recording industry obviously wouldn't want to have libraries loaning out music that people might otherwise buy."
Depends on your definition of "people".
I think Whitney Houston's performance of the National Anthem is simply the best from her pre-crack days. I've recently been thinking of gathering together a scrapbook for my mom that includes music from the year I was born: 1971. I am an old school Will Smith fan who found his most recent bit of on-screen nudity, ahem, nice.
Just because something seems pointless to you, doesn't mean it is to everyone else.
Millions of people wouldn't have known what Janet Jackson's left breast looked like.
I only know because I was out of the room during the halftime show, missed it, had no idea what occured, then within hours had various friends of mine with PVR's sending me the files via email
I still don't know what it looks like because I was replenishing the chili dip at the time of the incident. However if I want to know what it looks like, I can because we recorded it on old good old fashioned VHS (or I can just look on the internet, I suppose).
People who may still be interested, will never get to see Janet's left boob again using TIVO, because they blocked or censored the incident after they decided too many people were still fascinated with Janet's Jigglies long after the even was past.
I understand that this was an "accident" and should "never have happened", but until such time as TIVO promises to NEVER edit what I've recorded again AND that they mind their own damned business about what I watch, I consider them no better than spyware and will not be subscribing to their service any time soon.
An aside, but one more thing that is bugging me. After an hour of searching Google and other places, I've been able to find plenty of articles about TIVO and privacy, and even Janet Jackson, but not one about TIVO editing the incident afterward. Interesting. Very, very interesting.
I always wondered if the people in the movie survived, but Hawking's theory left me with no hope.
I'm so relieved to know there's a chance they survived!
That's a grand total of eight schools in the last nine months that have agreed to become music vendors and pay an RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) tax to avoid lawsuits against their students.
So what they're saying is: We, the all knowing and clairvoyant, RIAA know ahead of time some of your students will be guilty. We can't catch them all, but if you pay in advance, we won't sue you?
I thought organized crime was illegal? How is this any differenct from making sure some "guys" won't come along and burn down your house as long as you pay a "protection fee"?