You've outlined the best way to fight those groups, too. All they're after is money, so when it becomes unprofitable they will leave. When their little pay boxes start getting filled with gasoline and set on fire, for instance. Or when their agents start getting killed. They are slugs who are in the business simply because it's easy money, so when it quits being easy they'll quit going after it.
I would assume he's pretty anal about his personal security; political wingnuts usually are.
That's part of what makes this man so dangerous. He's such a fringe character with such extremist views, he doesn't have anywhere else to go politically. He probably doesn't even want to advance that way. He is in a position where he can surround himself with extremely loyal yes-men and function with little oversight.
It's typical small-town-sheriff garbage, except for this guy has amassed a lot more power than the typical southern headcase. If he ever does retire he'll probably write some kind of self-serving fluff piece, blaming his sadism on Mexicans and pot heads and justifying it in any under-handed manner his ghost writer can dream up. Oh, wait! He already did. http://www.amazon.com/Joes-Law-Immigration-Everything-Threatens/dp/0814401996/
Here in Memphis the feds (under that notorious civil liberties champion John Ashcroft) took control of our jails after reported civil rights violations. The federal government is the appropriate agency to step in by means of the USDOJ, and should likewise step in on behalf of the people incarcerated under that maniac's supervision. It would disgust me if we treated prisoners of war the way that "law man" has been treating his charges.
Dostoyevsky said that any society can be judged by the way it treats its prisoners. I sure as hell don't want this man standing as a representative of our civilization.
This just in: the military command structure has decided to put ARPANET to use as originally intended a scant 40 years after development!
On a (slightly) more serious note, the rank and file and upper brass have differing views on how their opinions are going to be received by the other side. Of course they do! The higher level officers have always expected their suggestions to be taken seriously and responded to with a prompt, "Yes, sir!" They see no problem here. The grunts have a long history of learning exactly how much their input is both required and appreciated by those men, especially when it comes unsolicited. This is one of those rare situations in the military where both sides' reactions are perfectly understandable and even... rational.
We bounce these guys back to jail for nitpicky violations of parole pretty much exclusively. A 3.38% cumulative recidivism rate for sex offenses is INSANELY low. The odds are probably much better that a slashdotter will commit a sex crime during that same time period.
betterunixthanunix (980855) is willfully spreading misinformation either because he's a massive idiot or because he has some kind of agenda.
"'As I've said before, my concept of a business model has to treat customers like products to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their traditions of controlling everything people see and hear,' Murdoch said. 'Creating fictional news is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply making us look like greedy control freaks who want to rape the hearts and minds of Americans.'"
To business, losing any money is a criminal offense.
To a business, losing money is the ONLY criminal offense.
That's just the way it goes when you have an intersection of tort law and criminal law. These problems, if they're problems at all, should be problems that civil courts handle in an effort to root out damages. It's how things used to be before the DMCA and even though it was far from a perfect system it still made more sense. You can't rape a company. You can't violate a company's civil rights. The only damage you can do to a corporate entity is monetary in nature, and crimes against that company should be measured and prosecuted as such.
He knew it was a demon the moment he saw it. He knew it, just as he knew the place was Hell. There was nothing else that either of them could have been.
[...]
As the demon raised its arm to deliver the first blow, it said, âoeIn time you will remember even this moment with fondness.â
"You are a liar."
"No," said the demon. "The next part," it explained, in the moment it brought down the cat, "is worse."
Then the tines of the cat landed on the manâ(TM)s back with a crack and a hiss, tearing through the expensive clothes, burning and rending and shredding as they struck, and, not for the last time in that place, he screamed.
He's merely offering a service to let you know if you've been the victim of a crime.
Dear Mister Holder,
I have recently come into possession of a list containing the names of hundreds of little girls who have been sexually assaulted after school. For a modest fee of 20 quid, along with your daughter's name and school schedule, our dedicated research staff will promptly deliver results. No uggos please.
I'm sure this is just a prelude to some new agenda to push DRM under a different name. "DRM is dead! But now we have Intellectual Property Protection... Or how about Online Property Protection?"
It was supposed to be funny, an example of the typical paranoid over-reaction of people to things done in the name of child safety (which seems to be the big boogieman that people are worried about concerning unsecured WAPs... Evil evil cp.)
I'm certainly not a believer in the "if it saves one child" mentality, especially in a situation like this where rational people realize that this isn't doing anything to protect anyone at all, certainly not children. By that kind of logic all sorts of evil, stupid things are done by people in power... after all, we could surgically mutilate every child's genitalia, thereby preventing child sexual abuse completely, and then do some reconstructive surgery when they turn 21... a perfect world with no child sexual abuse in it.
Eventually the cost/benefit ratio doesn't pay off for "saving just one single child..."
Although my overblown hyperbole becomes a lot less tongue-in-cheek and a lot more FUCKING SCARY when it needs to be explained.
Don't you know that the evil predators can actually ABDUCT INNOCENT CHILDREN THROUGH UNSECURED WIRELESS? Every time the police shut down an unsecured access point they're literally preventing billions of rapes and murders. The only people who could possibly be against this idea are probably the predators who make torture porn of little girls. God bless these valiant crime fighters who are making the world safe one W.A.P. at a time.
Seems like some kind of pseudo threat to me. What are they implying, that if some criminal uses their open access port to post goat porn to/b/ the home owner is going to be criminally liable? What if you _like_ having an open access port, and don't mind if your elderly neighbors use it occasionally to check their email? Quite frankly it doesn't seem to be the homeowner's job to lock the world down in order to prevent crime, especially crime that can be remedied by pulling a plug, if it ever actually causes the homeowner to lose bandwidth. Come to think about it, it's not the cops job to prevent crime either.
So, who exactly is this benefiting? My guess would be whoever provides ISP service has been hitting up their political puppets... after all, your 60 year old neighbor should get with the times and start paying $100 a month for internet access like all the other good citizens.
A "ban on federal funding for X, Y, and Z" is effectively a ban on X, Y, and Z.
Take abstinence only sex-education for example. I'm not sure what the current situation is, but for a long time schools either taught abstinence only sex ed (no instruction about condom use. No mention of birth control at all, unless it paints the users as morally bankrupt) or they had to stop taking certain funds from the state and federal government. There aren't too many school boards that will vote to turn down money... Even if it hurts the kids.
If you control the purse strings, you control the outcome. Are you surprised people see this as a ban?
It is truly a shame that he feels that way and that he believes in such a false dichotomy. If he was a little less antagonistic about the subject he'd see the massive influx of new people into the libraries that the internet has helped spur. The poor especially benefit from free access to computers and their children are put in touch with a wealth of learning (books AND electronic information) that is truly unprecedented. Library usage is up across the board, from what I can see.
The man is almost 90 years old, but he's younger than my grandmother who regularly uses email and praises it as a wonderful way of keeping in touch with her mobility-impaired friends. Age and stubbornness are not excuses for a man of his intelligence to hold such a myopic view of the world which HE HELPED CREATE. It makes me wonder if he has been to a library recently during business hours to see the throngs of people using the internet there to find jobs and better themselves.
You were there when we lured perverts into the spotlight with Chris Hansen... You were there when the "busts" went down. Now, join us as we team up with local law enforcement in an effort TO CATCH A PREDATOR DRONE!
BigLaunch42: Oh baby, you sound HOT.
Sparkleflames12: I am, honey.
BigLaunch42: Right out of the factory, you say?
Sparkleflames12: I'm so new my sparkles are still compartmentalized top-secret.
BigLaunch42: Is your operator at home?
Chris Hansen: Why don't you have a seat right over there.
There already is more of a gap than you'd like to admit or else the idea of "creating a class based society" wouldn't be so shocking to you. We have the makings of one now.
Your average low income part of town has no banks, restaurants, etc. What they do have is poor pre and post natal care, insufficient and improper diet, high crime, higher levels of birth defects and mental retardation...
Want to go to college? Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to get you to a high school where you weren't beaten every day. Also even if you do manage to retain the will and the ability to go, we estimate that your family should be contributing $X,000 to your education per year. They're not? Tough.
Want health insurance? Sure, but it's going to be more expensive because you're black and more susceptible to diabetes, heart disease, renal failure, immune system problems like lupus... Also the fact that we filled your neighborhood with fried chicken and burger places doesn't help.
No more of an ethical decision than we've already made. If these assholes would just quit being poor maybe we could make some real progress.
I agree with the GP, there is no need to specify that you have free speech online as well as in general.
If it MUST be done put it in a separate amendment similar to our Ninth. " The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." + "or restrict these rights to any particular venue, medium, technology or to any other specific means."
Slashdot Mirror
You've outlined the best way to fight those groups, too. All they're after is money, so when it becomes unprofitable they will leave. When their little pay boxes start getting filled with gasoline and set on fire, for instance. Or when their agents start getting killed. They are slugs who are in the business simply because it's easy money, so when it quits being easy they'll quit going after it.
I would assume he's pretty anal about his personal security; political wingnuts usually are.
That's part of what makes this man so dangerous. He's such a fringe character with such extremist views, he doesn't have anywhere else to go politically. He probably doesn't even want to advance that way. He is in a position where he can surround himself with extremely loyal yes-men and function with little oversight.
It's typical small-town-sheriff garbage, except for this guy has amassed a lot more power than the typical southern headcase. If he ever does retire he'll probably write some kind of self-serving fluff piece, blaming his sadism on Mexicans and pot heads and justifying it in any under-handed manner his ghost writer can dream up. Oh, wait! He already did. http://www.amazon.com/Joes-Law-Immigration-Everything-Threatens/dp/0814401996/
Here in Memphis the feds (under that notorious civil liberties champion John Ashcroft) took control of our jails after reported civil rights violations. The federal government is the appropriate agency to step in by means of the USDOJ, and should likewise step in on behalf of the people incarcerated under that maniac's supervision. It would disgust me if we treated prisoners of war the way that "law man" has been treating his charges.
Dostoyevsky said that any society can be judged by the way it treats its prisoners. I sure as hell don't want this man standing as a representative of our civilization.
And you thought Wikipedia edit wars were bad?
This just in: the military command structure has decided to put ARPANET to use as originally intended a scant 40 years after development!
On a (slightly) more serious note, the rank and file and upper brass have differing views on how their opinions are going to be received by the other side. Of course they do! The higher level officers have always expected their suggestions to be taken seriously and responded to with a prompt, "Yes, sir!" They see no problem here. The grunts have a long history of learning exactly how much their input is both required and appreciated by those men, especially when it comes unsolicited. This is one of those rare situations in the military where both sides' reactions are perfectly understandable and even... rational.
I meant OriginalSolver (552648)... God, I'm sorry betterunixthanunix. :( Stupid cut-and-paste happy fingers.
10 years? Here you go.
http://voice-of-reason.pbworks.com/f/CA-Ten%20year%20recidivism%20study%20CDCR%206-17-08.pdf
We bounce these guys back to jail for nitpicky violations of parole pretty much exclusively. A 3.38% cumulative recidivism rate for sex offenses is INSANELY low. The odds are probably much better that a slashdotter will commit a sex crime during that same time period.
betterunixthanunix (980855) is willfully spreading misinformation either because he's a massive idiot or because he has some kind of agenda.
"'As I've said before, my concept of a business model has to treat customers like products to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their traditions of controlling everything people see and hear,' Murdoch said. 'Creating fictional news is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply making us look like greedy control freaks who want to rape the hearts and minds of Americans.'"
There, fixed that for you.
To business, losing any money is a criminal offense.
To a business, losing money is the ONLY criminal offense.
That's just the way it goes when you have an intersection of tort law and criminal law. These problems, if they're problems at all, should be problems that civil courts handle in an effort to root out damages. It's how things used to be before the DMCA and even though it was far from a perfect system it still made more sense. You can't rape a company. You can't violate a company's civil rights. The only damage you can do to a corporate entity is monetary in nature, and crimes against that company should be measured and prosecuted as such.
He knew it was a demon the moment he saw it. He knew it, just as he knew the place was Hell. There was nothing else that either of them could have been.
[...]
As the demon raised its arm to deliver the first blow, it said, âoeIn time you will remember even this moment with fondness.â
"You are a liar."
"No," said the demon. "The next part," it explained, in the moment it brought down the cat, "is worse."
Then the tines of the cat landed on the manâ(TM)s back with a crack and a hiss, tearing through the expensive clothes, burning and rending and shredding as they struck, and, not for the last time in that place, he screamed.
-Neil Gaiman, "Other People"
He's merely offering a service to let you know if you've been the victim of a crime.
Dear Mister Holder,
I have recently come into possession of a list containing the names of hundreds of little girls who have been sexually assaulted after school. For a modest fee of 20 quid, along with your daughter's name and school schedule, our dedicated research staff will promptly deliver results. No uggos please.
Is not YOUR candle.
Is OUR candle.
I'm sure this is just a prelude to some new agenda to push DRM under a different name. "DRM is dead! But now we have Intellectual Property Protection... Or how about Online Property Protection?"
You down with OPP? Yeah, you know me.
I know you.
:P
It was supposed to be funny, an example of the typical paranoid over-reaction of people to things done in the name of child safety (which seems to be the big boogieman that people are worried about concerning unsecured WAPs... Evil evil cp.)
I'm certainly not a believer in the "if it saves one child" mentality, especially in a situation like this where rational people realize that this isn't doing anything to protect anyone at all, certainly not children. By that kind of logic all sorts of evil, stupid things are done by people in power... after all, we could surgically mutilate every child's genitalia, thereby preventing child sexual abuse completely, and then do some reconstructive surgery when they turn 21... a perfect world with no child sexual abuse in it.
Eventually the cost/benefit ratio doesn't pay off for "saving just one single child..."
Although my overblown hyperbole becomes a lot less tongue-in-cheek and a lot more FUCKING SCARY when it needs to be explained.
Don't you know that the evil predators can actually ABDUCT INNOCENT CHILDREN THROUGH UNSECURED WIRELESS? Every time the police shut down an unsecured access point they're literally preventing billions of rapes and murders. The only people who could possibly be against this idea are probably the predators who make torture porn of little girls. God bless these valiant crime fighters who are making the world safe one W.A.P. at a time.
Seems like some kind of pseudo threat to me. What are they implying, that if some criminal uses their open access port to post goat porn to /b/ the home owner is going to be criminally liable? What if you _like_ having an open access port, and don't mind if your elderly neighbors use it occasionally to check their email? Quite frankly it doesn't seem to be the homeowner's job to lock the world down in order to prevent crime, especially crime that can be remedied by pulling a plug, if it ever actually causes the homeowner to lose bandwidth. Come to think about it, it's not the cops job to prevent crime either.
So, who exactly is this benefiting? My guess would be whoever provides ISP service has been hitting up their political puppets... after all, your 60 year old neighbor should get with the times and start paying $100 a month for internet access like all the other good citizens.
A "ban on federal funding for X, Y, and Z" is effectively a ban on X, Y, and Z.
Take abstinence only sex-education for example. I'm not sure what the current situation is, but for a long time schools either taught abstinence only sex ed (no instruction about condom use. No mention of birth control at all, unless it paints the users as morally bankrupt) or they had to stop taking certain funds from the state and federal government. There aren't too many school boards that will vote to turn down money... Even if it hurts the kids.
If you control the purse strings, you control the outcome. Are you surprised people see this as a ban?
It's easy. All it takes is a few hundred thousand years and some careful breeding programs.
a horror beyond imagining... all of /b/ in one building.
The fucking sun would probably explode. God knows the pool would be closed.
There really aren't any "nuke poof bunkers" anywhere. In a nuclear exchange with a world power it won't matter anyway.
It is truly a shame that he feels that way and that he believes in such a false dichotomy. If he was a little less antagonistic about the subject he'd see the massive influx of new people into the libraries that the internet has helped spur. The poor especially benefit from free access to computers and their children are put in touch with a wealth of learning (books AND electronic information) that is truly unprecedented. Library usage is up across the board, from what I can see.
The man is almost 90 years old, but he's younger than my grandmother who regularly uses email and praises it as a wonderful way of keeping in touch with her mobility-impaired friends. Age and stubbornness are not excuses for a man of his intelligence to hold such a myopic view of the world which HE HELPED CREATE. It makes me wonder if he has been to a library recently during business hours to see the throngs of people using the internet there to find jobs and better themselves.
Coming this Fall on NBC....
You were there when we lured perverts into the spotlight with Chris Hansen... You were there when the "busts" went down. Now, join us as we team up with local law enforcement in an effort TO CATCH A PREDATOR DRONE!
BigLaunch42: Oh baby, you sound HOT.
Sparkleflames12: I am, honey.
BigLaunch42: Right out of the factory, you say?
Sparkleflames12: I'm so new my sparkles are still compartmentalized top-secret.
BigLaunch42: Is your operator at home?
Chris Hansen: Why don't you have a seat right over there.
Strangely enough, the internet is pretty consistent, you're just measuring the wrong thing and calling it signal. The internet says, loud and clear,
99% PORN
1% Mindless rambling about other crap while waiting for porn to download.
The internet is a steadfast brick wall of consistency. Or perhaps a hard, throbbing rod of consistency.
There already is more of a gap than you'd like to admit or else the idea of "creating a class based society" wouldn't be so shocking to you. We have the makings of one now.
Your average low income part of town has no banks, restaurants, etc. What they do have is poor pre and post natal care, insufficient and improper diet, high crime, higher levels of birth defects and mental retardation...
Want to go to college? Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to get you to a high school where you weren't beaten every day. Also even if you do manage to retain the will and the ability to go, we estimate that your family should be contributing $X,000 to your education per year. They're not? Tough.
Want health insurance? Sure, but it's going to be more expensive because you're black and more susceptible to diabetes, heart disease, renal failure, immune system problems like lupus... Also the fact that we filled your neighborhood with fried chicken and burger places doesn't help.
No more of an ethical decision than we've already made. If these assholes would just quit being poor maybe we could make some real progress.
I agree with the GP, there is no need to specify that you have free speech online as well as in general.
If it MUST be done put it in a separate amendment similar to our Ninth. " The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." + "or restrict these rights to any particular venue, medium, technology or to any other specific means."