Seriously. Attention any/all US federal legislators reading this: just mimic the EU on this one. It's a no-brainer and will win you the all-important geek vote.
I can't believe any significant percentage of residential open networks are open on purpose. Most are linksys or netgear or whatever routers, still set to the default channel, ssid and password.
I think the idea of cops (or anyone) delivering a note explaining what the threats are and what you can do to fix it (if you'd like to fix it) is great. Good for Douglas County.
This sounds like a shitty PD doing shitty things. If the courts actually -hear- this, I'll be appalled. Then again, my appalled state has been getting a real workout lately, so who knows.
What drove me to linux on the desktop was my increasing unease at the amount of stuff windows was sharing with MS. That was about 3 years ago, I suppose. I don't think people will move in droves either , but if the threat of it was enough to push me over the edge, I'd imagine there's plenty more people not too unlike me that would move as well. I'm not -that- unusual.
If it's a collective right only, then in the ACLU's world, you don't have any right to petition the government yourself, you can only do it collectively
that's ridiculous. The collectivity notion stems directly from the interpretation of 'militia.' The right to petition has no such clause.
Calling them hypocrites for not supporting gun rights, when they've come out and said "we don't believe gun control is unconstitutional" is sort of dumb. You're just being mad at them because they're named badly. You might as well be angry with Grape-Nuts cereal, which contains neither grapes nor nuts.
What's awesome is that you totally blow off the very next sentence: "Baldwin's pro-Communist leanings lasted until 1939 when he was disillusioned by the Nazi-Soviet pact and broke off all radical ties"
it makes perfect sense why the ACLU doesn't protect 2nd amendment rights. They've decided the right is not valid.
I think they're wrong, but that that doesn't mean I think the ACLU are doing wrong by defending my other rights. Interestingly enough, it appears possible for people to disagree on one subject while agreeing on a different one!
as the provider of the scholarship, it's their place to do whatever they damn well please with it, include making the students hop on one foot on alternate teusdays if they want to keep it.
I don't have any similar constraints on me because I'm not in the public eye, like actors or athletes. Plenty of them have provisions that prevent them from doing things anyone else could. Pee Wee Herman losing his job at Disney after being found wanking in a theater springs readily to mind.
It's perfectly ok to punish people for taking actions you find objectionable. Say, for instance, you are the owner of the restaurant at which I work. Say further that I won't stop running around town telling people how awful the food is and how they should never eat there. In fact, on my time off, I wear a T-Shirt that says "Plasmacutter Pizza is Made of Ass and Poo." Are you telling me that you should be legally prohibited from firing my sorry ass?
Oh no! They can't use it -at all-?? What a goddamn tragedy. Say, wait - I'm not allowed to use porn sites from work -at all-! Oh when will someone stand up for my constituitional rights that are being so grievously violated?!?
And 'gay' is what they are - it is something they can't change. 'Posts on facebook' is a simple choice they make. It's the same difference between "is tall" and "watches Everybody Loves Raymond."
Individuals are free to discriminate in whatever stupid way makes them happy.
And there's a fundamental difference between "gay" and "posts on facebook" which I see you're all too happy to ignore.
And yes, people are denied scholarships based on all kinds of crazy shit. Not a caddie? Then you can't get the Francis Ouimet Caddie Scholarship. Over six feet tall? Hey, looks like you can count yourself out of the running for The Billy Barty Foundation scholarships. Can't fucking stop posting shirtless pictures of yourself drunk on facebook? Guess you can't have a football scholarship at Kent State.
Get off your high horse, there's other people that want to ride too, you know.
No one is looking for a loophole in the bill of rights. Those kids are perfectly free to say and do whatever they like at any time. They just don't have the right to have other people pay them to do it.
as everyone else pointed out, it's mostly just a name for what people have been doing for a while when upper management leaves them alone.
That said, I've found the hardest part of the process to be finding a client who is willing to put up with the constant back-&-forth and interminable beta testing. Customers generally just want to tell you what they want, go away and then have you magically deduce what they actually need, and can be irritable when you tell them you really can't do that because... you know... agile!
I believe property ownership is a right. Indeed, given the amount of libertarians around these parts, you'll get some spirited argument that property rights are the fundamental rights that all others come from.
No one is abridging their freedom of speech. They are free to post on facebook all they want. Freedom of speech never implied freedom from the consequences of that speech. Although you're free to call me a shitbag waste of human skin all you want, I don't have to continue to pay you while you do it.
Slashdot Mirror
no, advice from cops to law-abiding citizens is usually just friendly advice. why would the police care if you have an open network?
Seriously. Attention any/all US federal legislators reading this: just mimic the EU on this one. It's a no-brainer and will win you the all-important geek vote.
I doubt they would. TFA states they're just handing out brochures and advice.
I can't believe any significant percentage of residential open networks are open on purpose. Most are linksys or netgear or whatever routers, still set to the default channel, ssid and password.
I think the idea of cops (or anyone) delivering a note explaining what the threats are and what you can do to fix it (if you'd like to fix it) is great. Good for Douglas County.
This sounds like a shitty PD doing shitty things. If the courts actually -hear- this, I'll be appalled. Then again, my appalled state has been getting a real workout lately, so who knows.
whatever makes you happy, man.
and use pretty much the same justification for both - that it makes me happy to simply think about possible success, no matter what the odds.
Although on new machines, I've switched over to the einstein@home gravity wave thingamajig, because it's awesome.
What drove me to linux on the desktop was my increasing unease at the amount of stuff windows was sharing with MS. That was about 3 years ago, I suppose. I don't think people will move in droves either , but if the threat of it was enough to push me over the edge, I'd imagine there's plenty more people not too unlike me that would move as well. I'm not -that- unusual.
If you find one, let a brother know.
well, ok, go ahead and throw that baby out with the bathwater then. I'm sure you'll continue to enjoy the fruits of their labors anyhow.
that's ridiculous. The collectivity notion stems directly from the interpretation of 'militia.' The right to petition has no such clause.
Calling them hypocrites for not supporting gun rights, when they've come out and said "we don't believe gun control is unconstitutional" is sort of dumb. You're just being mad at them because they're named badly. You might as well be angry with Grape-Nuts cereal, which contains neither grapes nor nuts.
"Baldwin's pro-Communist leanings lasted until 1939 when he was disillusioned by the Nazi-Soviet pact and broke off all radical ties"
Yes, that's what I said.
so what you're actually angry about is that they're poorly-named. Gotcha.
would you rather have some of your rights defended or none?
t ml
Yes, the ACLU won't touch gun rights, because they don't believe they exist:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.h
I think they're wrong, but that that doesn't mean I think the ACLU are doing wrong by defending my other rights. Interestingly enough, it appears possible for people to disagree on one subject while agreeing on a different one!
because there's no possibility a US citizen would be charged with terrorism.
or is there?
I'm lolin' @ the "insightful" moderation. :)
well, then you better start reaching into the fireplace, because this sort of thing has been going on for decades.
as the provider of the scholarship, it's their place to do whatever they damn well please with it, include making the students hop on one foot on alternate teusdays if they want to keep it.
Judge: In that case I sentence you to a lifetime of horror on Monster Island. [to Lisa] Don't worry, it's just a name.
[Lisa and others are chased by fire-breathing monsters]
Lisa: He said it was just a name!
Man: What he meant is that Monster Island is actually a peninsula.
I don't have any similar constraints on me because I'm not in the public eye, like actors or athletes. Plenty of them have provisions that prevent them from doing things anyone else could. Pee Wee Herman losing his job at Disney after being found wanking in a theater springs readily to mind.
It's perfectly ok to punish people for taking actions you find objectionable. Say, for instance, you are the owner of the restaurant at which I work. Say further that I won't stop running around town telling people how awful the food is and how they should never eat there. In fact, on my time off, I wear a T-Shirt that says "Plasmacutter Pizza is Made of Ass and Poo." Are you telling me that you should be legally prohibited from firing my sorry ass?
Oh no! They can't use it -at all-?? What a goddamn tragedy. Say, wait - I'm not allowed to use porn sites from work -at all-! Oh when will someone stand up for my constituitional rights that are being so grievously violated?!?
And 'gay' is what they are - it is something they can't change. 'Posts on facebook' is a simple choice they make. It's the same difference between "is tall" and "watches Everybody Loves Raymond."
Individuals are free to discriminate in whatever stupid way makes them happy.
And there's a fundamental difference between "gay" and "posts on facebook" which I see you're all too happy to ignore.
And yes, people are denied scholarships based on all kinds of crazy shit. Not a caddie? Then you can't get the Francis Ouimet Caddie Scholarship. Over six feet tall? Hey, looks like you can count yourself out of the running for The Billy Barty Foundation scholarships. Can't fucking stop posting shirtless pictures of yourself drunk on facebook? Guess you can't have a football scholarship at Kent State.
Get off your high horse, there's other people that want to ride too, you know.
No one is looking for a loophole in the bill of rights. Those kids are perfectly free to say and do whatever they like at any time. They just don't have the right to have other people pay them to do it.
That said, I've found the hardest part of the process to be finding a client who is willing to put up with the constant back-&-forth and interminable beta testing. Customers generally just want to tell you what they want, go away and then have you magically deduce what they actually need, and can be irritable when you tell them you really can't do that because ... you know ... agile!
No one is abridging their freedom of speech. They are free to post on facebook all they want. Freedom of speech never implied freedom from the consequences of that speech. Although you're free to call me a shitbag waste of human skin all you want, I don't have to continue to pay you while you do it.