It is impossible to forfeit your right to free speech in the United States of America. It is an inalienable right.
You are wrong, according to modern US legal theory. The fact that NDAs exist, and confidentiality clauses exist, and that they are regularly enforced supports my position that one can willingly forfeit their right to free speech.
I agree with your main argument, but I just have some questions about your last point. Did this guy give consent to the restraining order? Or in other words, did he ever have the option to refuse the restraining order?
Yes, he did. Also, yes, he could have fought the restraining order in a hearing. If he won, the restraining order would have not been granted, and if he lost, then due process would have placed the restraining order on him.
Since due process allows us to imprison people, and even sometimes take their lives, then arguing that due process shouldn't be able to take a narrow band out of one's free speech is kind of silly.
You can compile the ENTIRE OS without a problem... but a web browser... not so much...
Windows does not compile as one single monolithic process. Also, it does not compile to a single executable, which is then profile-guided optimized. It wouldn't surprise me at all that Firefox's build process required more working memory at its memory-constrained bottleneck than the Windows build process does.
And precisely what were the options if he didn't consent? That's the crux, it might not be literally duress, but threatening sanctions if he didn't sign is hardly the same thing as signing an NDA to get a job.
He could have contested the restraining order, and fought it in court. Possibly, he also consented to the restraining order in order to settle a criminal charge.
Settlements hand out confidentiality clauses like they're candy, and this usually is detrimental to the individual receiving the settlement, yet no matter how horrible the confidentiality agreement sucks for the person later on in life, the clause is still enforceable.
Shit sucks, he was informed of the consequences, and he consented. Now, he has to live with it. Life sucks, quite often in fact. However, in general it is not the duty of the court to let a person out of obligations that they gave informed consent to, just because they didn't realize how much the obligation would suck ass at the time.
(Searching Google for "Hibitoe" turns up nearly nothing.)
Probably because Donna del Mondo is a prime example of Italian mondo films. Today it would be called the film equivalent of "Jerry Springer".
IE, mostly faked and what isn't faked is misrepresented to seem more titillating. That's the reason very little turns up for "Hibitoe" except for references to that film.
Restraining orders are also supposed to bar harassment as well. I'm personally troubled by this order as it tramples all over his 1st amendment rights and if this isn't over turned it represents a serious threat to freedom.
As noted below, he consented to the restraining order. Thus, the 1st amendment "violations" are just as enforceable as any NDA, because he consented to the limitation of his rights.
Why bring up the ACLU? Any American who values the Constitution would be concerned.
Except that the guy consented to the restriction not to adversely affect her privacy.
He already willingly forfeited his right to free speech in this case, the court is simply enforcing his word. If this punishment were overturned, then it would be precedent to make NDAs unenforceable as well.
I found a video purportedly of the of the Hibitoe people in Papua New Guinea. link here. I cannot however substantiate the material with anything else. (Searching Google for "Hibitoe" turns up nearly nothing.)
The problem with your hypothetical culture of women who act like men is that it is a fantasy that has never been known to have existed in human history.
I cannot find the video that we were shown in my Sociology 101 class. However, my statements were based on a real actual culture that has been studied, and documented. For the life of me, I cannot find any references about it. Your most appropriate position is skepticism of this, until provided evidence, and unfortunately, I cannot find any of the evidence that I know to exist.
You're free to doubt me, but the culture does actually exist.
Not true. The Inquisition could NOT prosecute non Christians.
However, some Jews may have been accused of being relapsed Christian converts from Judaism. The Inquisition could definitely go after them.
You were allowed to be Jewish, but you were not allowed to convert and then convert back. There were other regulations about Jews, but those were not part of the Inquisition itself.
The Jews were expelled from Spain sometime after 1492 when the Reconquista was finished.
As noted... well, by yourself. The Jews were expelled from Spain. So, the choice was either to convert to Catholicism, or emigrate. The Spanish Inquisition chiefly made sure that these converts didn't go back to their old ways.
So, no you weren't allowed to be Jewish, because if you were Jewish, you had to have already emigrated out of the country, or converted to being Catholic.
That the Vatican still maintains an inquisition is still irrelevant to the specific inquisition being the Spanish Inquisition. That particular inquisition was created by the monarchy and reported to the monarchy. The Spanish Inquisition was finally abolished in 1834. Again, that the Vatican maintains an "inquisition" to this day, and the Spanish Inquisition has the word "inquisition" in it, does not mean that the specific body known as the Spanish inquisition were a part of the Vatican's inquisition.
Although, I will point out that you were kind of correct initially, in that they had no authority over non-Christians (more accurately, non-Catholics), however it ignores the fact that all subjects of Spain were supposed to be Catholic. But then, the Monarchy had given an opportunity to all of the Jews, Muslims, to emigrate or convert prior to the founding of the Inquisition. (In fact, the initial duty of the SI was to ensure that these converts weren't practicing their forbidding religion.) Later, they just decided to forcefully expel all of the ex-Muslims just to be on the safe side. So, yeah, they didn't have authority over any non-Catholics, but legally that covered all Spanish subjects.
So every single piece of information related to Carrier IQ is tied up in a handful of cases? Surely they could redact info. There's no justifiable reason to outright deny the request.
Why would the FBI have any information on CarrierIQ that wasn't tied up in the investigation of a case? And you can't leak any case information to the public, not even redacted. In fact, if you can help it, it's better for your case if the public doesn't even know that you're investigating until you charge someone.
It is controversial to say women have biological tendencies to be less aggressive, less ambitious toward leadership roles, and less attracted to hard science in favor of humanities.
These are predominantly due to women being less competitive and more cooperative than men. However, this is not guaranteed to be biological. All minorities ("minority" here referring to political and social power) group together in tight-nit groups, and are raised with a more cooperative attitude towards helping those in your group to protect your already limited power. Women are typically discouraged from showing direct or active roles, and thus become well trained in... for lack of a better word, "manipulative" and "coercion". (Guilt trips, implied requests actually being imperative statements, etc).
Meanwhile, in another culture, where the women sit around drink beer, spit, play poker, and leave their growing-old husband for the "newer model", women are brash, open, aggressive, competitive, and take strong leadership roles. Although, despite all of the swapping of cultural activities demonstrating what is linked to the gender of power, and the inferior gender (referring respectively to the gender with the political and social power, vs the one that does not) the men are still the ones who usually go out to get food, because they have a biological basis for greater strength and endurance. But of course, when the men fail to get enough food, ("because they're wimps") the women go out and catch food using their brains, demonstrating "why women are so much more powerful than men".
Pretty much. Jewish people started out with massive poverty and discrimination, but worked their way to the top of the finance chain.
Well, it helps that other cultures were viewing money as evil at the time. Part of the anti-Jewish argument in the Spanish Inquisition was that the Jews controlled all the money, yet the Christian church was teaching that money was evil, and that a good Christian wouldn't work in finance.
Because of other rules a criminal case can only remain open for so long.
It actually depends. Murder cases, due to a lack of statute of limitations, remain open until solved to the police's satisfaction. (Usually, catching the person, and the end of the prosecution. Either successful or not.)
I don't see any time limit for this...
There is a statute of limitations on illegal wiretapping, however each new act of illegal wiretapping would extend the investigative case.
... it affects a much broader group (all of us).
Have you seen any lawyer movie or even a single episode of "Law and Order"? Criminal cases are brought in the form of "The People vs. ___", because the idea is that all criminal acts are made against The People, as a generic entire group.
So, all of your arguments, despite sounding like they're good, are in fact specious, and do not apply within the legal framework used by the United States. So long as the FBI might be investigating CarrierIQ for a crime, any rejection of FOIA requests is actually entirely appropriate.
A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power. I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe Eric Holder is advising them as to handle the situation.
... or your government might not want to hand over information that it is investigating a criminal act by a corporation.
If you filed a FOIA request for Maddof's case while they were building it, they would have denied that one, too, but not because they were abusing their power.
As someone who is cash-flow negative, I have the opportunity that my family and friends are willing to pitch together to purchase me a tablet. In this case, asking them to double the money they're willing to pitch in is unreasonable. However, pushing for a $50 increase to go for a B&N Nook Tablet (for double the storage, and an external storage port) is a little more doable.
I came to this choice after investigating if the Kindle Fire would be worth purchasing, and I just couldn't justify taking a tablet that is missing some reasonably valuable features (volume buttons, and external storage). "But the iPad doesn't have those either!" Yes, well, the iPad is a different product, and when I had an iPod touch v1, I hated that it didn't have external storage, or external speakers. So, just because the iPad is a "better product" does not mean that I would purchase it over a lesser product.
Damn Kia, costing half as much and actually running all the time. How am I supposed to convince my friends I'm wealthy and successful when my car actually works. Yeesh.
Maybe I'm old, but we weren't allowed a calculator on the ASVAB. I also completed the Math section.
The only math section I remember of the ASVAB was an arithmetic test, and allowing people to use calculators for that would kind of defeat the purpose of putting a whole section of arithmetic in a test. The math section also is designed to be uncompleteable, so you completing it is pretty awesome. Now, if you take the test at MEPS, it's computerized, and it basically varies the difficulty on the fly to more quickly evaluate your skill, and thus runs shorter.
I had a language section that kicked my ass though. It was manual code transcription (zxcdasd = A, etc) and I didn't bother to memorize any of the more common letters.
This is not surprising at all, assuming that you are a male. Females statistically perform way better at the transcription section than males. I am unaware of any studies into suggesting a mechanism for this.
I still got an aggregate score of 94. Don't assume that a high ASVAB (actually, the percentage score is called the AFQT and is a composite score based on 4 sections... of which I don't remember what they are) score means anything at all.
A high score on the ASVAB does mean SOMETHING, just not something that is related to intelligence, or such. The test is also not particularly well scaled for distinguishing between high performers. So, yeah, considering around 1 in 10 people will score in and above the 90th percentile, a high score means relatively very little.
You still fail at reading comprehension. He said there were 3 sample questions from each of the 4th grade and 8th grade tests for a total of 6 questions.
Indeed, I did fail.:( Damn the skimming. Real life is way harder than a standardized test.:( (of course, that's also because it's longer... everyone is bound to make a mistake eventually.)
And any time you pay with cash or add a tip to your bill in a restaurant, you're doing pure arithmetic. Or do you just hand the cashier a pile of money and tell them to take out whatever they need (yes, that's pretty much what I do with a credit card, but ignore that)?
Granted, and I have specialized mental routines to help me calculate it, but then if I get it wrong, it doesn't matter. The value were an arbitrary one to begin with. I don't have to be RIGHT, I just need to give somewhere between 10 and 20 percent.
And I took the ASVAB in high school as a way to get out of class. It was the easiest standardized test I ever took (I also scored in the 99th percentile).;)
Indeed. In fact, everything in this paragraph probably applies to 99% of the American Slashdotters as well.;)
If a student is right just by dumb luck, they don't really deserve to be right at all, but a student who is actually thinking and reasoning deserves to be right even if his answer doesn't match the answer in the book.
This is, without a doubt, the single most stupid statement that I have ever read on Slashdot, and that's saying a lot.
Why? Because you don't understand the meaning of "deserves"? It doesn't mean that they are right, it just means that the student who is actually thinking is doing what they're supposed to be doing, and the student filling in random bubbles is not.
Slashdot Mirror
It is impossible to forfeit your right to free speech in the United States of America. It is an inalienable right.
You are wrong, according to modern US legal theory. The fact that NDAs exist, and confidentiality clauses exist, and that they are regularly enforced supports my position that one can willingly forfeit their right to free speech.
I agree with your main argument, but I just have some questions about your last point. Did this guy give consent to the restraining order? Or in other words, did he ever have the option to refuse the restraining order?
Yes, he did. Also, yes, he could have fought the restraining order in a hearing. If he won, the restraining order would have not been granted, and if he lost, then due process would have placed the restraining order on him.
Since due process allows us to imprison people, and even sometimes take their lives, then arguing that due process shouldn't be able to take a narrow band out of one's free speech is kind of silly.
You can compile the ENTIRE OS without a problem ... but a web browser ... not so much ...
Windows does not compile as one single monolithic process. Also, it does not compile to a single executable, which is then profile-guided optimized. It wouldn't surprise me at all that Firefox's build process required more working memory at its memory-constrained bottleneck than the Windows build process does.
And precisely what were the options if he didn't consent? That's the crux, it might not be literally duress, but threatening sanctions if he didn't sign is hardly the same thing as signing an NDA to get a job.
He could have contested the restraining order, and fought it in court. Possibly, he also consented to the restraining order in order to settle a criminal charge.
Settlements hand out confidentiality clauses like they're candy, and this usually is detrimental to the individual receiving the settlement, yet no matter how horrible the confidentiality agreement sucks for the person later on in life, the clause is still enforceable.
Shit sucks, he was informed of the consequences, and he consented. Now, he has to live with it. Life sucks, quite often in fact. However, in general it is not the duty of the court to let a person out of obligations that they gave informed consent to, just because they didn't realize how much the obligation would suck ass at the time.
Probably because Donna del Mondo is a prime example of Italian mondo films. Today it would be called the film equivalent of "Jerry Springer".
IE, mostly faked and what isn't faked is misrepresented to seem more titillating. That's the reason very little turns up for "Hibitoe" except for references to that film.
Figured it was something like that.
Restraining orders are also supposed to bar harassment as well. I'm personally troubled by this order as it tramples all over his 1st amendment rights and if this isn't over turned it represents a serious threat to freedom.
As noted below, he consented to the restraining order. Thus, the 1st amendment "violations" are just as enforceable as any NDA, because he consented to the limitation of his rights.
Why bring up the ACLU? Any American who values the Constitution would be concerned.
Except that the guy consented to the restriction not to adversely affect her privacy.
He already willingly forfeited his right to free speech in this case, the court is simply enforcing his word. If this punishment were overturned, then it would be precedent to make NDAs unenforceable as well.
I found a video purportedly of the of the Hibitoe people in Papua New Guinea. link here. I cannot however substantiate the material with anything else. (Searching Google for "Hibitoe" turns up nearly nothing.)
The problem with your hypothetical culture of women who act like men is that it is a fantasy that has never been known to have existed in human history.
I cannot find the video that we were shown in my Sociology 101 class. However, my statements were based on a real actual culture that has been studied, and documented. For the life of me, I cannot find any references about it. Your most appropriate position is skepticism of this, until provided evidence, and unfortunately, I cannot find any of the evidence that I know to exist.
You're free to doubt me, but the culture does actually exist.
Not true. The Inquisition could NOT prosecute non Christians.
However, some Jews may have been accused of being relapsed Christian converts from Judaism. The Inquisition could definitely go after them.
You were allowed to be Jewish, but you were not allowed to convert and then convert back. There were other regulations about Jews, but those were not part of the Inquisition itself.
The Jews were expelled from Spain sometime after 1492 when the Reconquista was finished.
As noted... well, by yourself. The Jews were expelled from Spain. So, the choice was either to convert to Catholicism, or emigrate. The Spanish Inquisition chiefly made sure that these converts didn't go back to their old ways.
So, no you weren't allowed to be Jewish, because if you were Jewish, you had to have already emigrated out of the country, or converted to being Catholic.
That the Vatican still maintains an inquisition is still irrelevant to the specific inquisition being the Spanish Inquisition. That particular inquisition was created by the monarchy and reported to the monarchy. The Spanish Inquisition was finally abolished in 1834. Again, that the Vatican maintains an "inquisition" to this day, and the Spanish Inquisition has the word "inquisition" in it, does not mean that the specific body known as the Spanish inquisition were a part of the Vatican's inquisition.
Although, I will point out that you were kind of correct initially, in that they had no authority over non-Christians (more accurately, non-Catholics), however it ignores the fact that all subjects of Spain were supposed to be Catholic. But then, the Monarchy had given an opportunity to all of the Jews, Muslims, to emigrate or convert prior to the founding of the Inquisition. (In fact, the initial duty of the SI was to ensure that these converts weren't practicing their forbidding religion.) Later, they just decided to forcefully expel all of the ex-Muslims just to be on the safe side. So, yeah, they didn't have authority over any non-Catholics, but legally that covered all Spanish subjects.
Not to mention the inquisition had no authority on non christians.
The inquisition was an action of the Spanish monarchy, and had authority over all Spanish subjects.
So every single piece of information related to Carrier IQ is tied up in a handful of cases? Surely they could redact info. There's no justifiable reason to outright deny the request.
Why would the FBI have any information on CarrierIQ that wasn't tied up in the investigation of a case? And you can't leak any case information to the public, not even redacted. In fact, if you can help it, it's better for your case if the public doesn't even know that you're investigating until you charge someone.
It is controversial to say women have biological tendencies to be less aggressive, less ambitious toward leadership roles, and less attracted to hard science in favor of humanities.
These are predominantly due to women being less competitive and more cooperative than men. However, this is not guaranteed to be biological. All minorities ("minority" here referring to political and social power) group together in tight-nit groups, and are raised with a more cooperative attitude towards helping those in your group to protect your already limited power. Women are typically discouraged from showing direct or active roles, and thus become well trained in... for lack of a better word, "manipulative" and "coercion". (Guilt trips, implied requests actually being imperative statements, etc).
Meanwhile, in another culture, where the women sit around drink beer, spit, play poker, and leave their growing-old husband for the "newer model", women are brash, open, aggressive, competitive, and take strong leadership roles. Although, despite all of the swapping of cultural activities demonstrating what is linked to the gender of power, and the inferior gender (referring respectively to the gender with the political and social power, vs the one that does not) the men are still the ones who usually go out to get food, because they have a biological basis for greater strength and endurance. But of course, when the men fail to get enough food, ("because they're wimps") the women go out and catch food using their brains, demonstrating "why women are so much more powerful than men".
Pretty much. Jewish people started out with massive poverty and discrimination, but worked their way to the top of the finance chain.
Well, it helps that other cultures were viewing money as evil at the time. Part of the anti-Jewish argument in the Spanish Inquisition was that the Jews controlled all the money, yet the Christian church was teaching that money was evil, and that a good Christian wouldn't work in finance.
Gap created, gap exploited. Point Jews.
Because of other rules a criminal case can only remain open for so long.
It actually depends. Murder cases, due to a lack of statute of limitations, remain open until solved to the police's satisfaction. (Usually, catching the person, and the end of the prosecution. Either successful or not.)
I don't see any time limit for this...
There is a statute of limitations on illegal wiretapping, however each new act of illegal wiretapping would extend the investigative case.
... it affects a much broader group (all of us).
Have you seen any lawyer movie or even a single episode of "Law and Order"? Criminal cases are brought in the form of "The People vs. ___", because the idea is that all criminal acts are made against The People, as a generic entire group.
So, all of your arguments, despite sounding like they're good, are in fact specious, and do not apply within the legal framework used by the United States. So long as the FBI might be investigating CarrierIQ for a crime, any rejection of FOIA requests is actually entirely appropriate.
A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power. I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe Eric Holder is advising them as to handle the situation.
... or your government might not want to hand over information that it is investigating a criminal act by a corporation.
If you filed a FOIA request for Maddof's case while they were building it, they would have denied that one, too, but not because they were abusing their power.
As someone who is cash-flow negative, I have the opportunity that my family and friends are willing to pitch together to purchase me a tablet. In this case, asking them to double the money they're willing to pitch in is unreasonable. However, pushing for a $50 increase to go for a B&N Nook Tablet (for double the storage, and an external storage port) is a little more doable.
I came to this choice after investigating if the Kindle Fire would be worth purchasing, and I just couldn't justify taking a tablet that is missing some reasonably valuable features (volume buttons, and external storage). "But the iPad doesn't have those either!" Yes, well, the iPad is a different product, and when I had an iPod touch v1, I hated that it didn't have external storage, or external speakers. So, just because the iPad is a "better product" does not mean that I would purchase it over a lesser product.
I have a Kindle Fire. I generally like it but the gripes above apply (no volume control, no security/locking for reading history, etc).
I can't wait to install a replacement version of android that's more like what you find on other tablets and phones: http://liliputing.com/2011/12/cyanogenmod-7-performance-on-the-amazon-kindle-fire-video.html
(I have no association with whatever site that is, I'm just exciting to be getting cyanogenmod on the fire).
Have fun navigating your Clockwork recovery with no volume buttons...
I know right.
Damn Kia, costing half as much and actually running all the time. How am I supposed to convince my friends I'm wealthy and successful when my car actually works. Yeesh.
WTF kind of car do you drive? British?
Maybe I'm old, but we weren't allowed a calculator on the ASVAB. I also completed the Math section.
The only math section I remember of the ASVAB was an arithmetic test, and allowing people to use calculators for that would kind of defeat the purpose of putting a whole section of arithmetic in a test. The math section also is designed to be uncompleteable, so you completing it is pretty awesome. Now, if you take the test at MEPS, it's computerized, and it basically varies the difficulty on the fly to more quickly evaluate your skill, and thus runs shorter.
I had a language section that kicked my ass though. It was manual code transcription (zxcdasd = A, etc) and I didn't bother to memorize any of the more common letters.
This is not surprising at all, assuming that you are a male. Females statistically perform way better at the transcription section than males. I am unaware of any studies into suggesting a mechanism for this.
I still got an aggregate score of 94. Don't assume that a high ASVAB (actually, the percentage score is called the AFQT and is a composite score based on 4 sections... of which I don't remember what they are) score means anything at all.
A high score on the ASVAB does mean SOMETHING, just not something that is related to intelligence, or such. The test is also not particularly well scaled for distinguishing between high performers. So, yeah, considering around 1 in 10 people will score in and above the 90th percentile, a high score means relatively very little.
You still fail at reading comprehension. He said there were 3 sample questions from each of the 4th grade and 8th grade tests for a total of 6 questions.
Indeed, I did fail. :( Damn the skimming. Real life is way harder than a standardized test. :( (of course, that's also because it's longer... everyone is bound to make a mistake eventually.)
And any time you pay with cash or add a tip to your bill in a restaurant, you're doing pure arithmetic. Or do you just hand the cashier a pile of money and tell them to take out whatever they need (yes, that's pretty much what I do with a credit card, but ignore that)?
Granted, and I have specialized mental routines to help me calculate it, but then if I get it wrong, it doesn't matter. The value were an arbitrary one to begin with. I don't have to be RIGHT, I just need to give somewhere between 10 and 20 percent.
And I took the ASVAB in high school as a way to get out of class. It was the easiest standardized test I ever took (I also scored in the 99th percentile). ;)
Indeed. In fact, everything in this paragraph probably applies to 99% of the American Slashdotters as well. ;)
Also, (45 x 75) / 24 = 140.625
Damn ALL the typos!
This is, without a doubt, the single most stupid statement that I have ever read on Slashdot, and that's saying a lot.
Why? Because you don't understand the meaning of "deserves"? It doesn't mean that they are right, it just means that the student who is actually thinking is doing what they're supposed to be doing, and the student filling in random bubbles is not.