I completely agree, I'm absolutely amazed and horrified at this. It's mind blowing just how wrong this is and scary that we've arrived at this point in our society.
Actually that has been a law in just about every jurisdiction. You need a permit to organize a protest and hold it 'legally'.
Flash mobs are an interesting stretch to that concept. If they organize and plan ahead of time, which this group appears to have done, yes a permit is needed, especially at a public national memorial.
If someone tweets 'everybody go here and do X', is that prior organization and planning? I'd probably say no.
But the mobs where people meet and practice the dance steps etc. before hand probably are.
I believe the 'authorization' is between you and the password holder, not the service provider.
The service provider would have a contract issue with the password holder, but not you since you didn't sign any contract and used a valid logon 'with' permission to do so from the person assigned that logon.
"sing someone else's password to access and server with the intent of obtaining or download information from that server would be a criminal trespass."
No, it's criminal only if you don't have permission - which in the case of 'sharing' an account, you do have permission from the account holder.
Exactly. When FF'ing you need to pay attention because you need to actively know when to stop it.
This is why NFL broadcast ads now sometimes have just a static logo over most of the screen. When FF'ing it looks like a regular ad. One way the advertisers 'adapted' (the horror!) to the new reality.
On that note, the one commercial I will *never* forgot was the sponsor of "Schindler's List" when it was on TV the first time. No commercials at all, just a 3-4 minute 'intermission' in the middle with a static logo for the company - Ford. No audio, no text, nothing, just that static image. Classy, understated and completely appropriate for the situation.
He can still place a hold on it. And it is not filibuster *proof*. Only budget bills are filibuster proof as directed by Senate rules. Reid attached it to a bill already passed int he house that is considered 'must pass'. It now must be sent back to the house since he 'updated' it.
Paul is apparently filibustering it, or was before Reed switched it to this other bill. If Paul has the stones he'll filibuster that too.
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
And just where is the line over what is and isn't acceptable? or will you "Know it when you hear it."
How about the West Baptist protests at funerals? That's downright 'hate' speech in my book. But it's allowed because we have freedom of expression.
"I really do think the context of the location can play a valid role in determining what is appropriate speech there."
Completely agree, and the THOMAS JEFFERSON Memorial is just about as perfect a place for emphasizing free speech as you can get...
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Irony
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Irony
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re:
Flash mobs are an interesting stretch to that concept. If they organize and plan ahead of time, which this group appears to have done, yes a permit is needed, especially at a public national memorial.
If someone tweets 'everybody go here and do X', is that prior organization and planning? I'd probably say no.
But the mobs where people meet and practice the dance steps etc. before hand probably are.
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re: already illegal
The service provider would have a contract issue with the password holder, but not you since you didn't sign any contract and used a valid logon 'with' permission to do so from the person assigned that logon.
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's criminal only if you don't have permission - which in the case of 'sharing' an account, you do have permission from the account holder.
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re: Re:
The bandwidth is a finite 'good' here so the infinite argument doesn't apply.
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re: Re:
Sharing of a finite resource, i.e. the bandwidth, is not acceptable though criminalizing it is ridiculous.
On the post: Yet Another Company Rigs Up A Silly Technical Setup To Let You Watch Broadcast TV On Your Mobile Device
Re: Well, yeah...
Just saying because many people now confuse 'cable' with 'broadcast'.
On the post: Smartphones Make People Ignore Commercials Way More Than DVRs
Re: Re:
This is why NFL broadcast ads now sometimes have just a static logo over most of the screen. When FF'ing it looks like a regular ad. One way the advertisers 'adapted' (the horror!) to the new reality.
On that note, the one commercial I will *never* forgot was the sponsor of "Schindler's List" when it was on TV the first time. No commercials at all, just a 3-4 minute 'intermission' in the middle with a static logo for the company - Ford. No audio, no text, nothing, just that static image. Classy, understated and completely appropriate for the situation.
On the post: The 18 Senators Who Approve Breaking The Internet To Protect Hollywood
Re: Re: Talk about unconstitutional
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/sen-ron-wyden-to-place-a-hold-on-the-protec t-ip-act.ars?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+ %28Ars+Technica+-+Featured+Content%29
On the post: The 18 Senators Who Approve Breaking The Internet To Protect Hollywood
Re: Re: Talk about unconstitutional
Start the conspiracy theory wing nuts that Dem's are voting even after being voted out and we *must* throw these bills out!
On the post: Justice Department Threatens To Ban Flights Out Of Texas If Texas Makes TSA Groping Illegal
Re: Re: Better headline:
On the post: The 18 Senators Who Approve Breaking The Internet To Protect Hollywood
Talk about unconstitutional
On the post: Singer's Ex-Boyfriend Demands Royalties For Inspiring Songs About Their Relationship & Breakup
Re:
ignore him, it's the most destructive thing you can do to him.
On the post: Harry Reid Routes Around Rand Paul; Says No Changes To Patriot Act Is 'An Excellent Compromise'
Re: Re: Re:
He can still place a hold on it. And it is not filibuster *proof*. Only budget bills are filibuster proof as directed by Senate rules. Reid attached it to a bill already passed int he house that is considered 'must pass'. It now must be sent back to the house since he 'updated' it.
Paul is apparently filibustering it, or was before Reed switched it to this other bill. If Paul has the stones he'll filibuster that too.
On the post: Harry Reid Routes Around Rand Paul; Says No Changes To Patriot Act Is 'An Excellent Compromise'
Re: Re: None of the Above!
Thank you for inflicting George Bush on us.
On the post: Harry Reid Routes Around Rand Paul; Says No Changes To Patriot Act Is 'An Excellent Compromise'
Re:
You said you would stop this type of crap.
Or were you a complete hypocrite?
On the post: Access Copyright Claims Trademark On The Copyright Symbol
Re: Further Inspection
On the post: What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay
Re: WWII Germany?
I'm absolutely sure the Tea Party/small government crowd will be rising up in abject horror at this shortly.
tap tap tap....Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
Next >>