f



Time for a muzzle / The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it time to rethink free speech?


Time for a muzzle
The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it 
time to rethink free speech?

By Drake Bennett  |  February 15, 2009

HERE ARE TWO stories about the Internet.

The week before last, the crippled economy coughed up a gift for 
picked-on college students across the country: It shut down Juicy 
Campus, a notorious website where campus gossips nationwide were 
invited to hold forth anonymously. "Just remember, keep it Juicy!" 
the home page had exhorted. Posters had duly obliged, and many 
students had found their social skills, weight, grooming habits, 
sexual orientation, and/or promiscuity to be the subject of gleefully 
vicious discussion by unseen online classmates. In a healthier 
economy, it's unclear if anything could have closed down Juicy Campus 
- university administrators and even state prosecutors were eager to 
take it on, but had all but conceded that they had few legal options, 
and the website had been rapidly expanding the number of its member 
campuses.

And then there is this: Last month, someone posted a map showing the 
names, home locations, and occupations of thousands of people who 
gave money to support the passage of Proposition 8, the ballot 
initiative outlawing gay marriage in California. A number of these 
Proposition 8 supporters have since reported threatening e-mails and 
phone calls.

Speech now travels farther faster than the Founding Fathers - or the 
judges who created much of modern free speech law - could have 
dreamed. The Web has brought a new reach to the things we say about 
others, and created a vast potential audience for arguments that 
would once have unfolded in a single room or between two telephones. 
It has eaten away at the buffer that once separated public and 
private, making it possible to expose someone else's intimate 
information to the world with a few keystrokes, or to take 
information that would formerly have been filed away in obscure 
public records and present it digestibly as a goad to collective 
political action.

One of the results has been the advent of a new culture of online 
heckling and shaming, and the rise of enormous cyber-posses motivated 
by social or political causes - or simple sadism.

Now, some legal scholars are beginning to argue that new technologies 
have changed the balance of power between the right to speak and the 
right to be left alone. At conferences, in law review articles, and, 
increasingly, in the courts, some lawyers are suggesting that the 
time has come to rethink some of the hallowed protections that the 
law gives speech in this country, especially if that speech is 
online. The proposals vary: Some focus on restricting material that 
can be posted online or how long it can stay there, others on whether 
we should be less willing to protect online anonymity. More ambitious 
schemes would have courts treat a person's reputation as a form of 
property - something to be protected, traded, and even sold like any 
other property - or create a legally enforceable duty of 
confidentiality between friends like that which exists between 
doctors and their patients.

At stake is the basic question of what we will allow people to say 
and do online, whether it's on a message board, a Craigslist ad, or a 
YouTube video - and who gets to set the rules governing what's OK and 
what's not. As the Web grows increasingly interactive, the system of 
informal and formal rules that determines appropriate behavior is 
only beginning to emerge, and thinkers on both sides of the debate 
agree that courts can go a long way toward shaping it. The argument 
over what to do about online speech, in other words, is an argument 
over whether the Web's unruly nature is something to be celebrated or 
tamed.

....

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/02/15/time_for_a_muzzle/

0
Monty
2/23/2009 6:29:05 AM
comp.dcom.telecom 29624 articles. 1 followers. nmclain (7) is leader. Post Follow

17 Replies
3818 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 17

I think the essence of the problem is too much anonymity.  The balance 
of power shifts when the victims are definite, identifiable people, but 
the hecklers (often quite sadistic) are anonymous, yet have access to 
the whole world's media.

***** Moderator's Note *****

Like Thomas Paine?

Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never
see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator
atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via
email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the
digest, you don't need to change anything.

0
MC
2/23/2009 4:51:16 PM
MC wrote:
> I think the essence of the problem is too much anonymity.

I know.  We keep seeing news stories sourced to "a high government
official" or "a police spokesman" or "an industry source" that don't
identify the source by name.  Let's start with them.  After all,
what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, eh?

Dave

0
Dave
2/23/2009 6:18:12 PM
On Feb 23, 1:18�pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:

> I know. �We keep seeing news stories sourced to "a high government
> official" or "a police spokesman" or "an industry source" that don't
> identify the source by name. �Let's start with them. �After all,
> what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, eh?

Some people are very strong supporters of the news media utilizing
such anonymous sources (including the news media).  They say it's very
important to democracy protection.

But it must be remember that that very same technique has been used
many times in the past to smear political opponents with impunity.

A major use of the tactic were leaks to columnists who then accused
various public figures of being Communists, which then totally
destroyed their career, and even the person.  This is a forgotten, but
very significant part of McCarthyism of the late 1940s and 1950s.
When the witch hunters didn't have sufficient evidence to drag someone
before a committee, they used leaks instead.

At the same time, many sleazy politicians used such leaks to attack
and destroy potential rivals.

0
hancock4
2/23/2009 8:12:30 PM
On Feb 23, 1:29�am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:

The first thing we must remember there is no such thing as totally
free speech.  We can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.  We can't give
away defense secrets.  We can't harass, libel, or slander another
person.  We can't make accusations with malice and reckless disregard
of the truth.  We must respect the privacy of private citizens.  This
laws have been around for many years and the Internet did not
eliminate any of them, although some people seem to think those issues
do not exist.


> Time for a muzzle
> The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it
> time to rethink free speech?

The existing laws on free speech, harassment, and libel/slander are
generally adequate.

The problem is that enforcing such laws in the online world is very
difficult.

If I were to personally print up and circulate a leaflet falsely
accusing a neighbor of heinous crimes, that neighbor could fairly
easily find me and successfully sue me, and perhaps take other legal
action as well.

But if I were to utilize a website to make such an attack and make use
cloaking mechanisms, it would be rather hard for that neighbor to find
out who I was and take action.

Unfortunately, the Web makes it very easy to hide one's identity and
easily and cheaply spread rumors and lies.  Printing up and
distributing leaflets takes time and money, and even involves some
physical risk (if someone sees me doing it and objects, I could get
punched).

The ease of the Web has encouraged many people to post slander.  Many
times social websites are used by kids to visciously attack other
kids.  (They wouldn't bother if they had to do it with hard copy.)

An added problem of the Web is that many hosting sites are overseas
and beyond the reach of US laws.


Clearly, this is an area that needs reform.


> The argument
> over what to do about online speech, in other words, is an argument
> over whether the Web's unruly nature is something to be celebrated or
> tamed.

It seems that supporters of the "unruly nature" side do so mostly on
lofty principle, as opposed to any real substantiated practical
results that benefit everyday people or the public interest.  But
those seeking to "tame" the web have many hard examples of abuse on
their side.  As mentioned, this is not so much an issue of "free
speech', but rather protection against the equally legitimate issue of
libel, slander, and harassment.


[public replies, please]

0
hancock4
2/23/2009 8:13:37 PM
Dave Garland wrote:
> MC wrote:
>> I think the essence of the problem is too much anonymity.
> 
> I know.  We keep seeing news stories sourced to "a high government
> official" or "a police spokesman" or "an industry source" that don't
> identify the source by name.  Let's start with them.  After all,
> what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, eh?
> 
> Dave

But the journalist who chose to quote the anonymous source *is* 
identifiable.

0
MC
2/24/2009 9:06:00 PM
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 1:29 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> 
> The first thing we must remember there is no such thing as totally
> free speech.  We can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.  We can't give
> away defense secrets.  We can't harass, libel, or slander another
> person.  We can't make accusations with malice and reckless disregard
> of the truth.  We must respect the privacy of private citizens.  This
> laws have been around for many years and the Internet did not
> eliminate any of them, although some people seem to think those issues
> do not exist.
> 
>> Time for a muzzle
>> The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it
>> time to rethink free speech?
> 
> The existing laws on free speech, harassment, and libel/slander are
> generally adequate.
> 
> The problem is that enforcing such laws in the online world is very
> difficult.
> 
> If I were to personally print up and circulate a leaflet falsely
> accusing a neighbor of heinous crimes, that neighbor could fairly
> easily find me and successfully sue me, and perhaps take other legal
> action as well.

Precisely.  And in the absence of legal action, decent people could 
ostracize them.

When I was doing computer security policy for the University of Georgia, 
I often heard people whine loudly when I told them that the laws of 
slander and libel *do* apply on the Internet.  They wanted the Internet 
to be 'free,' by which they meant *they* wanted to be 'free' to harm 
*others* but not the other way around.

As I said, the problem is too much anonymity.  I don't think anonymity 
should be done away with, *but* anonymous communication should not be 
mixed freely with identified communication.  As in society as a whole, 
anonymous comments should be a little harder to disseminate, and should 
be filtered through identifiable third parties who feel they are prima 
facie worth disseminating.  That doesn't mean agreeing with them, but it 
does mean having some ability to filter out purely malicious messages 
and obvious falsehoods.

Another point: Maximum freedom does not result from the total absence of 
regulation.  If you have no regulation, the bullies are free, and nobody 
else is.

0
MC
2/24/2009 9:07:23 PM
On Feb 23, 1:29�am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> Time for a muzzle
> The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it
> time to rethink free speech?


The New York Times reported that a technical demonstration of wireless
communication at Bernard College in New York City.  The demo turned
into a political tirade as speakers used the instrument to clamor for
womens' rights.

Note the date--1909, 100 years ago today.

Obviously, some things never change.  But from this we can recall that
arguments about free speech coupled with technology advancements are
not at all new.  This was a question when radio came on the scene.  In
the 1930s, many demogogues worldwide utilized radio for their
propaganda, much of it was helpful.  But at the same time, Franklin
Roosevelt, with his excellent speaking voice, used radio to calm the
fears of an anxious nation.   FDR's precedessor, Herbert Hoover, was a
terrible "spin doctor" and communicated very poorly to the public,
hurting his reputation and the Depression economic recovery.  (Hoover
instituted some recovery programs, such as construction of the Hoover
Dam, a vast public works project that employed thousands, and the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation which helped banks and railroads
stay in business,  but his contributions are forgotten and today most
people mistakenly credit those programs to FDR.)

0
hancock4
2/27/2009 4:17:54 AM
>The New York Times reported that a technical demonstration of wireless
>communication at Bernard College in New York City.  The demo turned
>into a political tirade as speakers used the instrument to clamor for
>womens' rights.

That would be Barnard College, Columbia University's women
undergraduate college.

> Hoover instituted some recovery programs, such as construction of
> the Hoover Dam

Actually, the dam project was signed into law by President Coolidge in
1928.  It turned out to be a great jobs project, but no thanks to
Hoover.

Hoover was a very effective administrator, particularly running
European relief after WW I, but he was utterly unprepared to meet the
challenges of the 1929-30 economic implosion.

ObTelephone: he lived a very long time afterwards.  Here's a clip of
him talking to JFK on the phone about the Cuban Missile Crisis in
1962:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs7my3gUx54

0
John
2/27/2009 4:34:40 PM
On Feb 27, 11:34�am, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> > Hoover instituted some recovery programs, such as construction of
> > the Hoover Dam
>
> Actually, the dam project was signed into law by President Coolidge in
> 1928. �It turned out to be a great jobs project, but no thanks to
> Hoover.

The dam project was sitting still for a long time.  The initial
appropriation for construction was made while Hoover was president and
he played an instrumental role in its construction.  Hoover, as Sec.
of Commerce, worked out an agreement among the several states to share
the waters from the project.  The FDR administration promptly changed
the name of the project, but later Congress wholeheartedly switched it
back to Hoover Dam.


> Hoover was a very effective administrator, particularly running
> European relief after WW I, but he was utterly unprepared to meet the
> challenges of the 1929-30 economic implosion.

Hoover did more to fight the Depression than he is given credit for.
He does deserve credit for the Hoover Dam and making it a public works
employment project.  His administration created the RFC and pushed
govt spending and operations to unprecedented levels to fight the
Depression.  He attempted to do more but the Democratic congress
blocked him, wanting him to get the full blame of the Depression.

However, unlike FDR, Hoover believed that deficit spending would
ultimately make things worse (a common feeling at that time) and
Hoover did not support the massive social programs that FDR
implemented.

As mentioned, Hoover was a terrible spin doctor.  He gave the
impression he was indifferent to the suffering of the poor which was
not true.  His speeches and press relations, consistent with the
presidency until that time, did not arouse the people.

In contrast, FDR was a expert at handling the press and at "spin".
His fireside chats gave the people the sense that someone cared about
them and was working on their behalf.  That was a critical
contribution, giving the people hope for the future.  But FDR's
programs did not end the Depression, spark a business recovery and for
many people did nothing to alleviate the suffering.  People forget
that FDR didn't like deficit spending either and in the late 1930s cut
back on social programs, FDR's cutback brought a fresh business
slowdown.

An example of FDR's excellent radio communication skills was taking
complex matters and making them straight forward for people to
understand.  For example, in explaining Lend-Lease, he explained that
a person would gladly lend a neighbor a hose to put out a fire so that
the fire didn't spread to his own house.  (Interestingly, Lend Lease
was neither a loan nor a lease, but a gift; it was made to sound like
a loan for public consumption).



> ObTelephone: he lived a very long time afterwards. �Here's a clip of
> him talking to JFK on the phone about the Cuban Missile Crisis in
> 1962:

I believe Hoover made the first television transmission.

I suspect under FDR the White House internal telecommunications system
greatly expanded, though I don't know the details.  Washington went
dial around 1930, though some congressmen didn't like it and felt they
were being shortchanged by the telephone company as they were now
doing the phone co's work.

0
hancock4
2/27/2009 10:26:45 PM
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> In contrast, FDR was a expert at handling the press and at "spin".
> His fireside chats gave the people the sense that someone cared about
> them and was working on their behalf.  That was a critical
> contribution, giving the people hope for the future.  But FDR's
> programs did not end the Depression, spark a business recovery and for
> many people did nothing to alleviate the suffering.  People forget
> that FDR didn't like deficit spending either and in the late 1930s cut
> back on social programs, FDR's cutback brought a fresh business
> slowdown.

Whether or not the New Deal ended the depression is arguable, but 
without the New Deal we would have lost Europe and the Pacific in WWII. 
We would not have been able to mobilize at nearly the speed we did. Had 
the TVA not been constructed, we would not have been able to develop
the atomic bomb as quickly as we did.

0
Kenneth
2/28/2009 6:35:21 AM
Kenneth P. Stox wrote:

> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> 
>> In contrast, FDR was a expert at handling the press and at "spin".
>> His fireside chats gave the people the sense that someone cared
>> about them and was working on their behalf.  That was a critical
>> contribution, giving the people hope for the future.  But FDR's
>> programs did not end the Depression, spark a business recovery and
>> for many people did nothing to alleviate the suffering.  People
>> forget that FDR didn't like deficit spending either and in the late
>> 1930s cut back on social programs, FDR's cutback brought a fresh
>> business slowdown.
> 
> 
> Whether or not the New Deal ended the depression is arguable, but
> without the New Deal we would have lost Europe and the Pacific in
> WWII.  We would not have been able to mobilize at nearly the speed
> we did. Had the TVA not been constructed, we would not have been
> able to develop the atomic bomb as quickly as we did.

Whether a person likes FDR or not, history has proven he did his best
to prepare this country for the inevitable world war with Hitler.  In
fact, there is a fair amount of evidence he baited Japan to attack us
somewhere in the Pacific so we could declare war on them, thus forcing
Hitler's hand before England fell.

I generally vote Republican but both FDR and Harry Truman were heros
so far as I am concerned.

0
Sam
2/28/2009 4:32:06 PM
On Feb 28, 1:35�am, "Kenneth P. Stox" <s...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Whether or not the New Deal ended the depression is arguable, but
> without the New Deal we would have lost Europe and the Pacific in WWII.
> We would not have been able to mobilize at nearly the speed we did. Had
> the TVA not been constructed, we would not have been able to develop
> the atomic bomb as quickly as we did.

I don't quite agree with that, but I think we're getting beyond the
scope of this newsgroup.

In terms of communications:  I don't believe the New Deal contributed
in any way toward improved telephone technology.  I don't believe the
New Deal funded any significant scientific research.

Did the Rural Electrification Act also cover telephone service to
rural homes?

In contrast, WW II spurred laboratories to make significant advances
in technology for the war effort--paid for by the govt--which allowed
faster and more intensive research and experimentation.  For example,
the RCA history points out the improvements in radio communications of
AM and particularly FM.  At Bell, during the war I think they began
semiconductor research that eventually led to the transistor.  Work in
radar greatly helped microwave communications after the war which was
a major contribution to telephone service.  The explosion in traffic
got Bell to develop new systems which were helpful after the war.

***** Moderator's Note *****

Good questoin about Rural Electrification. Even if there was no direct
subsidy, there was a large indirect one: the poles and rights-of-way
were put in by the REA, so Ma Bell got to clamp on for free.

And this _has_ gotten a bit far afield, so let's dial it back, OK?

Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never
see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator
atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via
email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the
digest, you don't need to change anything.

0
hancock4
3/1/2009 1:59:50 AM
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> The first thing we must remember there is no such thing as totally
> free speech.  We can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.

It seems to me that this tired, so-called example is so irrelevant in
nearly all situations that Godwin's Law ought to extend to him who
invokes it.

> We can't give away defense secrets.

This law is needed, but is too broad already, allowing abuse by officials
as in the case of Khalen Masi (details here:
   http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/radleybalko/~3/fkO6-cB2TgE/
).  Revealing classified information should only be a crime if the agency
involved can prove to a judge that revealing that piece of information
really could endanger the country -- and even then, if revealing it is
necessary to right a wrong, that should take precedence.

> We can't harass, libel, or slander another person.
> We can't make accusations with malice and reckless disregard
> of the truth.

These laws are ridiculously badly written, and much too expensive to
litigate for both the accused and victims.

I believe it would be better all 'round to simply legalize slander, and
tell victims to seek redress by arguing back, except in cases where the
victim suffers real loss -- such as losing a job because his boss
believed the lie, or being convicted of a falsely-accused crime.  Oddly
enough, in that last case the law now protects the slanderer because a
statement of accusation made to police or officials is legally privileged.

As for harassment -- real harassment of a person ought to be strictly
banned, and publication against someone's will of his home or work
location, or any info similarly capable of misuse to facilitate attacks
or other crime, should cause the law to assume it was done for that
purpose.  But there are lots of things branded by the law as "harassment"
that simply aren't.

> We must respect the privacy of private citizens.

US law currently exempts the media from this.  I agree with Bill O'Reilly
that it should not.

> This [sic] laws have been around for many years and the Internet did
> not eliminate any of them, although some people seem to think those
> issues do not exist.

The Internet, especially when it can be used anonymously, makes all forms
of speech both easier to do and harder to punish.  For most kinds of
speech this is a good thing -- enough so that banning anonymity (assuming
the ban can be enforced) would do much more harm than good.

> The existing laws on free speech, harassment, and libel/slander are
> generally adequate.
> 
> The problem is that enforcing such laws in the online world is very
> difficult.
> 
> If I were to personally print up and circulate a leaflet falsely
> accusing a neighbor of heinous crimes, that neighbor could fairly
> easily find me and successfully sue me, and perhaps take other legal
> action as well.
> 
> But if I were to utilize a website to make such an attack and make use
> cloaking mechanisms, it would be rather hard for that neighbor to find
> out who I was and take action.

It's fairly easy for the law to find the owner of a web site in such a
case; if the host ISP won't cooperate, the law can compel them.  The
exception is where the host ISP is in a foreign country that won't help
your country's law enforcement.  But again, I'd be wary of creating an
international mechanism that can penetrate such sites, or chartering
some kind of government cyber-attack team that can crack them.  The
international mechanism would be used much more by the likes of China,
Burma, and Iran against dissidents than by anyone in legitimate ways,
and the cracking team would set a precedent we wouldn't like at all
when someone does it to us.

A better way to protect your kids is to monitor their use of the net,
and to teach them not to trust, or care too strongly, what anonymous
strangers say.

0
John
3/1/2009 2:02:26 AM
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:


>In terms of communications:  I don't believe the New Deal contributed
>in any way toward improved telephone technology.  I don't believe the
>New Deal funded any significant scientific research.

>Did the Rural Electrification Act also cover telephone service to
>rural homes?

And it does to this day. Many REA Coop's provide telephone service to rural
areas. Those that are now gone were bought by GTE, Alltel or similar.


-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

0
David
3/1/2009 4:04:32 PM
More on REA telco's....

<http://www.ntca.org/index.php?view=article&id=51%3Ahistory-of-rural-telecommunications&option=com_content&Itemid=279>
-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

0
David
3/1/2009 4:04:44 PM
In article <Pccql.61266$6r1.19155@newsfe19.iad>, sam@coldmail.com 
says...
> 
> Kenneth P. Stox wrote:
> 
> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > 
> >> In contrast, FDR was a expert at handling the press and at "spin".
> >> His fireside chats gave the people the sense that someone cared
> >> about them and was working on their behalf.  That was a critical
> >> contribution, giving the people hope for the future.  But FDR's
> >> programs did not end the Depression, spark a business recovery and
> >> for many people did nothing to alleviate the suffering.  People
> >> forget that FDR didn't like deficit spending either and in the late
> >> 1930s cut back on social programs, FDR's cutback brought a fresh
> >> business slowdown.
> > 
> > 
> > Whether or not the New Deal ended the depression is arguable, but
> > without the New Deal we would have lost Europe and the Pacific in
> > WWII.  We would not have been able to mobilize at nearly the speed
> > we did. Had the TVA not been constructed, we would not have been
> > able to develop the atomic bomb as quickly as we did.
> 
> Whether a person likes FDR or not, history has proven he did his best
> to prepare this country for the inevitable world war with Hitler.  In
> fact, there is a fair amount of evidence he baited Japan to attack us
> somewhere in the Pacific so we could declare war on them, thus forcing
> Hitler's hand before England fell.
> 
> I generally vote Republican but both FDR and Harry Truman were heros
> so far as I am concerned.

Yes there is evidence that Washington delayed the transmission of 
warnings to Pearl Harbor in order to use it as a catalyst for entry into 
WW II. 

There was a strong isolationist movement in the U.S. at the time that 
FDR had to overcome. 

Our industry had been pretty busy building up aircraft, guns and boats 
for the UK under the lend-lease program. 

But FDR knew that the West was doomed if the U.S. didn't enter the war. 

0
T
3/1/2009 4:06:31 PM
On Mar 1, 11:06�am, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
> Yes there is evidence that Washington delayed the transmission of
> warnings to Pearl Harbor in order to use it as a catalyst for entry into
> WW II.

Telecom reference:  Despite advances in technology, in 1941 long
distance telecommunications, by either wire or wireless, were still
very slow and cumbersome.

War comment:

The historical record is very strong that the military was very well
aware of the risk of war, including Pearl Harbor.  Pearl Habor got
caught off guard because the Japanese outsmarted us by using a new
kind of warfare--planes launched from aircraft carriers.  Ironically,
the Japanese hit the battleships which were actually made obsolete by
their very attack.  The US' carriers were out at sea and far more
valuable.

While the Pearl Harbor commanders were blamed, with some
justification, for not being as prepared as they should've been,
MacArthur in the Phillipines was likewise unprepared (planes parked
too close) and had extra time.  Further, an attack on the Phillipines
was expected.


> There was a strong isolationist movement in the U.S. at the time that
> FDR had to overcome.

Even if Pearl Harbor would've been on full readiness, the Japanese
attack was still a surprise and in bad faith.  The outcome of rage in
the U.S. would've been the same.

If FDR was "baiting" anyone, it was the Germans.  He wanted to stall
the Japanese as long as possible because the US did not have the
resources to fight them.

***** Moderator's Note *****

This is the last message in this thread.

Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never
see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator
atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via
email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the
digest, you don't need to change anything.

0
hancock4
3/1/2009 10:54:56 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

time.time or time.clock
I'm having some cross platform issues with timing loops. It seems time.time is better for some computers/platforms and time.clock others, but it's not always clear which, so I came up with the following to try to determine which. import time # Determine if time.time is better than time.clock # The one with better resolution should be lower. if time.clock() - time.clock() < time.time() - time.time(): clock = time.clock else: clock = time.time Will this work most of the time, or is there something better? Ron On Jan 14, 7:05 am, Ron Ad...

time.clock() or time.time()
What's the difference between time.clock() and time.time() (and please don't say clock() is the CPU clock and time() is the actual time because that doesn't help me at all :) I'm trying to benchmark some function calls for Zope project and when I use t0=time.clock(); foo(); print time.clock()-t0 I get much smaller values than when I use time.clock() (most of them 0.0 but some 0.01) When I use time.time() I get values like 0.0133562088013, 0.00669002532959 etc. To me it looks like time.time() gives a better measure (at least from a statistical practical point of view). peterb...

time.time()
am I doing this wrong: print (time.time() / 60) / 60 #time.time has been running for many hours if time.time() was (21600/60) then that would equal 360/60 which would be 6, but I'm not getting 6 so I'm not doing the division right, any tips? On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 13:01:40 -0500, Bart Nessux <bart_nessux@hotmail.com> wrote: >am I doing this wrong: > >print (time.time() / 60) / 60 #time.time has been running for many hours > >if time.time() was (21600/60) then that would equal 360/60 which would >be 6, but I'm not getting 6 so I'm not doing the divisi...

Is time.time() < time.time() always true?
So, I was blazin' some mad chronix, as they say, and got on to thinking about Python. The question was, is the statement: time.time() < time.time() always true? Seems it should be false, since the statement itself occurs at one time instant.. but of course we know that python doesn't execute code that way.. So my question is, why doesn't Python work this way? (PS, I wasn't smoking anything, its a figure of speech :) ) On 21 Nov 2006 15:10:25 -0800, flamesrock <flamesrock@gmail.com> wrote: > So, I was blazin' some mad chronix, as they say, and got on to th...

RE: Is time.time() < time.time() always true?
Chris Mellon wrote: > On 21 Nov 2006 15:10:25 -0800, flamesrock <flamesrock@gmail.com> > wrote:=20 >> So, I was blazin' some mad chronix, as they say, and got on to >> thinking about Python.=20 >>=20 >> The question was, is the statement: >>=20 >> time.time() < time.time() >>=20 >> always true? Seems it should be false, since the statement itself >> occurs at one time instant.. but of course we know that python >> doesn't execute code that way.. So my question is, why doesn't >> Python work this way?=...

time in milliseconds by calling time.time()
I am trying to measure some system response time by using the time.time () or time.clock() in my script. However, the numbers I get are in 10s of milliseconds. For example, 1248481670.34 #from time.time() 0.08 #from time.clock() That won't work for me, since the response time may be only a few milliseconds. My environment is Solaris 10 with Python 2.4.4 (#7, Feb 9 2007, 22:10:21). SunOS 5.10 Generic_137112-07 i86pc i386 i86pc The tricky thing is, if I run the python interpreter and import the time module, I can get a time floating number in better precision by cal...

delta time = time stop
I'm using Python to parse a bunch of s/w test files and make csv files for later report generation by MS ACCESS....(my boss loves the quick turn-around compared to C). Each log file may contain one or more 'sessions', and each session may contain one or more 'nodes'. Each session in the log has an ASCII start and stop time, as does each node. I have the basic parse part done for parameters, errors, etc., but noticed my routine for determining how long each session/node took (delta time) was a bit repetitive, so decided to make a 'stand-alone' routine to handle th...

?TIME????????????????=/=/=/TIME?????? ?j???=/=/=/??????????
&#x2665;TIME&#x2467;&#x2461;&#x318D;&#x421;&#x41E;&#x41C;&#xC778;&#xD130;&#xB137;&#xD1A0;&#xD1A0;&#xBCA0;&#xD305;&#xC0AC;&#xC774;&#xD2B8;=/=/=/TIME&#x2467;&#x2461;&#x318D;&#x421;&#x41E;&#x41C; &#x261C;j&#x397;&#x2665;&#x261E;=/=/=/&#xC778;&#xD130;&#xB137;&#xD1A0;&#xD1A0;&#xBCA0;&#xD305;&#xC0AC;&#xC774;&#xD2B8; &#x2665;TIME&#x2467;&#x2461;&#x318D;&#x421;&#x41E;&#x41C;&#xC778;&#xD130;&#xB137;&#xD1A0;&#...

time.time() strangeness
Hello, today I encountered a very odd situation. I am on Windows Vista and usin= g = Python 2.5.2. Here's a code snippet to illustrate my problem: # uncomment the next line to trigger the problem # myExtensionModule.CreateDirect3D9Device() import time for i in range(0,100): print time.time() With the line commented time.time() returns a changing value which is wh= at = I expect. However, when I uncomment it and create a Direct3D9 Device = [1][2] it keeps printing the very same number over and over! In my proje= ct = I am using twisted which uses time.time() to schedule all calls. Since = time.time() is completely screwed the whole application breaks. I took a look at [3], but I can't see any obivous way how this all = interacts. Specifically I am not sure which API time.time() uses = internally (timeGetTime maybe?). Knowing this could probably help me deb= ug = more. I feel like time.time() should not break (unless the vid card = driver/directx has a major bug). Any idea what might be happening here? Replacing time.time() with time.clock() in twisted.python.runtime makes = = the problem disappear. I guess because it uses QueryPerformanceCounter. Thanks for your time, -Matthias References: [1] http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb172527(VS.85).aspx [2] http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb172527(VS.85).aspx [3] = http://svn.python.org/view/python/trunk/Modules/timemodule.c?rev=3D59678= &view=3Dmarkup Nitro <nitro@dr-c...

time sync? time servers give wrong time
I'm in toronto. Eastern Standard time. I use netdate linux to sync my clock. I use: /usr/sbin/netdate -l 2 localhost 193.67.79.202 216.46.5.9 This was working fine until last week when the DST changed. Now it reports one hour behind. Every name server does this. For example: localhost +0.000 Thu Mar 13 19:17:51.519 193.67.79.202 -0.669 Thu Mar 13 19:17:51.000 216.46.5.9 -0.718 Thu Mar 13 19:17:51.000 Local host firewall has best time, so not setting date localhost +0.000 Thu Mar 13 19:17:51.718 But its 20:17 right now in EST. How do I f...

covert standard time (AMPM time) to Military time
What is the best way to covert standard time (AMPM time) to Military time? data test; input @1 mytime 5.; @6 ampm $2.; cards; 04:20AM 07:30PM 05:27AM 00:00PM 01:00AM 12:49AM 12:59PM ; run; Hi Lee, Try this... data test; input @1 mytime $ 5. @6 ampm $2.; new=compress(mytime||ampm); new_var=input(new,time8.); format new_var time.; cards; 04:20AM 07:30PM 05:27AM 00:00PM 01:00AM 12:49AM 12:59PM ; run; On Feb 12, 1:22=A0am, hummingbird10...@HOTMAIL.COM (Annie Lee) wrote: > What is the best way to covert standard time (AMPM time) to Military time= ? > > data test; > input >...

convert time string in UTC to time in local time
I'm guessing there is an easy way to do this but I keep going around in circles in the documentation. I have a time stamp that looks like this (corresponding to UTC time): start_time = '2007-03-13T15:00:00Z' I want to convert it to my local time. start_time = time.mktime(time.strptime(start_time, '%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M: 00Z')) start_time -= time.timezone This was working fine now, but if I do it for a date next week (such as March 13th in the above example), it breaks because my local time moves to daylight savings time this weekend. So my time is now off by an hour....

convert time in and time out
hi all, because I have a list of data that contains Clock_in and Clock_out, how can I know the total hours that have been used where I have converted it to Clock_in at 46200 and Clock_out at 48061 how can I know the total hours that have been used? by the way, did I need to create two new data to merge togather Thanks Not sure what you have or did. If those numbers represent the number of seconds since midnight, and you don't have any in and out combinations that span across midnight, you could use something like: data have; input clock_in clock_out; format x y time.; hours=3D(c...

Time + time.local
Hi - I cant seem to get localtime to work, can anyone share some gotchas? ## check environment is setup [dc@fox:~]$ echo $TZ Japan/Tokyo [dc@fox:~]$ irb irb(main):001:0> ENV['TZ'] => "Japan/Tokyo" # so the env is coming through ok... or is it? irb(main):021:0> u=Time.now.utc => Tue Jan 04 06:21:25 UTC 2011 irb(main):019:0> t1=Time.now.localtime => Tue Jan 04 06:21:02 +0000 2011 irb(main):020:0> t1.zone => "UTC" ### so it seems zone is being ignored # is there any way to override/forcibly set the timezone? ir...

timing and timing reports (again)
hi ich have question about timing. i have an edk design with microblaze (using spartan 3e 500) where i use an ip core that i wrote myself. when i implement the design i get the following timing output in my console. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Constraint | Check | Worst Case | Best Case | Timing | Timing | | Slack | Achievable | Errors | Score -------------------------------------------------------------------------------...

Times Returned by TIME()
I would have posted this on the Quicksilver group but couldn't find it. We have a Quicksilver system that picks up files from a Windows eftpos application. There have been some slowdowns in the process and we've added some logging to identify the culprit. When the QS app detects a file, it writes a log record using time derived from TIME(). It shells out to a Clipper app which returns ADIR() data on the file. What we are finding on the test PC (XP) is that the ADIR() time of the file is approximately 2 seconds later than the TIME() value recorded. Does anyone have an explanation? Th...

Time Divided by Time is What?
I thought a time quantity divided by a time quantity would be a real, but it seems to be an integer. Can anyone confirm that? I can't find a reference that discusses this. Rick On Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:12:31 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote: > I thought a time quantity divided by a time quantity would be a real, but it seems to be an integer. Can anyone confirm that? I can't find a reference that discusses this. Rick Yes, time/time is an integer. If you need more precision than integer than you can do something like this as an example... real(time/1ps)/1E12 Kevi...

Timing run time
I would like to compare the speed of two algorithms solving the same problem. As far as I understood, the tic-toc command gives the time difference between the beginning and the end of the computation, without taking into account the time spent by the processor doing something else. I'm using a multi-processor multi-users machine and the CPU time used by my process is not 100% and is not constant. The measured speeds are fluctuating so much that I can hardly conclude anything. Is it possible to obtain realistic measurements of the speed of my algorithms? Thanks for your help Dear Didi...

Which To Use
Is Times the standard serif font? I'm deciding which font to use for a book I'm writing. My printer, HP 4ML PostScript, has the resident PostScript font Times Roman (strangely, the bold, italic and bold italic are Times). I recall that PageMaker 5 pushed for using Times. I now have PageMaker 7, and in its font list (the same list that appears in any application) is Times and Times New Roman. Would appreciate your explanation as to how resident printer fonts relate to whatever font I select from the font list (these are usually True Type, although there are other kinds). Also, a recomme...

convert time to ruby time to calculate the time difference.
Hi all, I have following two time stamps, 12:35:10:757 & 12:35:10:759 I want to convert them to ruby time and find the time difference. which is a 2 micro seconds. I would appreciate any help.. thanks in advance -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. Il 20/09/10 17.21, Ruwan Budha ha scritto: > Hi all, > > I have following two time stamps, > > 12:35:10:757& 12:35:10:759 > > I want to convert them to ruby time and find the time difference. > > which is a 2 micro seconds. > Simply: require 'time' mT=Time.utc(2010,9,20,12,35,10,757) => Mon Sep 20 12:35:10 UTC 2010 mT1=Time.utc(2010,9,20,12,35,10,759) => Mon Sep 20 12:35:10 UTC 2010 mT1-mT => 2.0e-06 > I would appreciate any help.. > > thanks in advance > You're welcome, but before ask, try to google a bit...[1] [1] http://ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Time.html#M000252 Alternative: >> require 'time' => true >> t1 = Time.parse("12:35:10.000757") => Mon Sep 20 12:35:10 +0100 2010 >> t2 = Time.parse("12:35:10.000759") => Mon Sep 20 12:35:10 +0100 2010 >> t2 - t1 => 2.0e-06 -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. Brian Candler wrote in post #942410: > Alternative: > >>> require 'time' > => true >>> t1 = Time.parse("12:35:10.000757") > => Mon Sep 20 12:35:10 +0100 2010 >...

server time != my time
on a timestamp, what's the best way to make the timestamp show as my time, rather than the server's time? i.e., it is 10:49 am here but the code on the server will create a timestamp of 2:49 pm. I want it to be stamped as 10:49 am Herb wrote: > on a timestamp, what's the best way to make the timestamp show as my > time, rather than the server's time? > > i.e., it is 10:49 am here but the code on the server will create a > timestamp of 2:49 pm. I want it to be stamped as 10:49 am Take a look at: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/time-zone-support.html ...

Time Of Day From a time
Anyone know how to calulacute the time of day, ie hour 1-24 for a time stored in a database, using just a time in a record??? Dennis Mason N6PDB dennis@bonnydoonfire.org shit wrote: > Anyone know how to calulacute the time of day, ie hour 1-24 for a time > stored in a database, using just a time in a record??? > > Dennis Mason > N6PDB > dennis@bonnydoonfire.org If you stored the time value as a DateTime data type, you can display it in 24hr time using the Format() function: Format(time_column,"hh") In Debug window: ? format(now(),"hh") ...

It's that Time Again
Giving away an Alpha before Christmas! (shipping after Christmas) Alphastation XP1000 667Mhz EV67 with 4MB Cache 1GB Memory (you can upgrade to 2GB) 36GB SCSI Hard drive + ON Board UW SCSI On Board 10/100 Ethernet Permedia2 8MB Graphics (Island Branded) DVDRW-DL/CDRW You pay shipping - USA is about $55 Canada Air is about $90-120 depending on East or West Coast Europe is about $150-250 depending on EU - UK is cheapest. These have international voltage p/supplies - so they work everywhere (on Earth) Send your drawing to : dturner@islandco.com Our mail server is us...

[News] GNU/Linux Grows Up; Time for Desktop Prime Time?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Is it time for Open Source to grow up? ,----[ Quote ] | In the past ten years Open Source software and its poster child, Linux, has | expanded quite remarkably. It has changed from a rebel without a cause to an | entity that even the tried and true establishments have sat up and taken | notice. Heck, if it is good enough for such mission critical, world changing | Wall Street then it is good enough for anything. `---- http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/locutus/is-it-time-for-open-source-to-grow-up-25860 http://tinyurl.com/5lmkp5 Related: Li...

Web resources about - Time for a muzzle / The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it time to rethink free speech? - comp.dcom.telecom

Vicious Rumors (Vicious Rumors album) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. , a non-profit organization.

Vicious Babushka (@viciousbabushka) on Twitter
Sign in Sign up To bring you Twitter, we and our partners use cookies on our and other websites. Cookies help personalize Twitter content, tailor ...

Squid Vicious' favorite photos and videos - Flickr
Explore Squid Vicious' favorites on Flickr. Squid Vicious has 72 favorites.

Pitbull mix mauled by vicious 2-month-old kitten - YouTube
Our 4-year-old pit bull mix dog Gertude has a new housemate, Earnestine the 2-month-old gray tabby kitten. To use this video in a commercial ...

Indian worker sent for psychiatric evaluation after vicious knife attack in Dubai - The National
Man stabbed colleague multiple times in face, neck and torso after losing his job.

Charlotte Dawson in hospital after vicious Twitter attack
TWITTER ATTACK: TV host and former model Charlotte Dawson is in hospital after she was again viciously targeted by Twitter trolls. A spokesperson ...

Man jailed for ‘forceful and vicious’ sex attack on Sydney woman
The ex-wife of a Sydney man convicted of a brutal sexual assault today applauded the decision to jail him for almost a decade, labelling him ...

Mathew Brooke and Andrew Morris 'not punished enough' for vicious rape of mother and daughter
Two men recently jailed for the vicious, callous and cowardly rape of a mother and daughter were not punished enough, according to Victoria's ...


Vicious cycle
LINING a dog box in south Canberra is a man's homely beige sweater, gutted straight up the middle by an ambulance officer and stained with blood ...

Resources last updated: 2/26/2016 6:16:24 AM