I used to believe this BEFORE i joined Linked-In. After many years of my eternal search for a living wage in America, I decided I might as well bight the bullet and see if there was any value in Linked-IN.

Now I KNOW for a fact that I'm just being shot-gunned by recruiters -- before that it was just a theory.

However, if no recruiters are actually hiring anyone they find on Linked-In, how long before they realize it's just a place for them to blow smoke and dangle promising job opportunities in front of desperate people who go through 600 emails a day?

Isn't it fun to know that a company took your contact data and now considers it THEY have more right to the people you link to than YOU do?

Perhaps Linked-IN considers me a data hoarding parasite, trying to beg for jobs while they do the important work of spamming everybody I will potentially know 20 years in the future.

I've currently got a junk email account I used to register with LinkedIN and I've received job offers to repackage packages from the year 2044.

"the constitution that says any entity must allow you to use their property at the exclusion of others in order to express your speech" -- that is true about THEIR property, but this is the PUBLIC's property, and your use of the term "exclusion" means that other people can't use the park on another day. Every gathering is a temporary exclusion -- so by this logic NOBODY could have any event, of any kind, in a public park. Since this events obviously take place -- your point is moot. They could have a Klan rally -- they wouldn't need to exclude me because this white boy wouldn't want to hang with those dudes.

It's a public park. It's not a private institution - so it is CLEARLY in the realm of public expression. Even for fascist, racist, fans of Ted Nugent who really, really want to shoot bears.

The criminal status of an individual should have no bearing here. Personally, I believe everyone should be REQUIRED to vote, and that a felony conviction should not end the right to vote -- because it would be too easy to arrest everyone of a certain ethnic group to marginalize their vote ... which I think has been done to communities of a certain hue. Especially where we repealed Jim Crowe laws and they immediately started putting up hindrances to voting -- even after they PROMISED that they wouldn't be making barriers to voting.

So the PROMISE that this is about public safety, and that they REALLY CARE about not giving a mic to criminals, means that Oliver North has to give back all of his air time -- well, if he were a rapper I mean.

All civil rights marches that could actually make a difference would be illegal by the standards of today's Supreme Court. We have "Free Speech Zones" today --- meaning; as long as you don't inconvenience anyone, and nobody sees you, you can protest.

If you have a "low tax, pro corporate" message like the Tea Baggers, you get CNN coverage and can even carry around guns to protect some tax cheat rancher (not a hypothetical).

Something tells me if this were a corporation that is resisting charges of human rights violations, they could still get a video through to a large audience.

"The community has a right not to feel threatened" -- please, that would mean that my right to not be offended means I could forever hold hostage ANY large gathering. No one has a right to be "not offended" or even to "feel safe at all times." The police even organize in communities that feel threatened by them. When about 25% of the males in Ferguson have conviction records -- you think that MOST people want them around?

This is about institutional acceptable vs. something the marginalized people want.

" The city of Hammond refused to let promoters hold the event unless they agreed that Chief Keef would not be allowed to perform."
That seems pretty specific. The city of Hammond -- or at least, the white people in power in Hammond, don't like the message of Keef. Maybe they think he's a criminal and shouldn't have the RIGHT to talk to people.

There were many people in the Bush administration who were avoiding the warrants of other countries and even US counties, and yet, they get speaker fees and engagements.

I have no clue what Keef is promoting. He could be a wacko. But to me, this is a clear violation of freedom of assembly and speech and it's the Haves vs. the Have nots. The people with money just show their messages on the TV -- and now they won't even let someone put up a projector in a park.

"Mother earth will take care of herself."

Yeah, and the rocks won't care if we are here or not.

"She has this sense of entitlement that wreaks. "

As compared to rich boys like Mitt or Trump or Bush? Is she LESS political or just less entitled? Which of the 4 of them would make their own coffee -- do you even know the answer or is this an opinion?

I'm not a fan of Hillary or ANY of the Republican candidates, but what has that to do with Climate change? Isn't it hard enough to get one point across without lumping in others?

And why can't we deal with the environment AND trading partners who happen to point weapons at us? There are certainly more than a few jobs in America -- some people even flip burgers while we worry about Russia and fuel efficiency standards.

A lot of the sub-prime loans went to people with the credit to allow them to get LOWER interest loans. People don't remember that the Republicans partially privatized Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae and that made them profit-oriented.

You know what happens to mortgagers who get higher interest? It's harder to pay off the loan.

The "leveraging" -- was mostly from the financial institutions who bundled the sub prime loans with insurance and traded it, sometimes as much as 20x the value of the "deposit" because they could say it was based on a mortgage. Did anyone hold a gun to the financial institutions head and force them to end Glass Stegal (which prevented such investments)?

Of course, the poor was hurt and the wealthy -- not at all.

So "personal responsibility" seems voided when ".inc" comes after the name.

While I can see the advantage for Soldiers -- we have already made war TOO EASY.

Do you know about all the wars or "hostile engagements" the US is already in? We hear about Iraq and Afghanistan because of a lot of troops -- especially people coming home injured. But most Americans don't know we have a lot of drones in Yemen -- and have for a few years now.

The only thing that really stops wars right now is soldiers. Not the Airforce who get to fly over and drop bombs -- no, it's the men and women been the ground who suffer.

That's why people who want LESS wars are for a draft or shared sacrifice. Without sacrifice of some kind, asymmetrical warfare (where one side is a lot more powerful than the other) can go on forever. The military industry and the multinationals benefit -- and we get shocked and surprised by people who hate us for our freedoms. As if drones were less of a terrorist weapon than homemade bombs. ALL weapons cause fear.

I seem to remember reading that in the Android support manual.

I too think it's insane to link a "real" account to a forum for exchanging my "opinion."

If Slashdot only allowed FaceBook logins, I'd either censor my opinions and keep it professional (which MIGHT be good for the quality and decorum of discussion) or I'd not use Slashdot.

When FaceBook logins were required for Huffingtonpost.com and Digg.com -- I quickly left. It's one thing to voice a political opinion -- it's another thing to become permanently unemployable.

More and more, I believe, companies will use social media to do background checks, and if your Facebook doesn't look like a Sears & Roebuck catalog and your political opinions aren't supporting Bernie Sanders -- you are in luck!

I also figure that you will soon have an "employment score" just like you have a credit score. Free speech doesn't mean much without employment.

I really think you are onto something with that combination Refrigerator + Toaster idea. There's heat being pushed out and wasted already, and that could be concentrated and used to brown bread, or at least warm some water.

Samsung makes appliances like these, and should really jump on the Chimera appliance bandwagon. Curved screens, Toaster + Phones, Toasters + WiFi. The marketing is easy; "We only sell hot stuff."

So lesson learned; from now on I'm going to use an alias for my pets. ... Kidding aside, Google+ might be attached to doing real business, and then suddenly you might comment on a pet shaming video saying; "That is completely gay." Which can haunt you, and your gay cat forever.

Oh, wait, you didn't need to pass a test for that.

I'm just trying to think how that would have been possible. I think back then there was a medical exception you could plead for. I didn't. I passed the 20 WPM test fair and square and got K6BP as a vanity call, long before there was any way to get that call without passing a 20 WPM test.

Unfortunately, ARRL did fight to keep those code speeds in place, and to keep code requirements, for the last several decades that I know of and probably continuously since 1936. Of course there was all of the regulation around incentive licensing, where code speeds were given a primary role. Just a few years ago, they sent Rod Stafford to the final IARU meeting on the code issue with one mission: preventing an international vote for removal of S25.5 . They lost.

I am not blaming this on ARRL staff and officers. Many of them have privately told me of their support, including some directors and their First VP, now SK. It's the membership that has been the problem.

I am having a lot of trouble believing the government agency and NGO thing, as well. I talked with some corporate emergency managers as part of my opposition to the encryption proceeding (we won that too, by the way, and I dragged an unwilling ARRL, who had said they would not comment, into the fight). Big hospitals, etc.

What I got from the corporate folks was that their management was resistant to using Radio Amateurs regardless of what the law was. Not that they were chomping at the bit waiting to be able to carry HIPAA-protected emergency information via encrypted Amateur radio. Indeed, if you read the encryption proceeding, public agencies and corporations hardly commented at all. That point was made very clearly in FCC's statement - the agencies that were theorized by Amateurs to want encryption didn't show any interest in the proceeding.

So, I am having trouble believing that the federal agency and NGO thing is real because of that.