The first fold of freedom is pretty straight forward. Let's take free speech. You are free to say whatever you want, no restrictions. I even think hateful speech is covered but should be dealt with not by restrictions but by society. That will be covered in a different post. So back to saying whatever you want, that's pretty straight forward. So lets look at the second fold.

When are you "free" to exercise  your "freedom" of speech? Anytime and anywhere you are "free" to be. So what does that mean? We'll let's take some examples. If you are in your own home you are absolutely free to exercise your freedoms. If you are at my home you are only free to exercise the freedoms I allow you to exercise. If you are in a store you can exercise the freedoms the store owner(s) (or their delegate) allows you to exercise. If you are at a store you own you are absolutely free to define what freedoms can go on there.  Pretty simple, right?

Now the complicated examples. "Public" spaces. What is a "public" space? Well, there are raging arguments on that which I won't go into but rather I'll use this simple definition: if I paid for ownership of a place along with any other individuals then I, along with all other individuals who also paid, can regard that place as a "public" space and therefor have a certain level of "rights" to exercise our individual "freedoms". Wow, read that twice. That is pretty broad but generally that covers pubic spaces.  So let's look as some exceptions and see how they don't fit into that definition.

What about an apartment you rent.  Well, your money is paying for that place but only for temporary, partial ownership. You own that space for a given duration and often your "freedoms' are defined in a contract you voluntarily entered into with the absolute owner. So you don't get carte blanche "freedom" here. What about city streets? This gets more complicated since you did pay for partial ownership but that money was collected involuntarily and some of the agreements on it's use are involuntary as well. Still, I treat this like my home which I own with my wife, we decided to get married and therefore entered an agreement which means we both own our property. Sure she buys some things and I buy others but between us it's up for "public" use between the two of us. This does not mean that we always agree on its use, but we apply the second rule of "freedom" to that scenario.  The big difference here is I could break the agreement and take some stuff with me to go live differently. When we talk about cities and towns you are free to move out just as you chose to move in. Same with states and partially with countries (you actually are not "allowed" to leave the US without their permission, but again another topic). So we'll look at the "free from" exception to city streets just as I do with my home.

In a public space you are free to exercise freedoms and just are you are free, so are others.  This brings in the "free from" exception. People often try to argue that their "freedom" is impeded someway by other's "freedoms", if they are truly impeding your freedom then they are in the wrong but the simple act of freedom does not in an of itself impact anyone else. I apply this simple rule to see if that is really the case: you are not allowed to interfere with other's freedoms. Again a simple rule but very powerful.  Let's take some examples.

• Someone posts a sign, where they have the freedom to do so, that has a message you disagree with. I've never seen a sign that prevents me from disagreeing with its message. No matter how powerful you have the freedom still to disagree.
• Someone says something that I disagree with. I can say something back that contradicts their statement and voila my freedom is preserved.  Unless they are using some mechanism to literally prevent the sound waves from coming out your mouth your freedom is not impeded.
• Someone is praying to a god I don't believe in (either because I believe in a different god or none at all). I've never seen prayer physically force or prevent anyone from doing anything even if they are doing so out loud (see bullet above) or holding up a symbol (see first bullet) while exercising their freedom.
• Someone is standing on a sidewalk holding a sign (sign is covered above). Unless you can not physically get around them to exercise your freedom of movement then they are okay. Also, freedom of movement does not cover a right to move in a straight line or even at a certain speed so don't try that argument.

Lastly, the last argument I hear, that someone "being" somewhere infringes on your freedom. Well, I have this simple rule to cover that one: just because you can exercise your freedom anywhere, anytime you don't get the freedom to interfere everywhere, all the time. If someone get's to a location and decides to hold up sign there and is not interfering as define above you don't get to interfere with them. You can't tell them to move or decide that because you "want" that space at that time they can't have it either otherwise you most certainly would interfere as defined above. If they start chanting in that exact spot you can't tell them to stop because you "want" to chant in that exact same spot, you can chant next to them. This also applies to signs and symbols. If someone finds an awesome spot to put up their sign and you want to put a sign there too, you can't without interfering as outlined above and you have no freedom to make them take their sign down. You can ask them, maybe make a deal where you split the time, swapping signs, that is up to you and them, but as long as you can put your sign somewhere else they are not interfering with your freedom.

I'm a rational person, so I'd love to hear some scenarios that cause my reasoning to crumble and I'll likely respond. If convinced I'll even change my way of thinking. Just remember, this is my site, so you only have the freedom of speech I allow (but that is pretty much anything).

When I talk to others about stories I've read regarding people asserting their rights, like the right to remain silent or the right to refuse an unlawful search, I get a lot of people who equate that to "they're asking for trouble".  That always bothers me. I've never been a "go along to get along" kind of person. Maybe I'm too principled or maybe I'm not amenable enough, but I always believed that if you are doing what you believe is right others should respect that. Likewise, I respect that people don't agree with what I think it right all the time either.  Still, you would never tell a rape victim to just "go along with the rapist" and don't cause trouble, right?  Sure I know rape is a lot different than being asked questions you have a right to refuse to answer, but they are both violations. At what point does a violation become "acceptable" just to keep from "asking for trouble"? Is groping okay? What about hitting? Maybe just some verbal bulling or inappropriate comments at the office?

The problem I have now is that my assertion is based on the fact that people understand they have rights in the first place. Maybe they don't know what they are but once they are explained they can grasp them. After all, you hear on TV all the time "you have the right to remain silent" as images depict officers arresting someone. It's assumed that people, once read their miranda warning (that's what that thing is called), become aware that they don't have to answer any questions. They understand they have a right to remain silent and there is nothing wrong with doing so. Unfortunately now there is a case where a jury, once explained the law and individuals rights, decided that exercising those rights was not okay.

Paul Boylan explains in his blog how, despite doing everything right, he lost his first jury trial because of a jury's acceptance of an overbearing government. Now as a result, his clients, who were completely within their rights and did nothing wrong, could go away to jail for a year.  You see his clients refused to accept an inappropriate and unlawful demand for their licences. Notice I didn't say identification, because they did identify themselves, but when they were asked for their "papers", they declined.

They were arrested for "wearing masks", but that didn't work because they were not committing a crime and that's only illegal if there is a crime being committed. So the government decided it was for displaying a sign without a permit. Still that's kinda silly to arrest someone for, why not just issue a citation. So the government changed its mind again and decided to charge them with "obstructing", a catch all that works if there is something actually being "obstructed", but there wasn't. No official duty was being done so there was nothing to obstruct.  Still, that didn't matter because what it all came down to was they didn't give the cops their licenses when they were asked. It didn't matter to the jury if they should have been asked in the first place, the jury believed that when a cop asks for your license you just give it, you don't think about it and you certainly don't refuse.

Of course this begs the question, what else is unacceptable to refuse? What if the office said, "I'm just gonna plant these drugs on you" or "I'll haven't tazed anyone in a while, let me go ahead and taze you" would it be acceptable to refuse to allow that to happen? What if an office wants to search your car or drag you out onto the hood for no reason at all? When do we stop giving up our freedoms and what are we getting in return? You worry me America, for Thomas Jefferson once said, "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither."

Paul Nicholas Boylan’s Blog: I LOST, AND IT BOTHERS ME

Parasite Turns Wasps Into Outsider Zombie Queens | Wired Science | Wired.com.

How to Sound Like You Know What You're Talking About (Even When You Don't). via LifeHacker

Many people know that I am a BzzAgent. A person who participates in word of mouth social marketing campaigns for products and services which I typically receive free samples or trials of.  You can find out more yourself at http://BzzAgent.com.

 One of the newest campaigns is for Sodastream, a machine which makes soda in your kitchen using water, CO2, and flavor syrup, all in a reusable container.  I’ve been looking at this machine for a year now, asking myself the typical questions, does it work, is it worth it, will it taste good? So far I haven’t answered the question because I haven’t purchased a machine but the fact that I am still considering it and still looking at this one product certainly says something.

 First it tells me, after being around for more than a year I haven’t found anything negative or heard any rumors that have turned me off from the product or caused me to stop considering it.  Let me tell you, this doesn’t happen often.  Typically I can uncover negative reviews or watch a product slip away because it doesn’t really work and I stop looking at it.  Secondly, the fact that it’s still the only homemade soda machine I’m looking at shows that I believe it’s the best product that makes soda at home.  I haven’t found a replacement machine to start looking at and I don’t really even see any contenders.

 So, why this post?  Well, I have an opportunity to get in on this BzzCampaign.  I’ve been excited about it all week and have been waiting to post this to show BzzAgent Jono how badly I want in.  If I don’t get in, well I likely still keep looking, but if I do get in, OH BOY!!  I’ll be a be able to answer all my questions about this product and I’ll be able to share my findings with all of you! If you’ve seen my previous Bzz posts or I’ve talked with you personally you know I’m honest about my opinions and you can trust this won’t change for Sodastream! Please Jono, invite me to this campaign so I can share my thoughts about this product and hopefully turn others onto a great product that will save them money on soda and save them from having to recycle all those pastic bottles. (I’m an optimist about this product and I really hope it lives up to my expectations!)

Yesterday I had to buy a new battery for my motorcycle. It's been a while since I've had to buy an automotive battery in Massachusetts. Last time I bought a battery was in New Hampshire for my boat which is legally registered in that state. (I want to disclose this before the Massachusetts Department of Revenue sees this post and comes looking for more money.) Before that was likely when I was in my teens and bought one with a friend or for my old Z28.

I remember paying a "fee" even back then when I didn't bring in the old battery. I always just assumed this was something the store did and never looked into this "fee" in my youth.  Now, older and more crotchety about the state taking my money, I looked up the "details" around this "fee".  The summary is below but if you're looking for the best part scroll down to the bottom.

Summary: The core fee is a sum of money charged on parts that have a "core" that could be reused. It is charged to the manufacturer who passes it along to the distributor who then charges the consumer.  If the consumer provides a "core" to return, in theory to the distributor who passes it back to the manufacturer, then the fee is returned. The fee was put in place to encourage reuse of parts rather then disposal, like a deposit.

Here is the tax code gem. The "core" that you purchase in the part you are buying, in my case a battery core, is taxable so you are charged tax on the battery and tax on the core at our newish 6.25% tax rate.  Some places charge $25.00 for the core fee so that would be just over a $1.50, mine wasn't that much.  Now when you return the old "core" you can get your core fee back but guess what you don't get back, the tax. It appears the purchase of the core is a taxable transaction but the return of the core is not a "return", where you would get the tax back, but a "trade".  So imagine how many of these transactions happen per day in Massachusetts, and it's not just batteries.  Anything with a reusable part will have a core fee (and it appears some that don't if you search the web).  That 6.25% really adds up.

I'm going to see if I can "return" my purchase for a full refund then re-purchase with the core return on the same transaction so I bypass the core fee altogether. I guess I should be happy they don't tax my core fee when I purchase and return the old core¹.  After all they taxed that money twice already, if you add when I earned it, so is taxing it 3 times really that unbelievable?

¹ This was a sarcastic statement, sometimes it hard to express emotion in text. If you agree with it you may not want to keep reading my stuff. Beacon Hill is a bloated bunch of crooks who steal our money via taxes then give it away to people who keep them in power. There are a few good ones down there but on the whole we could easily do without them.

I was reading an article and someone mentioned "stalking themselves on the usenet archives" via Google Groups. I thought, this sounded interesting. While I can't actually remember posting anything to usenet groups back in the day, doing a quick search reminded me of my very early projects where I work and how far I have come (along with the technology). It's hard to imagine I once struggled trying to set up a simple web server. If you ever used usenet, you should search for yourself, it was fun. Here are some of the posts (along with dates) that I chuckled at. (Sorry, non-geeks may not get it.)

Posted October 3, 1997 in microsoft.public.frontpage.client:

I had FP 97 installed with the web server (1.1 I think, not MS personal)
on my Win NT 4.0 workstation and I upgraded to FP 98(beta).  After I
finshed installing FP 98 the explorer and editor would load and work
fine but whenever I run the server EXE files I get "{location of EXE} is
not a valid Windows NT application." Does anyone know what is going on?

Stats:

Win NT 4.0 Workstation on a PII 200
Upgraded from FP 97 -> FP 98 Beta
Web server will not run?

Ideas:

I used this same copy of FP 98 on two win95 machines and it runs fine.
Is there a Win NT version? (I didn't think so) Maybe I have the Windows
95 version?

Thanks for you help.

Posted December 5, 1997 in microsoft.public.frontpage.client:

I'm using Frontpage 98 BETA and the Personal Web server that comes with
it to design a site on a WIN NT 4.0 machine. I want to use a perl
program I wrote and I have placed it in the cgi-bin directory but every
time I try to run it I get a 500 Error in the client and a line in the
log that says:

[Fri Dec 05 14:04:48 1997] httpd: could not create new process: 193

The program runs fine from the command prompt and I have a test script
in the cgi-bin dir that runs okay (it just prints a line to the client).

What am I doing wrong? Why won't it work? Please help me.
I appreciate all suggestions and help.

Posted December 22, 1997  in microsoft.public.inetserver.iis.activeserverpages:

I am trying to get Perlscript to run on my machine within ASP docs but I
am having trouble. I am testing my setup with a Perlscript/ASP example
(from a CD) that just prints basic stuff like Browser type, version, IP
and so on.

Problem:        I keep getting a 500 error when I try to run the ASP

I am running:   Windows NT 4.0
Frontpage 98
Microsoft Frontpage Personal Web Server 32/3.0
I have Perl32 installed and FP is set to allow scripts

access log says: "GET /cgi-bin/browser.asp HTTP/1.0" 500 0
error log says: httpd: could not create new process: 193

Any Ideas???

"Use the other person's name" is likely the one I always do.  It's hard for someone to say "no" to you when you are using their name and they feel they are talking to another "person" rather than a "customer".  This is especially useful on the phone.  I've often detected a drastic change in tone on the other end as soon as I say the other person's name.  It's as if they were talking to a customer then realized they're talking to a friend.  Don't expect that every time, but you'll get it once in a while.

There are a few others that I didn't use in the past, but will now.  Also, it was a great reminder about techniques I have used but sometimes forget.  Hopefully you will find it helpful as well.

http://passivepanda.com/become-better-negotiator