Slashdot Mirror

it's not like they're freedom fighters being stepped on by the government.

It seems to me that it is precisely like that in some people's eyes.

Watching the class clown get sent to the office where he is butt-raped by the principal probably doesn't inspire lots of others to take up the mantle and carry on the cause of lulz.

There have been a few counter-examples over the course of US history. One man's lulz are another man's proactive defense of liberty. People like the class clown, and seeing him raped as punishment for making faces in class will enrage at least as many people as it will cow.

When you say "we saw it coming". Yes. We did. As Colleen Rowley, former FBI agent attests:
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/WTC_whistleblower1.htm

And yet, "its coming" intelligence, seems to have been actively blocked from reaching people whose job it is to make key decisions. To me this is indicative of people desperate to keep their "eyes wide shut".

Colleen Rowley was of course not the only investigator whose actions were blocked. You may have heard of Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator:
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

Don't be too sure of yourself dude...

things like fixing America's deplorable Death Maintenance Organization-run health care system

Republican created fear over socialized medicine was a staple of the 1994, 1996, and 1998 election cycles. In all 'fairness', it worked well for them, but it's the reason why there hasn't been any work on it. Frankly up until the last couple of years, it's been a real loser in the ballot box. Even 'independent voters' such as yourself hadn't seemed to warm up to the idea

or various "civil rights" pledges that they never seem to get around to...

I'm guessing that you mean affirmative action, your favorite party has been using anger over that for years, or gay marriage, which proved to be a very good wedge issue in 2002, and 2004.

except that they need a permanent brown/black uneducated underclass stupid enough to vote party line at the beck and call of people like Sharpton and Jackson

Now we get to the real meat of your problem with the democratic party, and now your utter bias is really showing. Of course the Republican party selling of tax cuts for the rich, reduction of government programs (well for the poor anyways), support for the confederate battle flag and the blatant hatred of much of the Dixiecrats (excuse me, Southern Republicans) have nothing to do with their loyalty, as it's only their 'stupidity' that has anything to do with it, eh?

..., it was CLINTON who let Greenspan and the Fed build bubbles galore that are now popping in rapid succession

Gosh, you really do hate Clinton don't you (CAPS even! more on that later). Your buddy, Phil Gramm managed to sneak in the Enron loophole which many believe is largely responsible for the oil speculation runup. When it became clear the Enron was manipulating the energy markets in 2001, the Republican Administration did nothing, until after it's collapse from it's own mismanagement. It's true that that the subprime mess is likely years in the making, perhaps even starting with some losing of the rules in the Clinton Administration, it's clear that the Cheney Administration had done nothing until it was way too late. Flip Flop party politics aside, good government isn't about being always being right, it's about doing right, even if you do change your mind, or compromise. In fact, even after Gore's and Kerry's very disappointing losses, I had hoped each time that Bush would finally get a decent nuclear power program together. Silly me, actually hoping that they'd actually work on that perennial plank.

But then again, I'm not a Rethuglicrat or a Demonican.

..., quacks like a duck, you might make that claim, and I haven't looked, but I dare you to show me one post on this site under the same username, where you made any assertion that doesn't toe the (Republican) party line; other than a blanket disingenuous statement about how you 'hate them' as bad as the Democrats. Even just one good well defended rant over a Bush Administration crime, would convince me that you have at least some of the fairness which you claim. I'd even go as far as saying that you've likely complained more about former President Clinton over the last year than you have current President Bush over the last eight years.

So, I ask you again: are you going to keep spouting off DailyKOS vitriol points, or are you going to start engaging in an honest conversation?

So pointing out the CBO report isn't what you'd call 'honest conversation'... interesting. I doubt if anything but a 'ditto head' could have an honest conversation with you. Actually, I don't even read the Daily KOS, checked it out once, eh, didn't like the threading/flow of the site.

who votes for the best person for the job rather than voting based on what party someone sticks next to

Riiiiight. And the FBI hasn't been caught improperly issuing National Security Letters recently ahref=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/washington/25justice.htmlrel=url2html-11383http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/washington/25justice.html>. And the NSA hasn't conducted domestic wiretapping in violation of the 4th amendment http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm. And the executive branch hasn't claimed that the right to a writ of habeas corpus is not granted by the Constitution http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml

Not to be rude, but do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?

Uninformed, perhaps. (which is why I related a story about getting some information!)
However, with your reply you seem to have missed some of the points about how the US system was designed to work. Granted the country pretty far from it now, so it is understandable, but I'll explain.

Certainly I'm not resorting to personal attacks to make my points. Where, exactly, was there a conspiracy theory?

The 4th amendment issue I have (above the problem of the current system) is the search I would receive when traveling without presenting an ID (and the one I get now even with an ID). The intent of the amendment is extremely clear: the government will leave you alone unless you are doing something wrong. If a private business is conducting a service that only works technically if participants are searched, then it is up to them to ensure the safety of their service, NOT the federal government.

To think there are not privacy issues with the current system is absurd.

I'm not concerned with the Airline policies. These are private organizations and I have choice to engage or participate with them. I do not have a choice to participate in the federal government which is why we have (rather, had) so many protections against abuses of its power.

You wrote: So Best Buy, the grocery store, hotels, and bars are part of the government now? I must have missed the passage of that bill. That seems a non sequitur. How do you conclude that? They are obviously not part of the government, which is why their requirement for ID is wrong when offering private services to individuals. Bars do scan id numbers now, and other businesses may well follow suit.

You wrote: to show that you are the party authorized to represent yourself as the named party. What kind of legal blather is that??? What does "authorized to represent myself" even mean? I have a physical body and that is really all the authorization one needs to represent ones self. Think: "Hi, I'm me!" As for my name, if I'm doing nothing wrong, then it's none of the government's business. The points you so eloquently omitted are the data gathering, filtering, and overt surveillance activities that the "named party" is now a-partyin' in because of this system.

And, in a final note, "talking to my representative" does not work: it is simply not a functional activity. Not only do they have neither time nor interest in communicating with the populous, they have thoroughly abrogated their responsibility to uphold the law.
For example, see
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/020108Lindorff.shtml
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/opinion/30wed1.html?hp

What's amazing, is you wrote a reply with the clear implication that you were refuting my points, and calling me a "conspiracy theorist", but in fact, my main points remain untouched:

1) ID is not required to fly
2) The USA TSA agents at airports lie to your face about it

Furthermore, the US federal governement does conduct searches in obvious violation of the 4th amendment for everyone who flies.

While some may try to minimize my choices as "meaningless", I will continue to stand up for my rights in any way I still can.

Depends on how you define freedom I guess... Are these examples of free speech? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick http://graphic.pepperdine.edu/perspectives/2007/2007-09-27-Leonard.htm http://www.hecklerspray.com/sally-field-bleeped-for-saying-goddamn-at-the-emmys/200610097.php Would a country that truly had freedom of assembly have "free speech zones"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone http://baltimorechronicle.com/052704FreeSpeechZones.shtml http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/04/hilden.freespeech/ Are these signs of a government respecting the freedom of religion? http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/09/15/wiretap_mosques_romney_suggests/ http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070918-1624-ca-mosquesurveillance.html All of these are a lot milder than being run over by tanks, but in the U.S. things are definately moving in the wrong direction.

There is no indication that it is going away.

Either you're a troll, or you haven't been paying attention.

Quote: That's why we have Habeas Corpus

No we don't. Alberto Gonzales said so himself (http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.sh tml).

• Election staff convicted in recount rig in Ohio 2004 presidential election that gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry
  
  
• Bush signs landmark executive order increasing White House power over federal agencies
  
  
• Bush's Signing Statement Dictatorship
  
  
• Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without warrant
  
  
• Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
  
  
• US Attorney General Questions the Right to a Fair Trial
  
  
• The White House is replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country
  
  
• Attorneys for the District of Columbia argue that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals
  
  
• U.S. citizens to be required "clearance" to leave the United States
  
  
• plenty more, regretfully...
  
  

Article 1, section 9 reads in part "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." It doesn't specify that Congress can suspend it, only that it cannot be suspended except in rebellion or invasion. I don't really know enough to argue about Lincoln, but the Civil War sure seems like a rebellion to me. :-) All we have to worry about now is an Attorney General who believes that "the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended" doesn't mean that US citizens have any right to the writ of Habeas Corpus. Hard to believe, but it's true.

• Election staff convicted in recount rig in Ohio 2004 presidential election that gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry
  
  
• Bush signs landmark executive order increasing White House power over federal agencies
  
  
• Bush's Signing Statement Dictatorship
  
  
• Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without warrant
  
  
• Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
  
  
• US Attorney General Questions the Right to a Fair Trial
  
  
• The White House is replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country
  
  
• Attorneys for the District of Columbia argue that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals
  
  
• U.S. citizens to be required "clearance" to leave the United States
  
  
• plenty more...
  
  

• Election staff convicted in recount rig in Ohio 2004 presidential election that gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry
  
  
• Bush signs landmark executive order increasing White House power over federal agencies
  
  
• Bush's Signing Statement Dictatorship
  
  
• Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without warrant
  
  
• Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
  
  
• US Attorney General Questions the Right to a Fair Trial
  
  
• The White House is replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country
  
  
• Attorneys for the District of Columbia argue that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals
  
  
• U.S. citizens to be required "clearance" to leave the United States
  
  
• plenty more...
  
  

• Election staff convicted in recount rig in Ohio 2004 presidential election that gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry
  
  
• Bush signs landmark executive order increasing White House power over federal agencies
  
  
• Bush's Signing Statement Dictatorship
  
  
• Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without warrant
  
  
• Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
  
  
• US Attorney General Questions the Right to a Fair Trial
  
  
• The White House is replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country
  
  
• Attorneys for the District of Columbia argue that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals
  
  
• U.S. citizens to be required "clearance" to leave the United States
  
  
• plenty more regretfully, see Part II
  
  

• Election staff convicted in recount rig in Ohio 2004 presidential election that gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry
  
  
• Bush signs landmark executive order increasing White House power over federal agencies
  
  
• Bush's Signing Statement Dictatorship
  
  
• Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without warrant
  
  
• Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
  
  
• US Attorney General Questions the Right to a Fair Trial
  
  
• The White House is replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country
  
  
• Attorneys for the District of Columbia argue that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals
  
  
• U.S. citizens to be required "clearance" to leave the United States
  
  
• plenty more, regretfully...
  
  

Since the rights of fair use are neither denied by the US Constitution, nor are they denied in copyright law, they're rights "granted" by the Constitution.

The Attorney-General of the United States disagrees with you. And, seeing as how he's the Attorney-General and you're not, it's his opinion that matters.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.sht ml

Yeah, Really
Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution
doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when
the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a
prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.

Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican,
stammering.

"Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't
take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that
mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or
invasion?"

Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in
the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of
habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not
be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion."

Video of the above exchange

Not only that, but the US Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights on US citizens.

Would this be the same Europe you are talking about were in Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland abortions are illegal for religious reasons? ( http://baltimorechronicle.com/abortion_policies_eu rope.html ) Or the Europe where in Italy all classrooms were required to hang crusifixes until just a year ago ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3215445.stm ), and insulting the Pope is still illegal? Or England where government funded schools are required to give religious education? Or would it be Denmark, Iceland, or Norway who have tax funded government churches, and Sweden had the same thing only until the year 2000? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion )

Sorry, but I much rather have a few loonies spend their own money to build a totally private theme park with animitronic dinosaurs, than to live with the kind of authoritarian state-mandated state-funded right-wing religious control that is so common in Europe.

I think you should grow up and get out of this juvenile paranoia. This is an implanted attitude, put there by the Overlords so that you will be able to deny your lyin' eyes at all times. If something unflattering to the Generalissimo appears in the media, it must be because "80% of the media are liberal," or some such bullcrap, outdated artifact of a survey done ages ago, which ignores one big fact anyway: the great majority of the owners of the media are rock-rib Republicans. Whatever. I did see the resignation of the Democrat from the ethics committee reported. It is embarrassing, though what he's accused of is exactly the scam that Gingrich and Delay -- and a few dozen other Republicans -- have been working for years. We hear from opinion journalists that "Democrats are involved in the Abramoff scandal," but not a single Democrat is on the list of those likely to be indicted. Not that we're THAT much cleaner, but Abramoff tried to make lobbying a completely Republican province in the 1,000 Year Republican Reich. The economic data is not all that great, in fact. I suggest you read this, written by a former assistant secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts: "Nuking the Economy." http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/021306Roberts.s html And actually, I'm pretty sure that the 60 Minutes story was pretty accurate, though the documents are likely faked. It doesn't cause you the slightest problem that the man who runs the most belligerent administration in American history was a no-show when it was time for him to do his duty? Before Bush's popularity numbers began their tumble, the media were enormously deferential to him. Remember, the leaks from Libby et al. ended up on the front page of the NY Times, that liberal bastion, helping him go to war based on fake intelligence.

Email is quite frequently used in court cases to establish intent. intent. Hell, if it wasn't useful, then why is this story important?

Now I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that emails ARE important.

Feloneous

``It's political satire, exactly the sort of thing that freedom of speech is all about.''

Which begs the question: is The Onion in a free speech zone?

Okay, you've given your anecdotal evidence which includes by your own words "guessing".

Googling "ceo" "salary" "ratio", you might want to look at two out of the first three hits: this article and this one.

China is becoming one big free speech zone, George Bush style

The real issue with hydrogen is whether it is better to use hydrogen to generate electricity in the car, that then runs electric motors, or to use electric vehicles directly. These are two good approaches for a post-oil future. The main alternatives are biodiesel and ethanol, but both are questionable as sources of energy, at least in temperate climates. Several studies have found that they take in more energy in fertilizer and processing than they create.

But back to hydrogen. Basically a hydrogen car is an electric car, but the energy is stored in hydrogen rather than batteries. The hydrogen is then oxidized in a fuel cell to produce electricity. Hydrogen in a post-oil future will be produced from electricity. So basically hydrogen can be thought of as a physical way of carrying electrical energy.

Hydrogen has several pros and cons vs transporting and storing electricity via wires and batteries. It's biggest advantage is that it can be used to fuel cars very quickly. Hydrogen stores a lot of energy per kilogram and cars could be refueled in a similar amount of time as they are today with gasoline. To recharge a pure electric car's battery in five minutes, on the other hand, would require enormous currents on the order of a megawatt! Such currents would be difficult for unskilled drivers to handle safely and reliably.

Beyond this one big advantage, most other considerations would favor battery powered electric vehicles. They can be charged at night, when electrical demand is low, so not much new infrastructure is needed for carrying additional electrical power. Commuting and local trips could be handled completely by overnight recharging and there would be no need to refuel on the road at all. Only for long trips does the refueling problem mentioned above arise.

Further, generating the power can be done largely using existing electrical generating capacity. See this article which shows that California's unused nighttime generating capacity could power a 100% electrical vehicle fleet in that state.

Hydrogen would require an enormous new infrastructure of manufacturing facilities, pipelines and filling stations. Some of this can be retrofit from existing oil infrastructure, but not that much. Hydrogen is a tiny molecule that can penetrate many types of pipelines. Likewise gasoline storage tanks do not have to be air tight. Piping the nation or the world with hydrogen is a herculean task.

As far as cost, both batteries and hydrogen fuel cells are high, but batteries are almost practical, as we have seen with the small existing fleet of commercial battery powered vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cell cars, on the other hand, would have to sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover their current costs. Much work is needed before these fuel cells become economically viable.

In short, by almost every measure, pure electric vehicles are more efficient and cost effective than hydrogen power. The one big problem they have is effective, fast refueling. That is where hydrogen wins hands down. The question is whether the other problems with hydrogen can be overcome more cheaply than finding an effective, safe way to provide megawatts of electricity needed to recharge electric vehicles when they are going on long trips.

I agree with you that the right to assembly is essential. Unfortunately, those rights have often been ignored in the past and are currently being violated with little objection from society at large.

Certainly you've seen some coverage of IMF/WTO protests in the last few years: protesters getting beaten by batons, hundreds or thousands of people getting arrested. Now, some of those people are arrested for vandalism or because they attack police officers without cause, and certainly they should be arrested. So it leads one to wonder if they're all being arrested for good cause.

If you check out, for example, the Washington Post's coverage of the tactics used against protestors at the Republican National Convention you'll see that a great many people are arrested for no reason other than exercising their first amendment rights. Then, of course, there is the issue of the "Free Speech Zones".

Now certainly, it's reasonable to say that people can't block traffic or similar without a prior warning or a permit, but increasingly these "time, place, and manner" restrictions are used to prevent people from protesting at all, and people are arrested even when they comply with the law. Clearly, we still have a lot of free speech in this country, but these are disturbing trends. So, all I'm saying is that while certainly the right to assemble should be respected, it is already trampled on regularly.

Seriously, this sort of thing might be great for our soldiers in the field, and in my little optimistic heart I'd really like to think that something like this could exist in our country without being abused by the "Total Law Enforcement" crowd. I mean, the US *should* be able to operate that way, what with having Constitutional protections and all that.

Given what's been going on recently, however, it seems like only a matter of time before somebody justifies using it on Americans on the grounds of terrorism prevention (after which, of course, everything will become terrorism of one kind or another). I mean, the USA is suddenly in the business of above-the-law prison camps, war without end and other awful little things like abusing the prisoner (in a non-masterbatory context), and all it took to get us to this point was the deaths of 3000 Americans.

Does anyone really doubt that looking through the walls of people's homes will be next?

Unions also use the threat of violence

And so did "the bosses", don't forget, and often they went a lot further than threatening

I found this link to a court case on truth (or lack of) in journalism.

"In a written decision, the Court held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation."

The topic? BHA. The media agency just happened to be Fox Television.

with the rules governing prisoners of war

No. No we are not.

Whether you agree with the "enemy combatent" theory or not, the prisoners do not have POW status or rights.

There is a list of some of the requirements here


Furthermore, they are members of an enemy force. Comparing that to people talking about computer patches is absurd.

Yes, quite.

Humm, The good ole days.

1. People on IRC who talked about things other than mod chips/xbox/playstation isos/porn/divx/mp3s...
2. Usenet newsgroups without spam, and the occasional flame war.
3. No Private message forums, only Usenet (sorry Slashdot)
4. Email without spam.
5. Shell accounts used for ppp emulators (no thanks!)
6. More than one tcp/ip stack choice.
7. Any web browser could display a website.
8. FTP search engines that worked.
9. No paying to download files (ala like Fileplanet)
10. The age of unencrypted innocence.
11. No pop ups ads.
12. No mass free-email accounts.
13. Letting the Internet regulate itself, no Government interference.
-

Read at your own risk - Open Letter to America from a Canadian

I use my side mouse buttons, 4 for forward, 5 for back. With a 3 button mouse I could see a use, but what else do you use gestures for?
-
Read at your own risk - Open Letter to America from a Canadian

If you have to use IE (And cant bitch slap the webmaster) try Crazy Browser. It will give you tabs, and stop pop ups. Middle mouse button works also.. Then complete it with Proxomitron and you can do almost anything. Proxomitron is kinda like junkbusters for windows, more options, gui interface, proxy switcher, very nice.
-
Open Letter To America from a Canadian