Slashdot Mirror


DoJ - Making Data Public Would 'Crash System'

orthogonal writes "The Justice Department today denied Freedom of Information Act requests to make public data on foreign lobbyists, claiming that '[i]mplementing such a request risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating'. The requestor responded that '[t]his was a new one on us. We weren't aware there were databases that could be destroyed just by copying them,' Bob Williams of the Center for Public Integrity said Tuesday. Maybe we should tell John Ashcroft about open source database and copying solutions?"

879 comments

  1. Ahhh... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 5, Funny

    And that's why you shouldn't use Access for your Enterprise Solutions.

    1. Re:Ahhh... by WarMonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      or flat files manipulated by a Perl script. :)

      --
      -- I could tell right away that she was impressed with my HUGE Slashdot Karma.
    2. Re:Ahhh... by beacher · · Score: 4, Funny

      I heard it was one big Excel workbook with a tab for every SSN#.

    3. Re:Ahhh... by JCCyC · · Score: 1

      Even THAT is no justification! Access actually WORKS... sort of.

      Lamest. Excuse. EVAH!

    4. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are using oracle and informix. And it's not that simple, *hint* what if they are in the middle of a software upgrade? Large, replicated databases that are online are a bit harder to touch than just straight-up copying the tables, or creating a report. Would you just run something on a live system that you hadn't had time to test? no. I believe that they should eventually be able to, and within a reasonable amount of time... but every situation is not indicative of a cover-up -- since opening up information is not selective, but probably done on a much larger scale than the public "cares" about, like financial information.

    5. Re:Ahhh... by Prune · · Score: 2, Funny

      SSN#

      The N in SSN stands for number. The pound sign '#' also stands for number. Essentially, you wrote 'Social Security Number Number'.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    6. Re:Ahhh... by Niet3sche · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obligatory Simpsons quote follows:

      Mr. Burns: Lets see, social security number. Nought nought nought nought nought nought nought nought two. Damn Roosevelt!

    7. Re:Ahhh... by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow. They must not collect much data, then...

      Excel can only have 255 tabs per worksheet. Maybe they have a whole Access database full of Excel worksheets with 255 tabs each.

      Ow. That one made my head hurt.

    8. Re:Ahhh... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gentlemen, Gentlemen please!

      This is an MS Works project

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    9. Re:Ahhh... by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      umm, this is questionable. The SSN has become a title of a document/product and i believe if used the way he did, it would mean the "social security numbers'" number. It does seam a little redundant but if you think about it as an item/name/title (SSN) then it would make sence.

    10. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they have a whole Access database full of Excel worksheets with 255 tabs each.

      They're more fiendisher than that. They have one big Excel worksheet with other Excel workbooks embedded in it, and more workbooks embedded in them. Simple, obvious, and yes, copying it probably would crash the system.

    11. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      well everyone says atm machine... why no double everything...

    12. Re:Ahhh... by tunabomber · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, c'mon. If our government can build cruise missiles that can reliably fly through the goalposts of a football field after being launched from hundreds of miles away, I don't think they'd be using Bronze age technology for storing our vital public records.
      I'm sure that they designed a new high-density storage medium that encodes bits of information as the polarizations of photons bouncing around in nanoscale optical cavities.
      After storing all that data, the government realized that thanks to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, if we now attempt to read the information, we will destroy its quantum state, thus destroying the data in the process.
      I'm sure that's it- they're just dumbing down the details so that us SlashDotters can understand it... *snicker*

      --

      pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    13. Re:Ahhh... by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      I heard it was one huge tank full of colored, irregularly shaped rocks tied to notes. You just tell the tank's dolphin to pick up the teal-tinted green-sparkling mauve rock shaped like a triangle with a hook at one end, and you've got the record for AIPAC's 4813rd lobbyist to enter the US.... ... Whoops, my mistake. I just checked it out, and I was confusing the DoJ's lobbying database system with the Pentagon's accounting system. Sorry!

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    14. Re:Ahhh... by Brandybuck · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's still a darn sight better than http colon slash slash slash dot dot org...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    15. Re:Ahhh... by terrymr · · Score: 3, Funny

      I prefer SSN# Number

    16. Re:Ahhh... by tunabomber · · Score: 4, Funny

      A redundant acronym on Slashdot?! Well I never! I can hardly believe my LCD display!

      --

      pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    17. Re:Ahhh... by f00zy · · Score: 2, Funny

      that's BS. everyone knows a CSV would use much less disk space.

    18. Re:Ahhh... by bucknuggets · · Score: 1

      or an OO database - designed for small indexed retrievals of a few objects rather than bulk operations.

      or an ancient hierarchical database (IMS DB) with the same problems.

      or a shiney new hierarchical xml database with the same problems.

      So yeah, the problem is rediculous. But not really that uncommon.

    19. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a joke. You know suppsoed to make you laugh.

    20. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pound sign ?

      its correct name is an Octothorpe

      lets hope you don't do currency trading

    21. Re:Ahhh... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the maximum that you can have when you create a new file. However, you can keep adding more. I have about 600 some tabs in one workbook. The only real limit with Excel is that you can only have appx. 65,000 rows in a single tab.

    22. Re:Ahhh... by Necrobruiser · · Score: 1

      I can hardly believe my LCD display!

      ...that displays WINE on GNU Linux...

      --
      "I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
    23. Re:Ahhh... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, he wrote "Social Security Number Hash," which is exactly the data structure *I* would use to organize them.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    24. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was an article in Security Focus some months back in which it was stated that the FBI uses Macs to a large extent internally. Thus it may be that they've attempted to do it with FileMaker Pro.

    25. Re:Ahhh... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 5, Funny

      thanks to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

      We can't know what the data is because somebody wanted to know how fast they were entering it?

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    26. Re:Ahhh... by raider_red · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let me tell you sometime about the rows and rows of three-ring binders the FAA uses to keep track of data on its radar sites.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    27. Re:Ahhh... by another_henry · · Score: 4, Funny
      He must work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

      Anyway, I'm off to use the ATM machine.. if only I can remember my PIN number.

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    28. Re:Ahhh... by ManoMarks · · Score: 1

      We use Access to monitor our service provision, tens of thousands of program and we've never had this problem. Not that I'd recommend it. Access sucks. The only thing worse than using Access is using it badly.

      --

      That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere

    29. Re:Ahhh... by Bull999999 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I believe that would be "Social Security Number Sharp".

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    30. Re:Ahhh... by Pausanias · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, c'mon. If our government can build cruise missiles that can reliably fly through the goalposts of a football field after being launched from hundreds of miles away, I don't think they'd be using Bronze age technology for storing our vital public records.

      Really? Then how about the IRS's ancient setup? (It's a local cache of a Dec '03 NYT article about the IRS's upgrading woes)

      Here's an excerpt:

      The I.R.S. says it can still process returns and send out refunds on time, but its dependence on the 1960's-era Assembler and Cobol computer languages makes it difficult to investigate and resolve taxpayers' problems. Finding a record using the existing system can take a week; the new system is supposed to do the job in seconds.

    31. Re:Ahhh... by radd0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now wait a second! ...When did they upgrade from FoxPro?

    32. Re:Ahhh... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      Nice. Honorary mod points to you for that one.

      Too bad I don't have any real ones to give. Oh, and I'm the great-great...grandparent poster, so I don't think I could give them anyway. I've never had mod points.

    33. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer that you are retarded.

    34. Re:Ahhh... by Jodka · · Score: 4, Funny

      "if only I can remember my PIN number"

      A "PI number" would be even more difficult to remember.

      So I think "PIN number" is more rational.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    35. Re:Ahhh... by Alan+Hicks · · Score: 1

      Since nearly everyone in this thread is being anal retentive about something (i.e. the SSN#), I'd like to point out that should be 4813th.

      --
      Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
    36. Re:Ahhh... by Eccles · · Score: 2, Funny

      He must work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

      Which one?

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    37. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Continuing on....

    38. Re:Ahhh... by Aliencow · · Score: 1

      I heard their database is powered by NT Technology.

    39. Re:Ahhh... by sould · · Score: 1

      He must work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

      Surely you mean the DRD Department?

    40. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Just "PIN" is sufficient. "Enter your PIN."

      Besides "LCD Display", my other pet peeve redundancy is "HIV Virus".

      Then again, I don't like it when people send "an" e-mail. I send a letter, I don't send a mail, so why would I send an e-mail? It really ought to be an e-letter, but just dropping the article is sufficient. Send me "e-mail", not "an e-mail".

    41. Re:Ahhh... by Phexro · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. I have Pi memorized to several dozen decimal places.

    42. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They're numbers. Use an array.

    43. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Premise: Everyone says ATM machine.
      Therefore: I say ATM machine.
      From experience: I do not say ATM machine.

      A valid argument with contradictory statements. The premise is false.

      It is NOT the case that everyone says ATM machines.

    44. Re:Ahhh... by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 2, Funny

      True story: I once worked for a guy who wanted me to convert a fairly large Access database into an Excel file because he thought it would be easier for him to work with. Luckily, I was able to convince him that would not be the case and that he would lose a lot of querying functionality, so he ditched the idea.

    45. Re:Ahhh... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      You have a long way to go.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    46. Re:Ahhh... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe that would be "Social Security Number Sharp".

      This raises the question 'what would SSN flat sound like? Maybe SSM#?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    47. Re:Ahhh... by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least it isn't http colon backslash backslash slash dot dot org.

    48. Re:Ahhh... by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny
      You have a long way to go.


      Nonsense! Memorizing all the digits in Pi is easy. From memory, here they are: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    49. Re:Ahhh... by stalin1440 · · Score: 1

      damn roosevelt ! that's right !

    50. Re:Ahhh... by nfsilkey · · Score: 1

      No worse than "Built on NT technology"

      WINDOWS NT = Windows New Technology
      -acronymfinder.com :)

    51. Re:Ahhh... by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Mount Fujiyama ... shitake mushroom ... nashi pear ...

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    52. Re:Ahhh... by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      no.

      You'd never fit the array into memory. Unless it was an indexed virtual array, of course. Data General shipped a bunch of FORTRAN subprograms for using these with AOS/VS - sweet.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    53. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I prefer that too. Do you like those little dogs with the flat faces? I do.

    54. Re:Ahhh... by builderbob_nz · · Score: 1

      LCD display

      As funny as this may sound, doesn't the 'D' in LCD stand for Diode these days?

      --

      Karma? Hey I just call it as I see it.
    55. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sahara Desert ...

    56. Re:Ahhh... by bursch-X · · Score: 1


      It actually means "Built on NeanderThal technology", you know stones and bones and such...

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    57. Re:Ahhh... by shepd · · Score: 2, Informative

      >The pound sign '#' also stands for number.

      If we're going to be pedantic, a pound sign indicates pound sterling, and looks like a stylized 'E'. Someone more pedantic than myself will likely tell us all the HTML code to display this character.

      The sign you are discussing is, in fact, an octothorpe (occasionally spelled without the 'e'). ;-)

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    58. Re:Ahhh... by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, we all know that it's "Social Security Number Octothorp."

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    59. Re:Ahhh... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, with an Array, the cost to find 192-32-2304 is...well, however many numbers come before it.

      With a hash, it's more like log N.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    60. Re:Ahhh... by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      Umm, it's Fujisan, not Fujiyama (at least if you're talking about the famous one in Yamanashi and Shizuoka; there are lesser mountains called Fujiyama in several placs in Japan, but that's an odd mixture of on-yomi and kun-yomi), and I've never heard anyone call it Mt. Fujisan. Even if they did, however, that is generally considered acceptable in bilingual constructs, so that people know what it is. If say those things to a person who doesn't understand Japanese, she might have no idea what I'm talking about.

    61. Re:Ahhh... by papercut2a · · Score: 1

      Humor like this is why I read /.dot

    62. Re:Ahhh... by fireman+sam · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or, if you were giving directions to slashdot for a complete novice:

      http shift colon, no hold down shift and press the button with the two dots one on top of the other, good. forward slash, no that is back slash, yes, that's it, and another one, yes a forward slash. Now type slashot, no don't press slash then dot, type the words in. yeah, s l a s h, d o t. now press full stop. and type o r g. Now press the enter key.

      error: http;\\slash.dot.org not found

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    63. Re:Ahhh... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0, Redundant

      PINs are integers, so of course they're rational. A PI is transcendental, definitely not rational.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    64. Re:Ahhh... by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about your personal PIN identification number!

    65. Re:Ahhh... by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      Or any Microsoft software... After all, the first thing you'd probably want with all of that information is stability. Something that doesn't crash when moved and copied. =P

      It just goes to show how lazy the people of America are. Picking user-friendliness over everything else.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    66. Re:Ahhh... by druhol · · Score: 1

      Hell, just opening it would crash the system.

      --
      WWD4D?
    67. Re:Ahhh... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Except that a flat file could be copied easily. Thus whatever solution they have must be far more fragile still...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    68. Re:Ahhh... by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Humor like that is why I
      I read /.org

    69. Re:Ahhh... by chthon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As in Liquid Crystal Diode ?

      Or as in Light Emitting Display ?

    70. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, with an Array, the cost to find 192-32-2304 is...well, however many numbers come before it.

      With a hash, it's more like log N.


      Er... what?

      What you claim of an array is O(n), which is nonsense. Arrays have O(1) lookups, it's lists that are O(n).

      With the right hash function, a hash table also has O(1) lookups. It's maps based on balanced trees that are O(log n).

      I think you need to retake your basic data structures class...

    71. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You pick him up on Fujiyama, and then let "shitake" pass without comment? Please try to be more consistent in your pedantry!

    72. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never heard anyone say "ATM machine" in my life. In fact I've never heard anyone say "ATM", full stop.

      Where I come from we call them cashpoints...

    73. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Nonsense! Memorizing all the digits in Pi is easy.
      > From memory, here they are: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

      Great. Gotta print that out and memorize it.

    74. Re:Ahhh... by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      is that even a valid social security number? no modulo somewhere?

    75. Re:Ahhh... by Prune · · Score: 1

      What's really funny is that braindead moderators would mod a serious post as funny.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    76. Re:Ahhh... by flupps · · Score: 1

      Ever booted up a Windows 2000 machine?

      Says something like "Built on NT Technology".

      AFAIK NT = New Technology.

      Build on New Technology Technology would the result be.

    77. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer SSN# Number

      You l left lout the variable tag. Don't you mean:

      SSN# $Number

    78. Re:Ahhh... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, you're the one who's mistaken. Social Security Numbers are not contiguous nor are the assigned round robin. The newest baby doesn't neccesarily receive last_number+1 and some SSNs just aren't assigned...therefore, to find 192-32-2304 not simply a matter of accessing SSN[192322304] as you are suggesting. That number and its associated data would be located somewhere else in the array, at an indeterminate position...and to find it, you'd need a marginally efficient search algorithm. Hope you kept that array sorted!

      And come to think of it, the best way to handle SSNs would be with a tree based map.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    79. Re:Ahhh... by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      This raises the question 'what would SSN flat sound like?

      It would sound like the soft exhalation of breath from people getting their first social security checks.

      "You mean, that's it?"

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    80. Re:Ahhh... by freqres · · Score: 1

      octothorpe - The symbol (#).

      [Alteration (influenced by octo-), of earlier octalthorpe, the pound key probably humorous blend of octal, an eight-point pin used in electronic connections (from the eight points of the symbol), and the name of Oglethorpe, James Edward.]

      Hopefully not related to Ogie Oglethorpe.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    81. Re:Ahhh... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I always liked the MS-DOS retail boxes. The documentation usually said:

      "The Microsoft MS-DOS Operating System", which of course expands to the Microsoft Microsoft Disk operating System Operating System"

    82. Re:Ahhh... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      But maybe in the database each SSN is allocated a separate identifying number too?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    83. Re:Ahhh... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      OR just do something wild like keeping an index?

    84. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the governement BUYS cruise missiles.

    85. Re:Ahhh... by quisph · · Score: 1

      The Social Security Number 000-00-0002 is not valid. No valid number has "000" as the first 3 digits, or "00" as the 4th and 5th digits. But there is no checksum validation for U.S. Social Security Numbers.

    86. Re:Ahhh... by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      Dammit, you almost made me spew my turkey sandwich. Not cute when you work in a cube farm.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    87. Re:Ahhh... by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      I believe each set of numbers means something unique. I know the first three have something to do with the state (or region) of birth.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    88. Re:Ahhh... by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 1

      We're talking about government systems. They probably use an unsorted flat file, or maybe a single multi-terabyte string.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
    89. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an excuse by the U.S. Government. The goal is to hide the extent of foreign lobbying in the U.S on U.S. policies.


      The U.S. should not allow foreign lobbying. Foreign lobbying is corruption. The U.S. doesn't allow foreign campaign contribution for government elections. Why should foreign countries which obviously have foreign citizens interests be allowed to lobby for something that doesn't benefit U.S. Citizens? Other countries have limits to foreign lobbying but the U.S. because of it's outdated constitution allows for this. The constitution is a little backward because anything is allowed and certain limits that are needed were not written into it.


      A prime example is trade where U.S. policy can be altered and has been altered to benefit foreign countries. This can be seen in the example of Global Crossing. The U.S. believes in not owning or supporting domestic industries. The Singapore government wanted to buy Global Crossing and the U.S. when there was opposition they lobbied against it. The Singapore government should have never been allowed to buy it and when push came to shove the U.S. should enforce it's non socialist policies and views. This is the irony. The U.S. believes in non government owned business but it allows a foreign country to practice government ownership within the U.S. The U.S. government should have taken an active step in its reformation. The real flaw is that a foreign government took advantage of lax government economic influence and even encourage it through lobbying.

    90. Re:Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting A, B, C, D, E, and F!

    91. Re:Ahhh... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > No worse than "Built on NT technology"

      Except that Windows NT is a title. If something was built upon the *ahem* "technology" of Windows NT, it would, in fact, be "Windows NT technology."

      Deciding whether or not there was actually any technology at all, new or old, in it is another matter completely.

    92. Re:Ahhh... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Build on New Technology Technology would the result be.

      No, "Windows NT" is a title, and technology based on it would be "NT technology," nothing else.

    93. Re:Ahhh... by Ann+Elk · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of an old joke about writing:

      Thinking of the right words is not too difficult, but getting them in the right order is damn hard.

    94. Re:Ahhh... by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1
      Humor like that is why I I read /.org

      Shouldn't that be
      /..org?

    95. Re:Ahhh... by Niet3sche · · Score: 1

      Absolutely right. I remember back in the day you could "decode" your SSN through use of a program. I ran mine through and it correctly reported the location and year of issue.

      So clearly the numbers are NOT arbitrary. :)

  2. This and other features... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now available in Server 2003, keeping your data safe from prying eyes

    1. Re:This and other features... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The release was beta server 2005, not 2003.

  3. Well, we could... by th1ckasabr1ck · · Score: 4, Funny
    Maybe we should tell John Ashcroft about open source database and copying solutions?"

    Well we could, but then he would have to come up with ANOTHER bogus reason. Cut him some slack, the man works hard enough as it is.

    1. Re:Well, we could... by WarMonkey · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm... Now that does spark an interesting idea. "In other news this evening, internet discussion forum Slashdot.org personality CowboyNeal presented a petition in Washington, D.C. in which 10,000 database professionals demanded polygraph tests for Attorney General John Ashcroft." One poster did note, however, that polygraph tests for politicians would be redundant. :)

      --
      -- I could tell right away that she was impressed with my HUGE Slashdot Karma.
    2. Re:Well, we could... by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yeah he works hard enough lying to the American public and destroying all openness in government. Have you read Jonathan Dean's book? I realize you're joking but I've had it with this guy. We've had more than enough evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach his sorry ass.

    3. Re:Well, we could... by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
      > In other news this evening, internet discussion forum Slashdot.org personality CowboyNeal presented a petition in Washington, D.C. in which 10,000 database professionals demanded polygraph tests for Attorney General John Ashcroft."

      Dude. Read between the liens. Ashcroft knows that making data on foreign lobbyists would result in a YRO Slashdot article on the front page, with predictable results for the poor server on the other end of the line.

      We just pwn3d the entire USDOJ today, without firing a single HTTP GET. And Ashcroft just humbled himself - in public - before our mighty geekness.

      Now you want polygraph tests? Dude, it's over. We won.

      A couple thousand "WE PWN3D J00!" and "ALL YOUR DOJ ARE BELONG TO SLASHDOT" would have sufficed. No need to rub it in. Let's be sporting about this and gracious in our victory.

    4. Re:Well, we could... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Why? Is he covering more statues with curtains?

    5. Re:Well, we could... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Funny

      What kind of evidence is that? And who are we wanting to impeach ashcroft or bush?

      Hell it doesn't matter, someone pass me a torch. Ohhh wait that a lynching.. someone give me a petition or somethign.

    6. Re:Well, we could... by tracon5 · · Score: 1

      well if the system is so on the edge of breaking why doesnt someone just break it then use a 40$ disc recovery program to recall all the data in its previous form or even from days prior. obviously this db worked at some point so just get the data from there and re-add the stuff that you lost.....or u could just lie to the puplic and realise that if this information was way to "sensitive" (cause it makes bush look like an sell out to forgein biz and leaders) to me it sounds like someone panic and called the reporters in for a breifing to early before they could come up with a better excuse. or someone got ambushed and just yelled out theres a computer problem than ran off to face the music behind the curtain.

      --
      Non-smokers die every day --Bill Hicks
    7. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well impeach would be the wrong word. You impeach a elected official, not an apointed govement employee.

    8. Re:Well, we could... by WarMonkey · · Score: 1

      Of course. I don't know why I didn't see it before.

      --
      -- I could tell right away that she was impressed with my HUGE Slashdot Karma.
    9. Re:Well, we could... by HBI · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember perjury? It was all about sex, right?

      Well, now it's all about terrorism, so live with the monster you created.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    10. Re:Well, we could... by Hard_Code · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "come up with ANOTHER bogus reason"

      You mean the guy who did not feel compelled to give ANY reason to Congress to not hand over memos they requested? Apparently Ashcroft does even HAVE to invent bogus reasons.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    11. Re:Well, we could... by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

      You don't need to impeach him; you just need to stop DC supermarkers from stocking cooking oil around his next swearing in ceremony. As we all know, Ashcroft is such a religious nutcase that he literally has himself annointed with oil, he'd never get sworn in, and we'd be rid of him once and for all.

      Hmm.... but then who would spend 8,000$ on drapes to cover up naked statues, run scared from Calico cats, try and stop states from implementing their voter-approved euthenasia laws, or crack down on elderly pot smokers? Do we really want him gone? :)

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    12. Re:Well, we could... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      What perjury? Examples, please.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:Well, we could... by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Read Dean's book. Ashcroft has been pissing on the FOIA since he entered office. There's plenty of evidence that he lied, over and over again. I watched him do it to a Congressional investigation a couple weeks ago. They threatened him with contempt of Congress, but he just sat there glowering. They asked him to submit documents and he refused. They asked for a reason and he refused to give one. They suggested executive privelege and he said no. He forced the Patriot act through congress and suggested that even taking the time to read the bill before signing it would make them unpatriotic. He refused to open gun records of suspected terrorists for fear of pissing off his buddies in the NRA. He refused to investigate anthrax attacks in the US once it became clear that the prime suspect was an American. He refused to investigate the thousands of anthrax hoax attacks targeted at abortion clinics after 9/11. He encouraged government agencies to deny all FOIA requests on principle. He's been having peaceful advocacy groups with no terrorist ties watched and infiltrated, while practically ignoring home grown terrorist threats (including cases involving WMD, such as this one). All the while he wastes our money and resources fighting smut. Now this? A legitimate FOIA request, and his reason for denying it is utter transparent bullshit. He's the Attorney General. The American people deserve better than this.

    14. Re:Well, we could... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmm. Nowhere in the bible does it say 'abortion = murder' or 'an unborn child is a full fledged human being' or anything like that. If you can find it, let me know.

      If you really want to go biblical, lets make male masturbation a felony.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    15. Re:Well, we could... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      About your sig.

      Well Bush lied about being a conservative.

    16. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His post didn't even mention the bible. Why did you?

    17. Re:Well, we could... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because there's been exactly one person that I've known who equates abortion with murder and wasn't a conservative religious type. All the rest were. An assumption, but one based on experience.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    18. Re:Well, we could... by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you are over simplifying the system a bit. I can't speak of that particular systems design, but I have dealt with others government (federal, state, and local) systems and they are rarely setup for bulk exports without impacting operations (internal and external agency usage).

      well if the system is so on the edge of breaking why doesnt someone just break it then use a 40$ disc recovery program to recall all the data in its previous form or even from days prior.

      Have you dealt with systems in a professional environment? Have you ever dealt with the procurement process for a government entity? You can't just break the system and expect that it will be replaced in a few days. Likely the data is highly normalized and spread across multiple repositories on multiple systems. Migrating to a new system requires extensive research into existing requirements plus understanding future plans for the system.

      obviously this db worked at some point so just get the data from there and re-add the stuff that you lost

      Likely the data is entered from automated systems rather than a manual entry process. These external systems must be accounted for before taking the system offline for maintenance/upgrade/replacement.

      cause it makes bush look like an sell out to forgein biz and leaders

      Show me a president who hasn't had questionable relationships with foreign connections. Officials (both foreign and national) can be quite corrupt and dealing with them sometimes requires playing by their rules. The US government has policies on dealing with these situations (see the Locheed Martin and Titan Corporation merger cancellation for an example. Can't find a good document on proper procedures when approached by a foreign official for a bribe to continue business, but it does exist and you need to follow the proper process or you get in trouble, like Titan).

    19. Re:Well, we could... by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ahh, the typical right-wing reponse.... Devoid of character an hiding behind shady anonymity in fear. Fear is thy middle name.

    20. Re:Well, we could... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Informative

      In March the Solicitor General argued in front of the Supreme Court that US troops would never humiliate or torture foreign inmates because they were well disciplined and well supervised. This was 6 months after the Red Cross had told the Pentagon about Abu Ghraib abuses and 4 months after the Army had investigated it. Administration officials have misled Congress repeatedly.

      -B

    21. Re:Well, we could... by plopez · · Score: 1

      please don't give them anymore ideas....

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    22. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am neither a conservative nor religious. I am also, if it matters, a fertile adult woman.

      An unborn child is alive. There is no question about that. Dead organic matter does not engage in cell division, growth, etc.

      An unborn child has a unique genetic code. He or she is not a part of the mother (in fact, the child may be male, which the mother certainly isn't).

      An unborn child is genetically human. What would it be if not human? Some kind of platypus? There is no magical point when a "soul" is installed and humanity begins.

      Therefore, abortion is taking live individual humans and turning them into dead ones. That meets my definition of murder.

    23. Re:Well, we could... by Auckerman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oooooh, a flame war on a powder keg, I want some. I've been maxed Karma for years, I could use a -1 mod.

      Ex 21:22-25
      "When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning, But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foor, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

      The fetus is the property of the husband is merely worth a fine if destroyed. If the woman is killed, the person who killed her is to be killed.

      I'm pro-life, not a Christian, Muslim or Jew. The Christian Bible is silent on abortion and it can be inferred that at least one source writer of the Tanak saw a difference between the life of a fetus and the mother. Get your religion straight, it's embarassing.

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    24. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wanting Bush gone doesn't make you a Democrat. It makes you sane. Frankly I think Kerry could become one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had to endure, but I'll vote for him enthusiastically because we are currently saddled with the very worst. Ever.

      Yes, I'm an independent. Yes, I've voted for Republicans. Just because you are against one group doesn't mean you are a supporter of their largest competitors. I'd rather there were other viable competitors, but there aren't. Sorry Mr. Nader, the risk of Bush getting re-elected is so high that I can bear to swallow my pride and vote for a candidate that I despise.

      I'm not voting for Kerry--I'm voting against Bush.

    25. Re:Well, we could... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      OK, some of those I can believe, but the anthrax investigation was pretty strongly pursued in the US, is still going, and still has dedicated manpower attached to it. It wasn't so long ago that a pond was drained looking for equipment that may have been used to produce the anthrax.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    26. Re:Well, we could... by NeB_Zero · · Score: 1

      i actually used that as an argument in one of my political science classes when i wrote an essay against government enforcement of morality... it didn't go over well as a joke...

    27. Re:Well, we could... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 2, Funny

      He could just give the memos to Laura Bush. Then they could disappear, and mysteriously reappear in the living quarters of the White House in a few years...

      --
      resigned
    28. Re:Well, we could... by khallow · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hell it doesn't matter, someone pass me a torch.

      It depends. If you string them up, it's a lynching. If you burn them at the stake, then it's a witchhunt.

    29. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow, you totally missed the boat.

      Of course a fetus is alive.
      Of course a fetus has unique DNA (unless its a twin..maybe its ok to kill one of a pair of twins?).
      And of course a fetus is a human with human DNA.

      However, cancer cells also have unique human DNA. Should chemotherapy be illegal?

      Sperm cells have unique human DNA. Should masturbation be illegal? Hundreds of sperm would still die even upon successful conception during sex. There goes all that wonderful unique human DNA.

      No, the question is NOT whether fetuses have dna, are human, or are alive. Those are all undoubtably true.

      The question is are fetuses valuable, and to whom does that value belong. Until some arbitrary time (birth) we currently say that the fetus is the mother's baby, and she can decide what to do with it. A fetus has very little value - anyone can go have sex and create a living human fetus with unique dna.

      Once a baby is born, or shortly thereafter, a lot of other people and organizations in society have contributed to the value of the baby. It is no a parasite of the mother's.

      A fetus takes one sweaty night and two people to make.

      A 10 year old requires an investment of hundreds or thousands of relatives, teachers, doctors, friends, and strangers. Every one of them contributes to the child, and as a result the child is more valuable, and becomes share property. No longer property of the mother, but instead property of society, and subject to society's laws on murder.

      To be realistic, just because fetuses are easy to make, doesn't make them worthless. A piece of blank paper is much cheaper than a book, but it's still stupid to go and buy some and throw it in the trash can.

      Oh yeah, and btw...souls dont exist. That dead cow on your plate at dinner is worth just as much as the dead fetus at the abortion clinic. It might taste better with ketchup, but that's the only difference. Unless of course, you think that stupid organisms deserve to be killed and eaten. In which case a fetus is even stupider than an adult cow, so perhaps we should be eating fetus with freedom fries for dinner...

    30. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference in misleading Congress and having two people in a giant bureaucracy not knowing the same information. Clinton knew what his appendages were doing, so it's easy to prove that he was lying.

    31. Re:Well, we could... by bcboy · · Score: 1

      Cancer also meets all of your criteria. So does sperm.

    32. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An unborn child is alive. There is no question about that. Dead organic matter does not engage in cell division, growth, etc

      Hmm. Cancer meets these requirements to be considered life, as do virtually all forms of bacteria. I guess we should preserve those as well since they are living things.

      Or maybe some living things are only things instead of "human".

    33. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what's the difference in killing a human before it's completely left the womb and one that has? abortion is convenience killing, which I would lump in with murder.

    34. Re:Well, we could... by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Nowhere in the bible does it say 'abortion = murder' or 'an unborn child is a full fledged human being' or anything like that.

      Well, it doesn't say it word-for-word, but since you added "or anything like that" to the end of your declaration, I'd have to disagree. There is God's vision to Jeremiah, when God says in Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." There is also Exodus 21:22, wherein God commands that if a man strikes a woman and causes a child to be stillborn, it's "eye for eye, life for life." However, I think that verse is ambiguous. Depending on the translation, it doesn't always use the word "stillborn" and so it might be talking about harm to the mother. But in any case, there is another verse which I cannot find without scanning through my whole Bible for highlights. In that verse, a man is condemned for striking his wife in the stomach and killing his unborn son. If I find it at home tonight I might try to email it to you. In any case, if I were you, I'd find some other problems with the Bible, because this problem doesn't appear to be as you suggest.

    35. Re:Well, we could... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I hate Ashcroft as much as many here but to give him credit BATF records on firearms are tax records and by law there are significant restrictions on what can be done with them.

    36. Re:Well, we could... by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I must disagree, this is one time that both mainstream candidates are so bad that voting third party is a no brainer.

    37. Re:Well, we could... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Ummm...but Ashcroft is not the solicitor general. The question was "what perjury has Ashcroft committed?" Also, this may not be perjury, because it could simply be that the guy didn't have the facts. In order for a statement to be a lie, there has to be knowledge that the statement is untrue, and an intention to deceive. So, because someone in Ashcroft's office may have been confused, Ashcroft is guilty of perjury? I don't think that's convincing evidence.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    38. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you really want to go biblical, lets make male masturbation a felony. Well, the bible doesn't actually say that (Onan was only committing a sin because he spilled his seed upon the ground when he could of used it to get his brother's wife pregnant. Having babies used to have a very high social value, unlike today.) But it DOES say that adulterers should be stoned to death. I'd says at least half of congress qualifies for this penalty... I suspect Ashcroft would sentence Clinton to this if he could!

      There is also nothing I can find in the bible prohibiting polygamy...

    39. Re:Well, we could... by statusbar · · Score: 2, Funny

      The fetus is a potential soldier to be drafted into the war on terrorism. In that respect it is worth quite a lot. It will be unwanted and uneducated and will be happy to be in the army.

      --jeff++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    40. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Normally I'd agree. In fact four years ago I *did* agree and voted for Nader (not that it mattered, my state went for Gore). Nevertheless, I have seen what can happen when political gridlock is pretty much removed from the equation and one party is in control of the executive, judicial, and both houses of the legislative branch. Now I greatly desire a return to political gridlock. This is actually an achievable goal (split the government between two parties), as opposed to, say, Nader getting elected.

      Maybe Kerry will some day be made to answer for violating US treaties (i.e. the UN Charter by authorizing an invasion of Iraq). It would make me happy if someday that happened. But there are higher priorities. The first thing to do to help a mugging victim is stop them from being mugged--then you can worry about mending broken bones. Voting for Nader now is like offering crutches to the victim, and not doing anything about the mugger.

    41. Re:Well, we could... by loraksus · · Score: 1

      I'm sure someone just as "eccentric" could be found..

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    42. Re:Well, we could... by srleffler · · Score: 3, Informative
      There is also Exodus 21:22, wherein God commands that if a man strikes a woman and causes a child to be stillborn, it's "eye for eye, life for life."

      Actually, that is not what it says. As another poster pointed out, it clearly says that the punishment for causing a miscarriage is a fine, but that if any other harm follows (presumably to the mother) it's life for life, etc.

      The NRSV translation has it as:

      "When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, ..."

    43. Re:Well, we could... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "The government said an overhaul of the system should be finished by December and copies should be available then. "

      It's not a big deal. As soon as Bush has locked up another four years of warmongering and cronyism, then the records will be freely available.

      -B

    44. Re:Well, we could... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how I listen to metal, play dungeons and dragons and do other things that conservative religious types disagree with, I THINK that would mean that I am not was most people would classify as a conservative religious type.

    45. Re:Well, we could... by -noefordeg- · · Score: 1

      " the penalty shall be life for a life"

      Does that mean I could kill the one who kill the person who did the first killing?

    46. Re:Well, we could... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Because some people make it sould like Bush is above such things, and he isn't.

    47. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never been one to post on ./ but
      I'd like to know which translation that is from...

      Every translation, and some study references, I have around the house indicates premature birth, not miscarrige; IE the only damage is early labor, but everybody is alive and well, the rest of the vs indicates if the child is killed, then life for a life...

    48. Re:Well, we could... by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 1
      There is also Exodus 21:22, wherein God commands that if a man strikes a woman and causes a child to be stillborn, it's "eye for eye, life for life."
      Actually, that is not what it says. As another poster pointed out, it clearly says that the punishment for causing a miscarriage is a fine, but that if any other harm follows (presumably to the mother) it's life for life, etc.

      I like how you conveniently left out this line from my original post:

      I think that verse is ambiguous. Depending on the translation, it doesn't always use the word "stillborn" and so it might be talking about harm to the mother.

      Nice selective quoting. Your post sounds like a rebuttal, but is actually simply restating what I already said.

    49. Re:Well, we could... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      The bureaucracy is so inept that they can't communicate topical and critical information from one unit to the next in four months? This wasn't some internal memo that had errors (like the terrorism report that defined 2003 as Jan 1 to Nov 12), this was an administration offical arguing on the administration's behalf in front of the Supreme Court. So instead of behind corrupt, we should be happy that they're only monumentally incompetent? I can't accept that.

      -B

    50. Re:Well, we could... by Yorrike · · Score: 1
      "In any case, if I were you, I'd find some other problems with the Bible, because this problem doesn't appear to be as you suggest."

      Woooo. You're really opening yourself up there.

      I'll give a couple, because I'm not really that interested in writing a long diatribe on problems with your bible or monotheism as a whole.

      Leviticus 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
      Birds with four legs. Nice. In a similar mistake, god, in Leviticus 11:13-19 include bats in his list of fowls to avoid eating. Bats are not birds, and you'd think if he created bats, he'd know that. Seemingly he forgot.

      Psalms 93:1 ...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
      Really? Anyone with any astronomy knowledge (eg, a 5 year old), knows the Earth rotates around the Sun, which it's self rotates around the centre of the Milky Way, which it's self is jetting through space at huge speeds. Want to get geological? Very well, the average movement of the current tectonic plates around the Earth thanks to the top cooled convection induced by the rapid cooling of oceanic crust is approximately 3cm/yr (reference).

      Franky if the bible can't get fundamental basics like these right, then why refer to it as a source or morality?

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    51. Re:Well, we could... by Oblio · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, hebrew I know not. BUT: Go here to the The chapter and see the NIV version. Note the footnote [5] which says : "21:22 Or she has a miscarriage"

      *shrug* Its just what I see, not my opinion.

      --
      Pax -- Ob
    52. Re:Well, we could... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      The reason third party candidates get so few votes is decause of the self fullfiling prophesy that no-one else can win. Just what they want.
      You sir (this is generaly aimed at all who vote lesser of two evils, not just the parent poster) are likely to get the government you deserve.
      Unfortunately your gonna take the rest of us who want a sane government with you to hell in a handbasket.
      Vote for the lesser of two evils? let's rephrase that. Vote for evil.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    53. Re:Well, we could... by Rasputin · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...the man works hard enough as it is.

      Yes! There are a hundreds of semi-naked statues out there he hasn't yet covered!

      "Curtains for semi-nude justice statue"

      --
      "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
    54. Re:Well, we could... by RogL · · Score: 1

      Male masturbation a felony? Don't look to the Bible for that... Onan's sin was wasting his seed; he wasn't jerking off, he didn't want to impregnate his brother's wife (now his due to brother's death - correct me if I'm wrong here, my memory's a bit vague on the buildup). So, at the appropriate moment during sex, he pulled out and spilt his seed upon the ground. No masturbation involved. Don't let anybody guilt you!

    55. Re:Well, we could... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Well consider your sample base to include at least two, possibly three.
      I say possibly three, because I'm not shure IF a human embryo = human, but then no-one has a definitive answer for this. Given that shouldn't we assume abortion is usualy the same as taking a human life (not necessarily murder, there can be valid reasons).
      And I'm most definately not religious person. I don't have those sort of answers, and frankly neigther dose anyone else, let alone some multi-translated book a few hundred pages in size.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    56. Re:Well, we could... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Who's criteria? Certainly not the AC parent.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    57. Re:Well, we could... by goon+america · · Score: 4, Informative
      I watched him do it to a Congressional investigation a couple weeks ago

      A streaming video is worth a thousand words. Thank you, Daily Show!

    58. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your line of argument is purely utilitarian, and with it comes eugenics, euthenasia, and forcible socialism. Do we really want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and discard our history of unalienable personal rights?

      Realistically, which I'm sure you won't argue with, we're all just hunks of meat walking around trying to create more hunks of meat. There's less difference, molecularly, between you and an adult cow than there is between a fetus and an adult cow, due to developmental states, metabolism, and relative size. There's also a lot more meat on your bones, so why don't we eat you instead of the fetus? Are you really more valuable than a cow? You both have about the same metabolic rate, and thus the same meat per pound of food. One disadvantage is that you can't digest grass, but is that the only reason we don't eat people?

      The whole point of human society is that we've built our entire world view and lifestyle out of something mundane and relatively common. It has meaning for us, which is why we do it. To devolve back to an animal state where individuals are worth the meat on their bones or the work they can produce, or even the stem cells they create, won't lead us anywhere that evolution hasn't been before. What's the point in that?

    59. Re:Well, we could... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      this is one time that both mainstream candidates are so bad that voting third party is a no brainer.

      Nah, if Kerry gets elected, then congress will oppose everything he does on principal. If nothing gets done for a year, would that be so bad?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    60. Re:Well, we could... by dcam · · Score: 1

      A distinction must be drawn between an accidental miscarriage and a deliberate miscarriage. I read the passage quoted as leaning more towards an accidentcal. BTW accidental can occur on two levels:
      1. The woman was pushed accidentally.
      2. The woman was pushed accidentally with no malice intended to the fetus.

      As a Christian I believe (with biblical evidence) that people are created on the image of God. This is a statement of relationship (ie it describes our position in relationship to God) as much anything else. To put it another way, people were created as differnent and special by God. A fetus is also created in the image of God, hence I oppose abortion. The same definition covers mentally or physically disabled people also.

      I'd have to dig a little to bring up passages relating to this (I don't have references on me right now) but if you're willing to wait ~10 hours til I get home and have time to dig this up I can provide some. From memory this book covers the topic pretty effectively. I own it but haven't read it yet, although it was very highly reccomended.

      --
      meh
    61. Re:Well, we could... by HBI · · Score: 1

      We're thinking back to the last impeachment.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    62. Re:Well, we could... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      A fetus has a greater than 80% chance of being naturally aborted.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    63. Re:Well, we could... by TechnologyX · · Score: 1

      "Oh yeah, and btw...souls dont exist."

      Damn, I'm glad someone finally cleared that up for me! Now I can say that an AC on a website has solved the vexing question of whether or not a soul exists!

      --
      Slashdot sucks
    64. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that a fetus has a soul? Why would it have a soul? Why would God give a soul to a fetus that was never even going to be born? He's omnipotent, so he'd know it wasn't going to be born right? Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

    65. Re:Well, we could... by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      NIV:
      Leviticus 11:20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.

      New American Standard Bible
      Leviticus 11:20 'All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.

      Amplified Bible
      Leviticus 11:20 All winged insects that go upon all fours are to be an abomination to you;

      New King James Bible
      Leviticus 11:20 "All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you.

      etc...

      Out of 16 translations, The only translation that uses the word "fowls" instead of "insect" is the King James Bible, which was written in Old English.

      Psalms 93:1 ...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. Really? Anyone with any astronomy knowledge (eg, a 5 year old), knows the Earth rotates around the Sun, which it's self rotates around the centre of the Milky Way, which it's self is jetting through space at huge speeds. Want to get geological? Very well, the average movement of the current tectonic plates around the Earth thanks to the top cooled convection induced by the rapid cooling of oceanic crust is approximately 3cm/yr (reference).

      It says that the earth "cannot be moved" it does _not_ say "the earth is not moving". Being moved and actually moving are two totally different things. The whole ocean moves, but you couldn't move the whole ocean.

    66. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ex 21:22-25
      "When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning, But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foor, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

      The fetus is the property of the husband is merely worth a fine if destroyed. If the woman is killed, the person who killed her is to be killed.


      So what the bible is saying is... a man that impregnates a woman owns the unborn fetus inside of her. Does that mean he can thus decide that he does not want to be a father and force an abortion? Is that what those abortion clinic protesters were pissed off about? Women taking the abortion issue as thier own decision?

    67. Re:Well, we could... by dcam · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that a fetus has a soul?

      Every person (ie made in image of God) has a soul, so yes.

      Why would it have a soul?

      Because it is part of being a human.

      Why would God give a soul to a fetus that was never even going to be born? He's omnipotent, so he'd know it wasn't going to be born right? Doesn't make a lick of sense to me

      That is a good question. But you might equally ask why he gives a soul to a baby that dies just after birth? Or why give a soul to someone who dies at the age of 5? I don't have a good answer, but a soul is part of being a human, and a fetus is a human.

      There are other similar "problems" raised by the bible. For example God creates someone knowing that they will reject him. Why does he bother? The answer is that he wants everyone to have a choice, and even though he knows what the answer is, he wants to give everyone a fair chance to make a decision.

      I don't completely understand it. I don't know why God does some of the things that he does, but I don't have a real problem with that. We are limited, there are some things that we just cannot understand completely (there are generally referred to as holy mysteries).

      --
      meh
    68. Re:Well, we could... by Yorrike · · Score: 1
      "It says that the earth "cannot be moved" it does _not_ say "the earth is not moving". Being moved and actually moving are two totally different things. The whole ocean moves, but you couldn't move the whole ocean.

      The ocean could be moved. Suck it up into a bag in space, and move it with huge rockets. And you're contradicting yourself. Saying that because something in in motion doesn't mean it can't be moved is like saying just because something is exploding doesn't mean it can be exploded. It's moving and is therefore moveable.

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    69. Re:Well, we could... by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 1
      If you really want to go biblical, lets make male masturbation a felony.

      And where, o master of biblical texts, does it say masturbation is a crime in as many words as abortion = murder. They didn't have abortion back then, so why would they forbid it?

      It doesn't. No where in the Bible does it specifically state masturbation is sinful. Social traditions might, but not the Bible itself

      --
      SAILING MISHAP
    70. Re:Well, we could... by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'll give a couple, because I'm not really that interested in writing a long diatribe on problems with your bible or monotheism as a whole.

      The examples you gave are also terrible for citing as problematic. Look, I don't want to train non-Christians on how to criticize the Bible, but what you really need to do is find factual errors that are not easy to write off as allegory or translation errors. Your Leviticus quote is never cited in Russian layman critiques of the Bible, because the translation to Russian never implied birds with 4 legs. Similarly, the Russian Bible has a whole host of "errors" that English speakers never stumbled upon, because our language didn't have the same issues.

      If you want some real examples of factual errors in the Bible, look for internal conflicts, where instead of being in error with what we know now, it is in error with itself. Here is an example: the last words of Jesus are different, depending upon what page you're on. Luke 23 says "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit." And John 19 says "It is finished." Matthew 27 has something too, but Matthew added that Jesus "cried out" again without specifying what Jesus said. So Matthew isn't really definitive about the last words of Christ. In any case, when you cite Luke and John, most Christians will tell you that it's just different accounts from different Biblical authors. The problem? Well if it's just people writin' stuff, it ain't the Word of God. The Bible is supposed to be divinely written, perfect in every way. So the conflicting declarations about the last words of Jesus sorta poke a hole in the whole inerrancy thing. Here's another one: Judas dies differently, depending upon the Biblical account you're reading. If the Bible is truth from God, then how can God get the death of his own betrayer wrong? OK? See where I'm going with this? There is no need to go after weak mis-translation errors when there are real problems that even Christians such as myself are struggling with.

    71. Re:Well, we could... by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, flying insects are more likely to creep on all _sixes_, so we don't have to abominate them. I guess the bloke who wrote Leviticus couldn't count (or maybe the god who was dictating it into his ear couldn't).

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    72. Re:Well, we could... by srleffler · · Score: 1

      No offense intended, but I felt that the point you made in those lines was not the important one. It's not that the verse is ambiguous because not all translations use the word "stillborn". In all of the translations I looked at it was clear to me that a miscarriage was what was being discussed. In all but the King James version, it seems clear that the proscribed penalty for causing a miscarriage is a fine, but that if the woman is injured as well the "eye for an eye" rule applies regarding her injuries. The ambiguity in the KJV is that (it seems to me) one could interpret it as saying that the punishment for causing the woman to miscarry is whatever revenge the husband feels is appropriate (not necessarily just a fine). This seemed to me to be a very different point from the one you were making.

    73. Re:Well, we could... by Yorrike · · Score: 1
      Point taken. How about this?

      Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

      Somewhat implies that anything is possible with faith. Including an example of moving a mountain (or to take another approach, holding back the tide). But the bible has many, many, many verses that state things which are not possible. For example (as given above):

      Psalms 93:1 ...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

      Yet what Jesus says in Matthew 17:20 directly goes against this.

      Also to question your translation point, if the bible is the true word of god, then why are there translation errors? Shouldn't this perfect god have written it in a language or way that was not open to interpretation or confusion? It even contradicts it's self in this respect:

      Corinthians 14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion..."

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    74. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Ashcroft's office also got the BATF and/or FBI to stop publishing statistics about guns illegally obtained being used in crimes. There was some bit of investigative journalism being done about that a couple of years ago, but of course...

    75. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the investigation in general is being pursued, because Americans died and newspapers and politicians were targeted. However, there have been many hoaxes which by this poster's account are being given nearly no attention.

    76. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet so many of the "christian" persuasion absolutley will not adopt except for the perfect child and most love the death penalty.

      tsk, tsk.

    77. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Cancer cells have the same DNA as the body they are a part of. Therefore, while they pass the "life" test, they fail the "unique DNA" test.

      Sperm have half the DNA of the man who made them, and no other, so they fail the "unique DNA" test. They do not engage in cell division and growth, so they also fail the "continuing life" test.

      Bacteria have DNA and they reproduce, but they most certainly fail the "human DNA" test.

      By your definition, killing a newborn baby should be less of a crime than killing a 10-year-old, and killing a college graduate should be less of a crime than killing a high school dropout, since you define a person's worth by how many people and organizations have "contributed to the value" of that person. I just saw a news article about a teenage girl who was arrested on murder charges because she gave birth to an illegitimate baby, suffocated it, and threw it in the trash. By your logic, she was perfectly justified in killing that baby since nobody other than she herself had "contributed to the value" of that child. It's doubtful if she had any prenatal care (she hid the pregnancy), she gave birth alone, nobody else was involved, so that baby was just as much her property ten minutes after birth as it was ten minutes before, or ten weeks before.

      Killing people is wrong, whether they're unborn children or newborn children or 10-year-olds or Slashdot posters. You don't have to be conservative or religious to believe that killing people is wrong.

    78. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, its even worse than that. Miscarriages are responsible for the loss of far more foetuses than medical terminations.

      They're God's own abortions.

    79. Re:Well, we could... by ne0shell · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how Fear and political blindness can keep people stupid and in line. Oh wait, Hitler wrote the book on that one, I guess someone thought to re-read it now that people may have forgotten, (history being the most neglected education class, right up there with English). John Ashcroft is obviously "one of the gang" playing under the Bush/Cheney/Haliburton rules.

    80. Re:Well, we could... by UnrepentantHarlequin · · Score: 1

      Leviticus 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

      My Bible (New American Standard) has "all the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you." One would have to assume that only covers a few species of butterflies, since most other insects have six legs.

    81. Re:Well, we could... by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      I've heard that "anti-abortion" is now the politically correct term for "pro-life".

      Why's that? Just curious, because you the pro-life dude would seem to know.

    82. Re:Well, we could... by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      Could you by chance provide a book title, Amazon, or B&N link? I couldn't find the book. Thanks

    83. Re:Well, we could... by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Vote for evil.

      Well I would, if I thought Nader might get elected....

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    84. Re:Well, we could... by dcam · · Score: 1

      And yet so many of the "christian" persuasion absolutley will not adopt except for the perfect child and most love the death penalty.

      I don't support the death penalty. In the country in which I live (Australia) very few people support the death penalty, Christians or not. I'm also not in a position to adopt children. I'd be very interested to see statistics on the religous beliefs of those who adopt children. Your argument loses some weight if proportionally more children are adopted by Christians. Also adopting a child is a huge step involving major disruption to three lived (parents + child) and is fraught with problems. Taking the time to try to make that work out is likely to improve things for both child and parents.

      On another note if you strongly believe in your convictions you should speak up for them and be willing to put your name on them. Posting snide (and inaccurate) attacks whil hiding behind AC says a lot about the kind of person you are.

      --
      meh
    85. Re:Well, we could... by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      Note what is written.

      "the world is firmly established, it will not be moved."

      Feel free to argue how the earth could be moved.

    86. Re:Well, we could... by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      yeah he works hard enough lying to the American public and destroying all openness in government.

      Yeah, just like Clinton bombed an asipirn factory in the Sudan and disguised it as a terrorist hit to take the heat off of his infidelity problems. All administrations hide something, some things are for national security believe it or not.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    87. Re:Well, we could... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So vote Green or Libertarian or whatever at the state and local levels, and vote whatever for president if you're in a "safe" (i.e. guaranteed to vote for one party by a wide margin) state, but please don't turn this election into a repeat of 2000!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    88. Re:Well, we could... by JAFSlashdotter · · Score: 1

      Nah, the reason we don't eat people is more likely the diseases like kuru. Or perhaps because the symbolic kind of cannibalism practiced in Catholicism is just less messy.

      --
      We apologize for the preceding message. All those responsible have been sacked.
    89. Re:Well, we could... by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      Fortunately, flying insects are more likely to creep on all _sixes_, so we don't have to abominate them. I guess the bloke who wrote Leviticus couldn't count (or maybe the god who was dictating it into his ear couldn't).

      Leviticus 11:23
      'But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you. '

      The words of the Bible are meant for the entire earth, not just the scientifically taught of the last 100 years or so. From this perspective, and a small amount of visual research...

      Grasshoppers have 4 legs and 2 arms.

      http://myplace.westnet.com.au/images/potw/photos/g rasshopper-220403.jpg
      http://www.uidaho.edu/so-id/entomology/grasshopper s.htm
      http://www.petsdoc.com/pics/funpages/wildlifephoto s/grasshopper.jpg
      http://www.debbieharry.net/blkphotos.html

      Which would make sense to everyone down through history, except us.

    90. Re:Well, we could... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Now I am a kool-aid drinking, choir singing, regular church going kind of guy.

      That said, anyone who has read through the Crucifixion story should not that none of the 12 deciples was actually present for Jesus' last words. (A few other of Jesus' followers were, but that's another story.)

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    91. Re:Well, we could... by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if you hang them from a tree and light a fire underneath?

    92. Re:Well, we could... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      King James in a notoriously poor translation.

      My New Living Translation edition reads as follows:

      Leviticus 12:20 - You are to consider detestable all swarming insects that walk upon the ground.

      Psalms 93:1 The Lord is King! He is robed in majesty. Indeed the Lord is robed in majesty and armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be shaken.

      Now please do yourself and your arguments a favor. If you are trying to point out a factual error in scripture a) quote the whole verse, and b) pick a modern translation. King James sucks, and any biblical scholar will tell you that.

      Now with the whole verse you can see that Psalms 93:1 is talking about God, not the planet. If you read the remainder of the poem (the book of Psalms are basically a collection of poems), it talks about how God has total control of the world.

      Question that if you like, but make your argument without distortion.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    93. Re:Well, we could... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0
      Vote for Kerry: be broke (idiot on economics), enslaved (general leftwingedness), then dead (no national defense).

      Vote for Bush: be enslaved by religious tyranny.

      Vote for anyone else: have no practical effect.

      I'll vote for Bush, reluctantly.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    94. Re:Well, we could... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0, Troll
      There are further complications. Fertilized eggs can stop dividing after any number of divisions and persist indefinitely, unborn. Soul?

      A cell clump (1 soul?) can split into two (2 souls?) and in rare cases fuse back together (1 soul again?)

      Two types of people promote belief in souls: malicious liars and those who refuse to think. I mean you.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    95. Re:Well, we could... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Well my state isn't a shoe in for eigther side.
      All that happened in 2000 is the major networks couldn't guess florida right and a few people stirred up a great many to try and prove the other side was cheating. Both sides tried to lable the other as trying to steal the election.
      The thing I find most amusing (in a sick, darwin award way) is that it's not really the people who are supposed to choose who's president, it's the electoral college who's job it is to do that. While many state laws (47-48?) lock the whole electorate to the majority of the popular opinion now. What's supposed to happen is we elect sane people to rationaly choose amongst themselves the best person to be president. In theory this forms a buffer against 'the passions of the moment'. But people have screamed democracy and such so loud the common belief is we live in some sort of athenean democracy rather than a representative government with democraticly elect representation.
      I personaly can not, in good concience, vote for Bush Or Kerry. And I feel if we're going to let the majority parties know we are not happy with thier actions, and give them a clue as to what we want from our government, voting for a third party in 'contested' states creates more of a noise than being an ignorable minority. Though it most certainly helps no matter what state when third parties start taking on more and more of local government.
      In a state that is more than 60% dominated by one party, they have no incentive to pay any attention to the voters. But they will most certainly notice if they lose a state by 2-3% and find out that many or more voted for a third party. They will have to try and apeal to those persons more in the future or risk losing again.
      If you can't win, at least make shure they felt the blow.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    96. Re:Well, we could... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      They didn't have abortion back then,

      The practice of abortion was widespread in ancient times as a method of birth control. Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p.85 (1986)

      No where in the Bible does it specifically state masturbation is sinful.

      Not explicitly, but there's a passage about sowing seed on barren ground that's often presumed to be critical of masturbation.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    97. Re:Well, we could... by Fidelis · · Score: 1

      Dammm, From politic to religion with abortion thrown in for added spice. 640 plus comments and still going. All because DOJ gave some lame excuse for dening FOIA request ?

    98. Re:Well, we could... by dcam · · Score: 1

      There are further complications. Fertilized eggs can stop dividing after any number of divisions and persist indefinitely, unborn. Soul?

      And this is different from dying in what way exactly? I think you are assuming that life begins at birth.

      A cell clump (1 soul?) can split into two (2 souls?) and in rare cases fuse back together (1 soul again?)

      What makes you think that a soul is somehow tied to a number of cells? I am getting the impression that you are somehow assuming that all there is what we can see and touch. That is a pretty narrow assumption. What you are saying is similar to saying that someone who had a great sense of humour now has less of a sense of humour now that they have had a leg amputated.

      I can already see you getting out the scales to weigh a soul.

      Two types of people promote belief in souls: malicious liars and those who refuse to think. I mean you.

      Well I'm not malicious so that cuts out the first one. I guess that option that I might be wrong just doesn't fit into your list. That aside it appears to me more that you have made an assumption which is flawed.

      --
      meh
    99. Re:Well, we could... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      Your comments are far superior to most on this subject, but...

      Damnation to society. Once a child is born - no longer a parasite, but acting to some degree as a human being (i.e. a rational animal) - it has value to itself, and that self-ownership is the only primary source of prohibition of murder.

      Contributions to my life that I did not request do not constitute ownership of me or a debt for me.

      The making of a child creates a responsibilty of the parents to care for the child.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    100. Re:Well, we could... by mr100percent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Vote for Bush? You'll be dead. In 2001, it was only 19 terrorists. Now, you have tens of thousands who are signing up to be next, thanks to an unnecessary war.

    101. Re:Well, we could... by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      The book is by John Dean -- not Jonathan as I mistakenly wrote, and certainly not Howard as someone else assumed -- and it's called Worse than Watergate. It's an expose of Bush, not Ashcroft, but it concentrates on the issue of openness in government (and of course has something to say about Ashcroft). Dean was Nixon's White House lawyer. I'll do better than an Amazon link -- here's the Wikipedia ISBN link so you can get it from your favorite book source.

    102. Re:Well, we could... by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      According to Richard Clarke's book, that bombing was based on what they thought was solid evidence at the time. I believe him, though others may not. But I don't see that he has any motive for protecting Clinton. In any case, he's not the only one who says so -- Benjamin and Simon's book also confirms this (the book is called The Age of Sacred Terror). At the time I also believed the Sudan hit was to distract us during the impeachment hearings, but according to good sources who were there at the time, the administration was basically in a position where they were ready to attack any time they got reasonable intelligence on al Qaeda -- the intel might not have been any good a few days later, because the people targeted would not have been there any longer. It was just dumb luck that the Sudan information -- which turned out not to be accurate -- came up during the impeachment hearings. According to Clarke, Clinton said to go ahead with the attack even after being advised that everyone would say that he was doing it to wag the dog.

    103. Re:Well, we could... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      My fear is that they'd win a state by 2-3%, when 4-5% voted for a third party.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    104. Re:Well, we could... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      ha ha ha ha... MOD PARENT UP! The best line ever

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    105. Re:Well, we could... by rozz · · Score: 1
      He's the Attorney General. The American people deserve better than this.

      "Every nation has the leaders it deserves!"
      it's a proverb .. old one .. sad one .. true one!

      --
      "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    106. Re:Well, we could... by ultranova · · Score: 1
      A distinction must be drawn between an accidental miscarriage and a deliberate miscarriage. I read the passage quoted as leaning more towards an accidentcal. BTW accidental can occur on two levels:
      1. The woman was pushed accidentally.
      2. The woman was pushed accidentally with no malice intended to the fetus.

      How can the woman be pushed accidentially with malicious intent ? Doesn't accident already imply a lack of intent by definition ?

      Please clarify ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    107. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you hang them from a tree and light a fire underneath?

      Sounds like a barbecue to me.

    108. Re:Well, we could... by hashwolf · · Score: 1

      Sperm cells have unique human DNA. Should masturbation be illegal? Hundreds of sperm would still die even upon successful conception during sex. There goes all that wonderful unique human DNA.

      Sperm cells have only 50% human DNA.
      Considering that even a chimp and a human have ~ 98% of DNA in common, I wouldn't consider sperm human.

      Ditto for ova.

      --
      - "They misunderestimated me."
    109. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote for Kerry: be broke (idiot on economics), enslaved (general leftwingedness), then dead (no national defense).

      (1) I live in a country with a socialist government. I am not broke, my personal freedoms are equal to any citizen of the USA, and there are remarkably few terrorist hordes vowing to slaughter me.

      (2) Compared to my government, Kerry is right-wing.

    110. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of 16 translations, The only translation that uses the word "fowls" instead of "insect" is the King James Bible, which was written in Old English.

      Er, no, the King James Bible was written in Modern English, and not even particularly early modern English. Old English is the language spoken by the Anglo-Saxons from circa AD 500 to AD 1100; after that you have Middle English until AD 1500, which is still over a century before the Authorized Version.

      The term you're looking for is "archaic".

    111. Re:Well, we could... by eggz128 · · Score: 1

      Cancer cells have the same DNA as the body they are a part of. Therefore, while they pass the "life" test, they fail the "unique DNA" test.


      No, they have a mutation that caused the cancer. Therefore their DNA is different from the rest of the bodies (if only marginally). You could say their DNA is unique.
    112. Re:Well, we could... by Genda · · Score: 1

      Of course the simple answer is to get him a gallon of fuel oil to annoint himself with, then just for good measure a smoking jacket made of gun cotton.

      Y'know, if it wasn't for the entertainment value, this guy would just need to be shot... is it just me or does "Doctor Strange Love" look more and more like a documentary???

      Genda

    113. Re:Well, we could... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Well, in Judiasm at least, no. It would, at the least, be considered 'wasting the seed of life.'
      I don't think there's a punishment attached, but the old testament basically says "don't be like the gentiles and waste the seed of life." Arguments could possibly be made for abortion if it was needed to preserve the life of the mother ("picol nefesh", you can break almost any law to save a life)

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    114. Re:Well, we could... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      There is also nothing I can find in the bible prohibiting polygamy...

      The old testament allows it

      The new testatment says 'there shall be only one man and one woman for this lifetime'

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    115. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The answer is that he wants everyone to have a choice, and even though he knows what the answer is, he wants to give everyone a fair chance to make a decision.

      You said it right there. God gave every human choice, a.k.a. free will. Any other human trying to impose thier choices on another is subverting Gods will.

    116. Re:Well, we could... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Masturbation
      Jewish law clearly prohibits male masturbation. This law is derived from the story of Onan (Gen. 38:8-10), who practiced coitus interruptus as a means of birth control to avoid fathering a child for his deceased brother. G-d killed Onan for this sin. Although Onan's act was not truly masturbation, Jewish law takes a very broad view of the acts prohibited by this passage, and forbids any act of ha-sh'cha'tat zerah (destruction of the seed), that is, ejaculation outside of the vagina. In fact, the prohibition is so strict that one passage in the Talmud states, "in the case of a man, the hand that reaches below the navel should be chopped off." (Niddah 13a)

      2600 BC - First recorded recipe for an abortion producing drug.
      http://www.hopeclinic.com/history.htm

      The Hippocratic oath states "Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." Hippocrates was from the 5th century B.C.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    117. Re:Well, we could... by bonkedproducer · · Score: 1

      Then how about checking out Badnarik Choosing the lesser of two evils is still a pretty bad choice. I for one will be voting to keep my freedoms.

      --
      Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
    118. Re:Well, we could... by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      Those are s'mores.

    119. Re:Well, we could... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It says in the bible to kill people for all sorts of reasons - being badly behaved, looking funny, etc. I mean, if we were to interpret the Bible literally (as Bush has said we should), then we'd have to kill 70% of the world before we could even continue. If you ever try to read the bible without a pinch of salt, you'd realise it's so self-contradictory that it disproves itself time and time again. The only real way to use the Bible is to learn from it. Let it help you form your own beliefs. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the single, most profound teaching the Bible has, and is the single root of every one of the 10 commandments, and is present in all the world's major religions. Are we that different? We all get the same message, but with different spin. Don't hate the player - hate the game :-P

    120. Re:Well, we could... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      If you really want to go biblical, lets make male masturbation a felony.

      Whatever you do - just don't make female mastubation a felony - there would go my entire porn collection. I'd have nothing left to.... ahh... nevermind.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    121. Re:Well, we could... by dcam · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't put that very well.

      The distinction I was trying to make is that there is a difference between malice directed at the woman and malice directed at the fetus (or fetus + woman). For example a person may push the woman without realising she is pregnant.

      Is that any clearer (in terms of malice)?

      What I was trying to say before (less than clearly) was something along these lines:
      1. The woman pushed accidentally (no malice directed towards her (damage to woman & fetus is accidental).
      2. The woman pushed with malice, however malice is not directed towards the fetus (damage to woman non-accidental, damage to fetus accidental).

      I'm not sure how important this distinction is.

      I'd be interested to see that passage in the original Hebrew (I don't know Hebrew, but I know a few people who do). Looking at a few different translations I get the impression that passage is talking about a situation where two men are having a punch up and the damage to the woman is accidental, rather than saying that two men are having a long running feud as part of that one man attacks the other's wife.

      --
      meh
    122. Re:Well, we could... by dcam · · Score: 1

      You said it right there. God gave every human choice, a.k.a. free will. Any other human trying to impose thier choices on another is subverting Gods will.

      Absolutely. However to some extent we all impose our decisions on others. For example my decision to not burn copies of games and CDs places pressure on friends of mine who do. I'm not directly saying to them that they shouldn't, it just isn't something that I do. Noboby lives their life in a vacuum.

      It gets more difficult at a government level. Government legistation has an effect on people's beliefs. Tax breaks for single mothers, or tax breaks for families. Penalties for murder. Drug laws. In attempting to provide what is best for society you choose one viewpoint over another.

      Anyway getting back to your original point, I am appalled when I hear stories of missionaries (truthful or not) offering food to starving people if they become Christians. To think of doing such a thing is deeply disturbing.

      --
      meh
    123. Re:Well, we could... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      so perhaps we should be eating fetus with freedom fries for dinner

      Would you like a cocktail and side order of lasagne with that?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    124. Re:Well, we could... by MoebiusStreet · · Score: 1

      Can you provide a citation? (I'm not arguing or disagreeing; I want a citation so I can prove it to other people)

    125. Re:Well, we could... by dcam · · Score: 1

      Looking at a few different translations I get the impression that passage is talking about a situation where two men are having a punch up and the damage to the woman is accidental, rather than saying that two men are having a long running feud as part of that one man attacks the other's wife.

      In fact looking at it again, the passage does not state the woman involved is in fact married to either of the men involved. Hence we are really talking about a situation where a woman miscarries as a result of an accident (ie no malice).

      --
      meh
    126. Re:Well, we could... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Your probably not reading the same Bible. The one you want is the fundamentalist version. It's the one that only includes Leviticus and Revelations . . .

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    127. Re:Well, we could... by MoebiusStreet · · Score: 1
      It is no[t] a parasite of the mother's.

      This is a central issue, and one that I haven't seen pro-lifers directly address. Even if we stipulate for the argument that a fetus is a full-fledged "person", whatever that means, deserving of all attendant rights, what is it that forces the mother to assume full responsibility for it?

      I'm not saying that this couldn't be argued, just that I don't believe it has. In fact, many pro-lifers are willing to allow abortion in cases of rape and incest, which would seem to concede this point.

    128. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because the politically correct parrots are pro-abortion (see how i didn't say "pro-choice"?)...

      "pro-life" sounds so happy and positive, but
      "anti" anything sounds so negative and despicable

      it's a cheap rhetorical stab by the left

    129. Re:Well, we could... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you came to the right place for that sort of question. :-)

    130. Re:Well, we could... by dangerburger · · Score: 1

      he ended up giving over the memos anyway though. The problem is once they were handed over no one really gave a shit.

      --
      Non-System foot or foot error. remove from mouth and strike any key when ready
    131. Re:Well, we could... by SillySlashdotName · · Score: 1

      Amazing, don't you agree, that "THE WORD OF GOD" comes in so many different, conflicting versions, each with adherants willing to KILL others over the differences?

      My biggest problem with ALL religions is that they all claim to originate from the same source - GOD - but they are all different and all claim to be correct which is mutually inconsistant and logically not possible.

      Assuming for the moment that one of the many IS correct, how would I tell? Because NOT ONE RELIGION CLAIMS TO BE FALSE (even though almost all of them claim THE OTHERS are false) I can't eliminate any of them from contention for the 'One, True Religion" - or, as the one commonality of all the reigions is that they claim the others are false, maybe I should go with that common theme and say that all are false?

      People who make a living from religion are parasites. Just like spammers, they present their 'message' to a great many in hopes that a few will buy their hooey. They get gratification either from money or power given to them by the 'belivers'. Of course, to keep their belivers, they have to offer something everyone else doesn't - which makes their version different than others. Of course, their MODIFIED version is the ONE TRUE version, just ask them.

      Sorry, this is one of my buttons - along with stupidity, which this issue also pushes...

      --
      Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
    132. Re:Well, we could... by slagish666 · · Score: 1
      So, you can induce abortions all over the place so long as the woman isn't married, and there would be no punishment at all?

      Just wondering if that means that unmarried women are in fact, allowed by the Christian bible to have abortions.

      --
      "Consider the lillies of the goddamn field."
    133. Re:Well, we could... by SillySlashdotName · · Score: 1

      1) You seem to be implying - by making two statements with only one difference - that it is possible to ACCIDENTALLY push a woman WITH MALICE toward the fetus. Accidentally removes the malice aspect, malice removes the accidental aspect.

      Reminds me of the parrot with a string tied to each leg. When the petshop owner was asked why, he told the shopper to pull one string. The customer did, and the parrot spouted a bibblical verse. "Amazing!" said the customer and pulled the other string. The parrot spewed a different bibblical verse. "Astounding!" said the customer, "but what happens when I pull both strings?" The parrot said "Idiot, I would fall on my butt!"

      I think you may have just fallen on your butt...

      2) You wrote "As a Christian I believe (with biblical evidence)...

      I think you are running into circular reasoning.

      You are claiming to be a Christian - which means beliving the Bible is the 'Word of God' and true beyond dispute, then using the Bible to support your belief in something else. Would a Muslem believer accept the biblical evidence, or a Hindu or a Buddist?

      I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you have not - and can not - proved your position. Likewise, I (nor anyone else) can not disprove your statement - because your statement only applies to you. You are saying you believe something because you believe it with no foundation in fact or real world evidence. That is fine, you are allowed to believe anything you way want to believe. Unfortunately, opposing abortion is not confining your actions to yourself based on your beliefs, it is imposing your beliefs on others. THAT I have a problem with.

      Just as you are free to believe that there is a God that people were created in the image of, I should be free to believe in reincarnation, Karma, evolution, or whatever the Scientologists believe. Equally, Creationists, Scientologists, Muslems, and all others should allow you to believe as you wish. Contrawise, if you think others should be forced to do things because you think they should, or because your beliefs say they should, then, through the same laws, reasoning, etc., others should be allowed to FORCE you to think as they do and do things as they think you should because of their beliefs or thoughts. If it is OK for you (or me, or President Bush, or...) then it must also be OK for OBL or S.Hussain.

      By using the Bible as your source and evidence, you lose your point - unless you are trying to say (you DIDN'T say it, but for your argument to be true you would have to assert it to be true) that your argument applies ONLY those who see the Bible (and only the version you use) as the 'one, true word of God' - in which case opposing abortion FOR CHRISTIANS would possibly make sense - but then Christians would not want abortions if they all believed as you do.

      I can only think that either all Christians DON'T think as you do, in which case your issue is with them, or you are advocating imposing your beliefs on non-Christians THAT DON'T WANT THEM.

      --
      Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
    134. Re:Well, we could... by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      The term you're looking for is "archaic".

      Thanks for clarifing that for me. :)

    135. Re:Well, we could... by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, curtailing citizens' civil liberties, using his taxpayer-provided office to hold prayer meetings, promoting his radical right-wing Christian agenda and making sure that there's not a single nipple shown on Capitol Hill are all very taxing duties. He gets no slack from me. Working hard doesn't mean shit if you're not doing something worthwhile.

    136. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 10 year old requires an investment of hundreds or thousands of relatives, teachers, doctors, friends, and strangers. Every one of them contributes to the child, and as a result the child is more valuable, and becomes share property. No longer property of the mother, but instead property of society, and subject to society's laws on murder.

      So, should murdering a 10-year old child be punishable with a stiffer sentence than murdering a 1-year old baby? What about murdering a 90-year old man?

      How exactly do you determine somebody's "worth?" Seems to be that this has been done before... when a certain group of people were deemed to be worth 3/5 as much as "regular" people.

    137. Re:Well, we could... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      ...where instead of being in error with what we know now, it is in error with itself.

      We need not go any further. The Bible is The Word of God, so it can't be in error with what we know now, because if anybody should know how things are, it's god.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    138. Re:Well, we could... by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      anti-terrorism is working out quite popularly :)

    139. Re:Well, we could... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."

      Doesn't that mean he had sex with him?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    140. Re:Well, we could... by macdaddy · · Score: 1
      Worse than Watergate

      I recognize that title. I've seen it before on Amazon. I bought Dude, Where's My Country back when it first came out and more recently Against All Enemies. I'll have to add it to my wishlist for my next big book buying spree. Thanks!

    141. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that a soul is somehow tied to a number of cells?

      I think you are. I think the poster was referring to the process by which identical twins are formed, and sometimes de-formed into conjoined twins. He then applied your soul logic to these biological events.

      You claim that something has a soul "because it is part of a human being." This would imply that if I chopped off my leg and attached it to life support, it would have a soul. Now is this a new soul, part of my soul, etc? Where did it come from and where does it go when I have my leg reattached? What if it was attached to somebody else?

    142. Re:Well, we could... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      2 things.

      1. People have a right to a certain level of control over their own bodies which exceeds the control they have over their other possessions.
      A person can be taxed or have their property taken away, but they cannot be forced to give blood or be impregnated or remain impregnated, and they can only be imprisoned if they commit a crime.

      2. Killing life (human cells) or killing potential life (sperm) is not murder to most people, though it's not typically viewed as morally insignificant either. The early church (including St. Augustine, for example) was fine with abortions performed a certain time (40-80 days depending on the source) after conception. It wasn't until the middle of the second millenium that the view started to shift.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    143. Re:Well, we could... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      o.k. Now carry that through. What are the two major parties going to say when they see that a third partie has taken enough votes to change an election?
      Not what will they say to the people (they'll claim, oh so subtly, that the other side is at fault somehow). But what will they say to themselves?
      What thier going to say is along the lines of two things. The first is "we need to get rid of them" and the other is "shit, the peons are taking them seriously, we need to at least do some of that shit to look good".
      They will try to fud the third party and at the same time try to apeal to those that voted for the third party.
      It may not get us what we want, but it's better than just bending over and accepting it.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    144. Re:Well, we could... by dcam · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that the poster was referring to conjoined twins when he said that. This does introduce something new for me to chew over. I don't have an answer for that right now.

      You claim that something has a soul "because it is part of a human being." This would imply that if I chopped off my leg and attached it to life support, it would have a soul. Now is this a new soul, part of my soul, etc? Where did it come from and where does it go when I have my leg reattached? What if it was attached to somebody else?

      You are arguing the same thing I am arguing. I am arguing that a soul is part of a human being, one that can only be removed by death :-). That was the point of the comment about a sense of humour and amputated legs.

      --
      meh
    145. Re:Well, we could... by dcam · · Score: 1

      1) You seem to be implying - by making two statements with only one difference - that it is possible to ACCIDENTALLY push a woman WITH MALICE toward the fetus. Accidentally removes the malice aspect, malice removes the accidental aspect

      I may not be expressing myself very well. I'll try to say it another way. Suppose a woman is pregnant, she is pushed and miscarries. There are three options:
      1. The woman was pushed with intent to harm her alone (ie unaware that she is pregnant), the loss of the baby is incidental. That is the object is not to harm the fetus.
      2. The woman is pushed with intent to make her miscarry. An example of this might be a boyfriend who doens't want to take resposibility for the child and is not a country that offers abortions. In this case any damage to the woman is incidental. The object is not to harm the woman
      3. The woman is pushed with intent to harm her and the child. Damage to both is deliberate.

      I know that this is a fine point and the reality is that in real life things don't fall into such clean cut categories, I am merely trying to point out that even in the case where mailce is intended, it may not be directed at all parties.

      Onto point 2.

      I seem to have this argument a lot on /. You assume that there is no absolute truth. Possibly assert might be a better word to use than assume. I infer from your argument that you believe that all truth is subjective, ie what is true for you is true for you and what is true for me is true for me.

      I disagree. Why are religous beliefs and morality treated in a different way to scientific beliefs? It is an objective truth that pi is 3.14159.... . Is is not an objective truth that murder is wrong?

      As this truth is subjective to me, I have no right to impose it on others. However if this truth is imposed on the world by the God who created it, then it is truth.

      I use the bible as my primary source because it is the primary source of that truth. I believe the bible because it has been extensively tested by archeologists, histories, literature specialists and scientists and it has checked out on all of those tests. That is my foundation of real evidence.

      Take however you will.

      Getting back to abortion, I made a comment in this thread to that effect. The decisions we all make affect others. Nobody lives in a vacuum. My beliefs on murder have an effect on other people. Your beliefs on ownership of intellectual property have an effect on others. I oppose abortion because it has an effect on someoe I consider to be a person. Using your own argument, how can a mother have the right to make a decision that imposes her beliefs on her unborn child.

      Let's try to get into the real world here. Every decision you make has an effect on people around you.

      Let me tell you a bit of a story about the country I live in. The native inhabitants of Australia are referred to as Aborigines. From early on in Australia's history it was noticed that alcohol had an apalling effect on aborigines (I have heard of similar problems with Eskimo people and American Indians). So legislation was passed banning the sale of alcohol to Aborigines.

      During the 70s this was repealed and was hailed as a great victory for free choice. The aborigines were no longer having their decisions made for them. The effect of repealing this legislation on Aboriginal communities has been horrific. To the extent that aboriginal communities are now voluntarily creating alcohol free zones. We are coming full circle at the cost of thousands of lives.

      Free choice isn't always a good thing.

      --
      meh
    146. Re:Well, we could... by harkabeeparolyn · · Score: 1
      I prefer the poetry of the KJV, which reads as if the distraught husband gets to lay a beating on the perpetrator.
      If men strive, and hurt a women with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him;
    147. Re:Well, we could... by Everlasting+God · · Score: 1

      stories of missionaries (truthful or not) offering food to starving people if they become Christians

      Appalling? Yes. New practice? Certainly not. Sword-point conversions were all the rage a few hundred years back.

    148. Re:Well, we could... by SillySlashdotName · · Score: 1

      You almost got it, but you missed.

      I believe truth is objective, and belief is subjective.

      I believe that the ratio of the radius of a circle and the circumference of that same circle is a multiple of a number that can be approximated by 3.1415926... and is called pi.

      I don't believe that it is an objective truth that murder is wrong. I do agree that it is a subjective belief that I subscribe to.

      As this truth is subjective to me, I have no right to impose it on others. However if this truth is imposed on the world by by the God that created the world, THEN I HAVE NO NEED TO IMPOSE IT ON OTHERS (THAT WAS ALREADY DONE BY GOD). If I (or you) feel a need to impose this 'truth' on others then it was NOT imposed on them by GOD.

      Either this truth was imposed by GOD or by you. What I am seeing is imposed by you, but claimed to be from God. A claim with no backing I can verify.

      You say that this comes from the Bible ("...because it is the primary source of that truth") and that the Bible has been checked out by a wide variety of 'experts' and has passed all their tests.

      There is comtemporary literature (contemporary papers, inks, printing methods, etc.,) that use actual locations and structures, histories, and science (as currently known) that are not intended to ever be taken as true. I.e., fiction. BUT IN A THOUSAND YEARS, those works of fiction would meet and pass every test you have claimed for the Bible. That does not make their stories true, nor does passing the tests of the'experts' make the Bible stories true. It does point out accuracies IN SOME ASSPECTS, but not accuracy in ALL aspects. Large difference.

      In addition, your belief in the truth of the Bible is not a "foundation of real evidence," it is a foundation of sand, solely built up from your belief.

      One point I hope to be making is that your belief CAN NOT be a guidepost for my actions, only for your own.

      Back to abortion. You are correct that my beliefs in property rights affects others, but only in how it affects my actions, not in how I force others to act.

      Becasue I don't download illegal copies of software, my ISP does not get extra payments for my using excessive bandwidth. I may chose not to associate with others that do download or trade illegal copies of music or software. BUT MY BELIEFS ARE AFFECTING OTHERS ONLY THROUGH IMPOSING THEM ON MYSELF.

      "I oppose abortion because it has an effect on someoe I consider to be a person." Fine. Admirable if you act based on those beliefs - but that means YOU can chose FOR YOU to not have an abortion, or YOU can chose FOR YOU to not associate with people who chose to have an abortion, NOT that you can chose FOR OTHERS.

      "Using your own argument, how can a mother have the right to make a decision that imposes her beliefs on her unborn child."

      People impose their wills on their own body parts quite often. I force my fingers to strike certain keys. I impose my will on my feet when I walk down to the kitchen. I impose my will on my body when I chose to eat certain foods and not others. People impose their will on their body when they take diabetic medications, or blood pressure medications, or any number of other medications. People impose their will on their own bodies when they have surgery - elective surgery, required surgery, ANY surgery - INCLUDING ABORTION.

      Back to your question, the mother is not imposeing her beliefs on an unborn child. She is imposing her will on her own body. If the ability to impose her will on her own body is removed, then women become slaves and baby factories only - not people with FREE WILL which I understand is something given to people by GOD.

      Interesting story about the aborigines. Looks to me like it illustrates _my_ point.

      FOR THEIR OWN GOOD they must be FORCED to not drink alcohol, so legislation is passed. During the 70s the legislation is repealed - they are allowed to make their own decisions based on their own beliefs and needs. THEY ARE NOW CREATIN

      --
      Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
    149. Re:Well, we could... by SillySlashdotName · · Score: 1

      The answer is that he wants everyone to have a choice, and even though he knows what the answer is, he wants to give everyone a fair chance to make a decision.

      YOU SAID God wants everyone to have " a ... chance to make a decision."

      YOU SAID abortion is wrong, and people should not BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

      Please reconcile the two, as I have tried and can't - unless I assume you are evil and WANT to interfere with what you understand is the intention of God.

      Note that I am NOT saying you are evil (I don't know you and probably will never meet you), but that that is the only way I can reconcile the two positions you seem to have taken.

      --
      Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
    150. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, the typical left-wing response.... Accuse your opponent of what you most often do.

      It's called "projection."

    151. Re:Well, we could... by dcam · · Score: 1

      I have to say I am really enjoying this. I don't often get the chance to debate the point with someone. For some reason on /. people seem to give up and drop the point rather than arguing it, which rather a pity.

      Anyway back to the point at hand.

      I don't see a distinction between beliefs and objective facts. If I cannot back up my beliefs with objective facts then I will modify those beliefs. If I do not I am inconsistent. I stand by that and live by that as far as I can. That means if you can convince me that I am wrong, than I must alter my beliefs accordingly.

      However if this truth is imposed on the world by by the God that created the world, THEN I HAVE NO NEED TO IMPOSE IT ON OTHERS (THAT WAS ALREADY DONE BY GOD). If I (or you) feel a need to impose this 'truth' on others then it was NOT imposed on them by GOD.

      The situation as laid out in the bible is as follows: God has given everyone a conscience which to some extent guides peoples lives (eg most people agree murder is bad) and God also works in and through the world to change people. Christians are his ambassadors and representatives in this world. Christians are sent to tell other people the truth and help them towards that truth.

      Incidentally that truth has much more to do with relationship with God than with particular moral behaviour. I think people often get the wrong impression of Christians a lot, particularly in the States (I am assuming that you live in the US).

      You make a good point on imposing views on another person.

      My take on this is that in some cases it is right to impose a view on someone else, in other cases it is not. There are degrees in between, so that in some cases you may make one of the choices more attractive than the other. This is a difficult decision to make and not one that can be taken lightly and the top priority must be the good of all concerned. I guess I see there is a spectrum of options. At one end there is imposing a view, at the other we have hands off.

      A few point on this:
      1. It is generally very hard to impose a view one another person or people group. We are talking about abortion here, so looking back to times when abortion was illegal, it was still possible to get an abortion. It was more dangerous and it was harder to have an abortion, but it was certainly possible.
      2. Thing rarely fall at one end of the spectrum or the other. The point I was making earlier on all decision affecting others comes in here. So by making one decision I make it harder or easier for a decision to be made.
      3. Sometimes something is harmful enough to warrant strong intervention.

      What I'd like to see happen WRT abortion is to provide mandatory counselling before and after. I'd like the different options to be explained. I'd like the government to make it more attractive financially for someone to carry the baby to full term. I'm not suggesting that the counselling be used as a way of trying to convince people to go one way or the other, I'd see it is something that explains the different options. Something that helps people through making the decision. Something that makes sure they the are making a decision of their own accord rather than being pushed to it by a boyfriend or family. I'd see that as a step in the right direction. I admit I'd be a lot happier if things moved further than that but I'd see that as a step in the right direction.

      You raised a couple of other points, one on the Bible.

      I think you underestimate the bible as a book. On any terms it is quite a remarkable book. Few books make the same claims. Few books have been so thoroughly tested. You compare it to contemporary fiction, what is the difference between books written now and books written in the last 2000 years? Why do so few other books survive? I say that the bible has been thoroughly tested, you assert that I am standing on sand. Are you aware that there is more documentary evidence that Jesus lived than that Julius Caesar (by a factor of

      --
      meh
    152. Re:Well, we could... by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      I think you underestimate the bible as a book.

      I think you overestimate it, and are clearly ignorant of some key facts with regard to it.

      On any terms it is quite a remarkable book. Few books make the same claims. Few books have been so thoroughly tested.

      That's not true at all. You are ignoring many books from several Eastern philosophies. The Baghavad Ghita, the Dhamapada, the Analects of Confusius, the I Ching, Sun Tzu's Art of War. All of these have been around for at least centuries, in some cases millenia, and are at least as "tested" as the Bible.

      You compare it to contemporary fiction, what is the difference between books written now and books written in the last 2000 years?

      2000 years from now, how will anyone know that Cryptonomicon is fiction? There is no way to know. In fact, it's totally possible for all the events described to have happened, and it would not be unreasonable for archeologists to assume that it is a description of actual events. The same is true for pretty much all of the works of Steinbeck, or Hemmingway, or any countless number of other authors.

      Why do so few other books survive?

      Because they don't have a massive political power structure behind them? And for the record, I'm not convinced that the Bible has actually survived, either.

      I say that the bible has been thoroughly tested, you assert that I am standing on sand. Are you aware that there is more documentary evidence that Jesus lived than that Julius Caesar (by a factor of 10)?

      By what measure? How reliable is the evidence?

      There's probably a hundred times more "documentary evidence" of the existence of Lawrence Prichard Waterhouse than there is of my existence, and yet I doubt anyone would argue that he is real and I am a fictional character. The simple fact is, most people who actually exist have very little documentation supporting that fact. The reason is very simple: we don't need it. How can you deny my existence when I can walk up and punch you in the face?

      Fictional characters, on the other hand, have no support for their existence other than documentation, and therefor need a lot of it.

      Isn't it strange that a book written over hundreds of years by many different authors contains no contradictions?

      Not really, in light of the actual evidence. The fact is that there are no complete copies older than 900AD, and there are no fragments older than 300AD, and there is strong evidence that entire books have been removed (the Dead Sea Scrolls are a prime example, but by no means the only one).

      So no, it is not at all strange that any contradictions have been edited out over the course of the last 2000 years, and that evidence of that tampering was systematicly destroyed. In fact, given what we know of human nature, and especially the effects power has on people, it is much easier to believe this than that the Bible as we know it today is in its origional, unaltered form.

      Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence of tampering in the Bible itself. For example, the idea of a soul is a Greek concept, and doesn't exist at all in historical Hebrew philosophy, which holds that it is the Jewish race that is eternal, not the spirit or essence of the individual.

      Interestingly, the vast majority of early converts were brought in by Paul, a greek who never even met Jesus. I'm sure it's mere coincidence that many of the miracles performed by Jesus had supposedly also been performed by the patron demigod of Paul's home village.

      Additionally, the term "Son of God" was quite common in those times, and refered to any Jewish male. Everyone else was a "Son of Man".

      (Sorry, I don't have any documentation of any of this handy, these are just a few things I remember from the World Religeons class I took many years ago. The instructor, whose name was Moorman, spent 8 years in a seminary college before dropping since, as a homosexual, he was considered an irredem

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    153. Re:Well, we could... by dcam · · Score: 1

      I think you overestimate it, and are clearly ignorant of some key facts with regard to it.

      You assert that, however I see nothing in your answer that suggests that you have a better understanding than I do.

      That's not true at all. You are ignoring many books from several Eastern philosophies. The Baghavad Ghita, the Dhamapada, the Analects of Confusius, the I Ching, Sun Tzu's Art of War. All of these have been around for at least centuries, in some cases millenia, and are at least as "tested" as the Bible.

      The two points I made about the bible were the claims it made and it's authenticity. On those grounds I think we can eliminate Art of War. I have to admit that I haven't read any of the others, or studied them so I will have to take your word for that. However each of those books (as far as I am aware) was written by one author, not ~40. The bible is more unique than you imagine.

      Fictional characters, on the other hand, have no support for their existence other than documentation, and therefore need a lot of it.

      You are saying that the more evidence of someone's existence, the less likely they are to have existed. That is a novel argument.

      Not really, in light of the actual evidence. The fact is that there are no complete copies older than 900AD, and there are no fragments older than 300AD, and there is strong evidence that entire books have been removed (the Dead Sea Scrolls are a prime example, but by no means the only one).

      Now that is interesting. Here was I thinking that the dead sea scrolls proved that it was possible for the bible to traverse those thousands of years without being altered chinese whispers style. This argues somewhat against your next point.

      Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence of tampering in the Bible itself. For example, the idea of a soul is a Greek concept, and doesn't exist at all in historical Hebrew philosophy, which holds that it is the Jewish race that is eternal, not the spirit or essence of the
      individual.


      Read Ezekial 37. Then read John 11:24. There is a clear conception of the resurrection, or life beyond the what we see. Secondly if you read the New Testament it is clear that the nation of Israel is replaced by the church (all Christians) under Christ. This body (and all the people in it) is raised to new life with Christ (fulfilling the OT prophecies). The Old and New Testaments hang together.

      Interestingly, the vast majority of early converts were brought in by Paul, a greek who never even met Jesus. I'm sure it's mere coincidence that many of the miracles performed by Jesus had supposedly also been performed by the patron demigod of Paul's home village.

      Ah, on that you are completely wrong. Paul was a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin (this is one of the purest of the 12 tribes of Israel). That fact that he came from Tarsus, has no impact on his being a Jew. I'd also be interested to know where get the information on the demigod. I mean that seriously, I would like to dig further. You might note that in Acts on the day of Pentecost that thousands convert under the teaching of the disciples (Paul was an apostle not a disciple).

      Additionally, the term "Son of God" was quite common in those times, and refered to any Jewish male. Everyone else was a "Son of Man".

      This is a little left field but I'll comment. Jesus is referred to as both.

      (Sorry, I don't have any documentation of any of this handy, these are just a few things I remember from the World Religeons class I took many years ago. The instructor, whose name was Moorman, spent 8 years in a seminary college before dropping since, as a homosexual, he was considered an irredemable sinner

      --
      meh
    154. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There's also a lot more meat on your bones, so why don't we eat you instead of the fetus? Are you really more valuable than a cow?"

      This was already answered quite solidly in the parent post. Yes, an adult is more valuable than a fetus. It costs a LOT more money to create an (educated) human teenager than it costs to create several cows. A fetus costs even less.

      I think it's also a good idea to include emotional value in here. Just like that dog scampering around your feet is worth a lot more than the dinner on your plate. A fetus is only really valuable to the mother. And if the mother doesn't want it, sure, throw it out.

    155. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your arguments dont hold up. As another respondent said, cancer cells contain a mutation - therefore they are unique human DNA.

      Likewise Sperm contain alteration, though they do have half the chromosomes. However saying they aren't human because they have half the chromosomes is again faulty logic. There are plenty of humans walking around with chromosomal abnormalities, such as XXX females, who have three X chromosomes instead of 2. Are they not human and therefore subject to murder?

      As for "continuing life" test, a sperm can continue life just as well as an ovum or a fetus. Can a fetus continue life on its own? Heck no. It requires a member of the opposite sex (just as a sperm requires an egg to continue life). Furthermore a fetus is a parasite on its mother for at least several months. So even a fetus can't continue life without a large amount of aid. A sperm is just as capable of "continuing life" as a fetus or a 5 year old.

      Biological arguments of "human dna==rights" just don't work.

      "By your definition, killing a newborn baby should be less of a crime than killing a 10-year-old, and killing a college graduate should be less of a crime than killing a high school dropout, since you define a person's worth by how many people and organizations have "contributed to the value" of that person"

      Technically, YES. If an elementary school kid dies, it's a tragedy. But the parents boink and out pops another 8 year old in just 8 years. No huge loss. If a 25 year old man dies, his wife is widowed, his children are orphaned, his education and skills are gone probably before the tuition was paid, etc. A lot more people are affected, and a lot more resources are wasted.

      HOWEVER, do not mistake this for implying that it should be legal to kill a 5 year old. Think of it as an asymptotic slope. The value of a child to society is marginal for most of gestation. Possibly a few months or even a year after birth. But at some point the child stops being a parasite of the mother's, and becomes a member of society, who belongs to many people (the father, the doctor, grandparents, siblings, playmates, etc.).

      At this somewhat arbitrary point we consider a child important enough that the value skyrockets to infinity. You could say it doubles from the age 5 to the age 10, but it doesnt matter. The penalty for killing the kid is still a murder charge.

    156. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are interesting points.

      I agree the contributions to one's life do not constitute ACTUAL ownership or debt. However they do contribute to your value regardless.

      I also agree the making of a child creates a responsibility for the parents. I think abortion is an act of stupid people. But I also think people irresponsible enough to "need" an abortion are unfit to have children.

      Quite a conundrum!

    157. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See post above. Sperm and ova have 100% human DNA, but they only have half the chromosomes. If this makes them any less human, then what about human adults walking around with chromosomal abnormalities?

      Down's Syndrome is caused by triplication of chromosome 21. Are retards not humans, and thus subject to our dinner plates just as cows are?

    158. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, true. It is definitely an interesting question that doesn't get enough attention.

      You can outlaw abortion all you want, but what can you do if a mother says "fine, I'm not killing it, I'm just leaving it on the sidewalk to fend for itself". Of course that could be considered neglect just as it would be for a 2 year old, but still...

    159. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it would be a big mistake to try to quantify people's worth. At this point in our legal system and most people's minds, it's binary. Zero value, or infinite value.

      Most pro-lifers think that humans beings are WORTHLESS until the sperm and egg conceive. Those other millions of sperm and eggs that die every year are fine living their short lives on tissues and tampons.

      Most pro-choicers think that humans beings are WORTHLESS (or relatively so) until they are born. At this point they spontaneously gain INFINITE VALUE.

      So basically I'm arguing for the latter, with the point being that a fetus is worth no more than a sperm, whereas a born baby is out in the open and a child of society, not just of its mother.

  4. A New Low by JaxGator75 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Must... Resist... Urge... to Kill...

    In other news, I won't be paying my taxes this year as I firmly believe the influx of cash will "Break the Bank".

    --
    Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
    1. Re:A New Low by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't pay taxes - simply donate to a non-profit that you support and take the tax credit.

      It's all about give and take - take your refund, and give the IRS the finger.

    2. Re:A New Low by JaxGator75 · · Score: 1
      Hmmm... I just watched "Midnight Express" and don't want to risk jail at the moment. I'll have to pass...

      --
      Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
    3. Re:A New Low by wankledot · · Score: 1

      In order not to pay any income tax, I would have to donate all but a few thousand $ of my income... which isn't an option unless the Non-Profit org is the "House and Feed Joe's Family Fund"

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    4. Re:A New Low by letxa2000 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Don't pay taxes - simply donate to a non-profit that you support and take the tax credit.

      Tax credit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but donations to non-profits result in taxable income deductions, not tax credits, don't they? If they are tax credits then if you have a $1000 tax bill you can pay zero by donating $1000 to a non-profit. If it's a deduction then if you have a $1000 tax bill on $10,000 taxable income, a $1000 deduction makes your taxable income $9000 on which you still have to pay $900.

      Unfortunately, I don't think you can get out of paying taxes by giving it to a non-profit instead. If you could I think most of us would opt out of paying taxes and just give it all to some local charity we approve of.

    5. Re:A New Low by Jtheletter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Don't pay taxes - simply donate to a non-profit that you support and take the tax credit.

      That works great for the end of the year, but what about all this money they take from every paycheck, from every item I purchase, from all the gas I pump, from simply owning a car, from using the telephone, from connecting 3 computers via a private network (soon to be in FL).

      It's really quite terrifying when you list all the things you're taxed for. In fact it takes about a thousand times less effort to list things you aren't taxed for .... yet.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    6. Re:A New Low by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      refund? Do you mean take your money that you over paid to the government durring the tax season? Or the gift they give lower income people that don't have good jobs and too many kids?

      Either way, the term refund is more or less just a ploy to make you feel good when they force you to use the government treasurie as a bank acount interest free. It makes you forget the money they are giving you is actually your in the first place.

    7. Re:A New Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to see neither of you will be voting for Kerry. Democrats are historically quite serious about getting "Their Tax Dollars".

    8. Re:A New Low by malok2 · · Score: 1

      Well let's see, should I donate by taxes to debian or gentoo developers... How about SCO, they are non-profit, right ?

    9. Re:A New Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That don't work out in the end. Just file to become a church official, priest, revrend, rabbi... pick one, it's not hard to legaly get the title and you wont ever pay tax's... you might even get people to give you free money just for talking out your *** about someone(thing?) who doesn't exist.

    10. Re:A New Low by ElForesto · · Score: 1

      Every time you pay your taxes, you pay his salary.

      Stop using a Social Security Number, stop paying income taxes, and stop being part of what perpetuates this. I'm already well on my way.

      --
      There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
    11. Re:A New Low by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      You might be off-topic, but since the original article was about the Bush administration:

      1) How much tax money was used destroying and rebuilding Iraq?

      2) How much tax money was used to beef up the Pentagon's budget during the Bush administration?

      Who is paying for this anyway? Who's gov't spending increases are going to be larger? Bush or Kerry?

      And Bush *CUT* Taxes which means we will now be paying *interest* on the debt too.

      More on-topic to the general conversation: I will vote for Kerry. The more so because I saw a Bush ad attacking Kerry's stance on reversing portions of the PATRIOT Act.

      As far as I am concerned, Bush might not be likely to commit the crimes against Humanity that Hitler, Stalin, et. al. committed in WWII, but as far as I am concerned the PATRIOT Act was just like the Nazi reaction to the burning of the Reichstag, and their continued support for further strengthening this act constitutes the greatest threat to our democracy we have ever seen at least since McCarthy and maybe before.

      The PATRIOT act was passed when everyone was still in shock. I think that it speaks well of Kerry that he has changed his mind and seen the error of his vote. I also think that it is part of a much larger campaign against demopcracy on the part of the Bush Administration.

      So I say, "It is time for a regime change. Vote for Kerry."

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    12. Re:A New Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know, thanks to DOJ action such as this, I felt the same way and researched how to legally not pay taxes, i.e. hook up a nonprof rather then the IRS. But according to the ol' 1040, dedudctions are subtracted from net income, and then you're taxed accordingly. So basically, unless you give away enough to fall below the IRS radar (no taxable income), I still get to pay for DOJ databases and the lawyers who then claim that the database I paid for will crash if I get to see part of it. ahhhh, America.

    13. Re:A New Low by zoloto · · Score: 1

      do help us. how are you doing this? I would like to know. most online information is hardly reputable or believable.

    14. Re:A New Low by orim · · Score: 1

      Hey...

      just wanted to say - have fun at Gitmo!

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    15. Re:A New Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you want to try this (it doesn't work, like the other comment said it is a deduction, not a credit), you have to itemize your deductions instead of taking the standard deduction - so if you don't have more than a few thousand dollars worth of deductions, prepare to get fucked.

    16. Re:A New Low by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, I don't think you can get out of paying taxes by giving it to a non-profit instead.

      Don't be silly; of course you can. If you make $50,000 in income this year, you can donate $47,000 of it to charity, keep $3k (which is about the same as the exemption credit for a single person), and then you'll have $0 of taxable income. Viola! No taxes!

      Of course, you'll have to live with your parents and eat ramen noodles every day to survive on $3k...

    17. Re:A New Low by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

      "from all the gas I pump, from simply owning a car"

      You like having nice, well-maintained roads to drive that car on, right? Because that is what the taxes on your fuel and car are for.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    18. Re:A New Low by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, poor guy. Having to pay taxes on the goods you buy to support the roads you use, the police who protect you, the judges and district attorneys who fight for your rights against much more corruptable institutions than even government.

      Taxes don't all go to the same place. Federal income taxes pay for federal programs. State income taxes and sales taxes pay for state programs. Property taxes pay for municipal governments and schools. Each of these layers of government helps you out in some way. Many of them (most probably at the local level) run very efficiently, lest they make some huge mistake encouraging you to vote them out. Personally, I don't find anything "quite terrifying" about government being able to pay for itself. I'm more terrified when it can't.

      Don't like taxes? Move. But good luck finding some place to move to. Globally speaking, US citizens pay a relatively low amount of income tax, and our sales tax is much lower than, oh say, Europe or Canada. Here's a little info: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/001201.html, and you can google for more.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    19. Re:A New Low by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      You're right - it should be a deduction and you can't pay zero taxes as a result. There is a cap on your deductions.

      I consulted with a friend of mine before posting that... unfortunately for him, he was wrong. I also checked the IRS website and confirmed what you said. I trusted his advice because, well, he's a CPA at a major firm and gets paid incredible amounts of money to do what he does. I figured that he would know what he was talking about.

      My mistake.

    20. Re:A New Low by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      ElForesto sounds like he's trying the "sovereign citizen" route, something that's already been knocked down by the Supreme Court on at least one occasion. A friend tried to get me to go along with it, and it includes taking such steps as not using ZIP codes and filing false tax returns so as to get back the money "stolen" by way of payroll deductions. Some people have been peripherally caught in this trap when their employers have decided that income taxes are illegal and not paid their side. Even though this is the fault of the employer, the employees still get contacted by the IRS and can suffer significant fines and penaltes.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    21. Re:A New Low by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      Renounce your citizenship and live on a boat over international waters.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    22. Re:A New Low by platipusrc · · Score: 1

      You like having nice, well-maintained roads to drive that car on, right?

      You realize he's talking about Florida, right?

      --
      And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
    23. Re:A New Low by SoupaFly · · Score: 1
      I consulted with a friend of mine before posting that... unfortunately for him, he was wrong.

      That sounds pretty ominous. If he's still breathing (or even if he's not), kick him once for me!

    24. Re:A New Low by EvanED · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how are you doing this? I would like to know. most online information is hardly reputable or believable.

      So you ask an anonymous source on /.? :-p

    25. Re:A New Low by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      I hadn't considered revenge... I figure that the inevitable difficulties he will encounter as a result of his...mistakes... will be bad enough.

    26. Re:A New Low by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Or the gift they give lower income people that don't have good jobs and too many kids?

      Awww... does it hurt your feelings that, when our minimum wage is so low that two fully employed people can't feed a family of four on it, the government steps in to keep them from starving? After we've removed all federal funding for EVER teaching ANYONE about birth control? I'm so sorry. Let me give you a hug.

      It makes you forget the money they are giving you is actually your in the first place.

      Election? Makes it sound like you made a choice. One could almost forget that we hired our government (those folks taxing us) in the first place.

      Don't like it? Vote and campaign to change it. It's not a dictatorship. But don't be surprised if you encounter some resistance from the majority of people that the system works just fine for.

      Sounds like you were born into the least taxed, most government-hostile, richest society on earth... and deeply resent the fact that it's not even moreso. Let the violin music begin.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    27. Re:A New Low by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      I support user fees in lieu of taxes precisely because of what the grandparent was talking about--we pay so much in taxes and have no fucking clue where much of it is going. You claim that government works efficiently; the people I know who have government jobs brag about how LITTLE they have to do.

      I bet if the government would itemize how peoples' taxes are being used and send it back to them with their IRS forms, we'd see more support for replacing government programs with private solutions.

      Just because our global friends pay more taxes isn't an excuse for us to pay more taxes. That's like telling someone "it's ok that you failed that test, because Billy failed it even worse!" I think that forcing folks to hand over money makes them more greedy with what they have already...

    28. Re:A New Low by mr+i+want+to+go+home · · Score: 1
      I think you're confusing 'no'-profit with 'non'-profit.

      Ahhh...SCO. Endless opportunities for trashing :).

    29. Re:A New Low by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      I bet if the government would itemize how peoples' taxes are being used

      The government does exactly this. It's in the 1040, towards the front. Do you even PAY your taxes?

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    30. Re:A New Low by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Many of them (most probably at the local level) run very efficiently

      You have got to be fucking kidding. Or on crack. Or both.

      I've worked for government. Never once did I see anything close to 'efficiency'. What I did see was quite a bit of law-bending, more than a few instances of law-breaking, frequent and repeated attempts to mislead or outright lie to the public, and enormous amounts of money spent on what could only be called 'dick-measuring contests', often between two departments within the same governmental body. Not to mention payoffs and useless pork and 'cost overruns' and the gymnastics required to keep all the management around while firing - oh, excuse me, 'laying off' - the proles who actually do the work when budget cuts come around.

      Most government is horseshit.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    31. Re:A New Low by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you were born into the least taxed, most government-hostile, richest society on earth... and deeply resent the fact that it's not even moreso.

      And why shouldn't it be? To please pseudo-liberal, middle-class wannabe socialists who like to indulge in white guilt with their clueless, self-help-loving, crystal-power-worshipping friends?

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    32. Re:A New Low by Ironica · · Score: 1

      And why shouldn't it be? To please pseudo-liberal, middle-class wannabe socialists who like to indulge in white guilt with their clueless, self-help-loving, crystal-power-worshipping friends?

      No, actually, because human beings are social animals, and we would freakin' DIE OUT if we decided to be totally antisocial.

      In the old days, we could just kick troublemakers like you out of the tribe and into exile (and probable suffering death). But these days we're just too civilized ;-). Lucky you! You get to benefit from the system too, even though you don't support it!

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    33. Re:A New Low by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      Dude. I file my own Schedule A. I know how to ITEMIZE HOW MUCH TAXES I AM REQUIRED TO PAY.

      WHAT I WANT IS THE GOVERNMENT TO ITEMIZE EVERY PENNY OF WHERE MY TAXES GO. ALL I KNOW NOW IS THAT IT GOES TO THE IRS.

      I know the CBO puts out a report saying that x% goes to defense, etc. But is that mostly debt financed, tax financed, or does it matter?

    34. Re:A New Low by dargaud · · Score: 1
      Don't like taxes? Move. But good luck finding some place to move to. Globally speaking, US citizens pay a relatively low amount of income tax
      Yup. I recently moved to France and heard the recently on the radio that of all countries, last year France had the highest tax in the world (all taxes like income, VAT... put together). Yup, even more than the notorious scandinavian countries. And I've lived in various countries.

      My last paycheck in Italy was taxed at... 70%. Yup, I got to keep only 30% of what I made and there's not even any unemployement protection in Italy. Note: I never figured out why that last paycheck tax was so high, the others were more around 45%.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    35. Re:A New Low by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      Last time I looked, about 5 years ago, 15% of federal taxes went to the military, 15% to interest payments. Add to that 5% for what it should take to run the legislature, courts, the executive's office, the patent & copyright office, and some (minimal) other things and you have the whole list of what the Feds should do. Everything else does more harm than if the money were received by the gov't. and destroyed. 65% waste before even looking at the details.

      Similar analysis works on state, county, and local scales, except that the smaller scale systems aren't usually so bad, particularly in small towns where everyone knows what's happening. Even they have public schools, an egregious (but time honored) theft from those who choose not to burden others with their children. (If you make 'em, pay for 'em: private school or home school.)

      Yes, the US has lower taxes than most other places, and that's a large part of why the US is better. It is also a huge clue to how to improve the US even more: less government spending and less taxation.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    36. Re:A New Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dunno italian taxation. Since it probably is a progressive taxation, maybe you miscalculated your income. Like, you had the tax slip saying you make 30000 e per year so thats 30k/12 per month, but let's say you make three times that due to vacation bonus etc. Your tax % will jump to the sky.

      You should get the excess money paid back on the end of the year.

    37. Re:A New Low by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Most government is horseshit.

      True. But without it, we're left with even more corrupt institutions. Such as corporations, crime families, religious organizations, and defacto dictators.

      I'll take a nice pork-laden government any day of the week.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    38. Re:A New Low by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      But is that mostly debt financed, tax financed, or does it matter?

      The way I understand standard bookkeeping is that you have two columns: money in, and money out. You never make the distinction that "dollar X was paid for service Y," because from a bookkeeping point of view it doesn't make any sense. I mean, do you take all of the money from Delaware and say that's for school programs but money from South Dakota is for defense spending? Or do you break it down evenly by percentage per person? If so, do you count debt as a person, or as a blanket sum? These are hard questions, and as you suggest, they don't matter. Spending is what it is. Taxes are what they are. It's obvious the government doesn't care, because whatever imbalance you have come out of bonds, which incidentally are generally paid for by American citizens' savings accounts.

      Furthermore, by itemizing the bill (which would be several hundred pages long), they are making the inference that you can line item veto services you don't want. Which is again absurd. Everybody agrees we need a welfare assistance program but nobody wants their cash going to freeloaders. Allowing people to vote with their dollars would mean having to advertise and hard sell each social program, of which there are thousands.

      I assume this is what you're suggesting, because why else would you want so much detail? Accounting is at its best when it is simple addition, without a lot of percentages involved. Do you notice how SIMPLE Schedule A is compared to your own personal accounting system? They don't care about where YOUR tax money is coming from nor do they care what your expenses were beyond some very simple type association. In other words, they don't ask you to itemize every penny of the money coming in -- saying that you spend so much on electricity, so much on natural gas, so much on pencils, so much on skilled labor -- and, in return, they're giving you a very simple breakdown of where your money is going.

      And hey. If you want to know what every cent of your money is going, you can find this out. They publish it every year in a document called "the budget." It's even available on the internet. I'm willing to bet a similar document is available from your municipal, county and state governments as well as your school district.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    39. Re:A New Low by dave420 · · Score: 1
      There's a difference between taxes that pay for stupidity and taxes that pay for essential life-supporting services. You pay less tax in the US, and get less for it. No free healthcare, crappy public transport, crappy schools, expensive medicines, etc. In Canada and Eudope, you pay more, but if you're hit by a bus you'll go to hospital and get treated, not stuck in a waiting room until someone can fax through a copy of your medical insurance documentation (if you have any, otherwise they just wheel you round by the dumpsters and leave you with a newspaper).

      They say you have the right to life in the US, but you clearly don't. If you're poor and ill, forget it. You only have the right to life if you're rich.

    40. Re:A New Low by nojomofo · · Score: 1

      If you try that, the Alternative Minimum Tax will kick your ass. Originally designed to keep rich people from using loopholes to avoid paying taxes, more recently it's been known for screwing over married couples with lots of deductions.

    41. Re:A New Low by clarkc3 · · Score: 1
      In Canada and Eudope, you pay more, but if you're hit by a bus you'll go to hospital and get treated, not stuck in a waiting room until someone can fax through a copy of your medical insurance documentation (if you have any, otherwise they just wheel you round by the dumpsters and leave you with a newspaper).

      Most states in the US have some form of indigent care coverage where a person who got hit by a bus or other serious injury would be admitted and stablized/treated and then sort out the paperwork afterwards.

      It is worth noting most indigent care is usually paid for my none other than a tax on everyone else's hospital bill

    42. Re:A New Low by daveisoverlord · · Score: 1

      In addition to the AMT, my church told me you can only deduct up to 30% of your AGI from charitable deductions.

      Of course, preparing your tax return from what you hear on slashdot is pretty dumb, so hopefully no one will take your advice.

      --
      The perception of reality is more important than reality itself.
    43. Re:A New Low by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      In addition to the AMT, my church told me you can only deduct up to 30% of your AGI from charitable deductions.

      Whoops, I forgot about this.

      Of course, preparing your tax return from what you hear on slashdot is pretty dumb, so hopefully no one will take your advice.

      I should hope not. Maybe I should have specified "IANAPTP" (I am not a professional tax preparer). And anyone that donates more than 30% to charity should have their head examined anyway (or more than 5% if they have a family to support).

    44. Re:A New Low by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Have you ever worked a low-end job in your life?

      People on the bottom of the scale don't get a whole lot of breaks. Bitch about food stamps and public housing, but have you seriously done the math on living at $8/hour. Hint: for most families, day care costs more than the wife would make. Low cost housing is non-existent in most cities. To qualify for public housing requires spending a few months at a homeless shelter. Think I'm kidding? Call up and ask.

      I have a few friends who do social work. There are 2 things that generally keep people on the bottom rung from progressing.

      • First: Education. We may be spending the money, but it isn't going into teachers, books, and maintaining a learning environment.
      • Second: The poor don't have access to banks. Most banks require a $100 balance for a checking account. To you and me $100 is, while not chump change, no big deal to come up with. Many poor have to go through check cashing places, which take a chunk of their already meager paycheck.
      • Finally: Child care. It costs too much for a working couple, let alone a woman on her own.

      And don't give me the crap about all of them having cell phones. Phones are cheap, cheaper by far than having a real phone.

      Spend a few months having to decide between eating, air conditioning, or telephone. The get back to me about the "deal" these people are getting.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    45. Re:A New Low by randomencounter · · Score: 1
      Even they have public schools, an egregious (but time honored) theft from those who choose not to burden others with their children. (If you make 'em, pay for 'em: private school or home school.)
      If you want qualified employees, pay for them.
      The public schools replace the aprenticeship system where employers trained young people into their trades.
      --
      Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
    46. Re:A New Low by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      You bring up some good points. I have some reading to do. But about this point:

      Furthermore, by itemizing the bill (which would be several hundred pages long), they are making the inference that you can line item veto services you don't want. Which is again absurd. Everybody agrees we need a welfare assistance program but nobody wants their cash going to freeloaders. Allowing people to vote with their dollars would mean having to advertise and hard sell each social program, of which there are thousands.

      I noticed on your website you mentioned yourself as libertarian. How does this passage and your philosophy mesh? Isn't the standard libertarian position on paying for government "user fees"?

      I'm not sure everyone agrees we should have a welfare assistance program, also.

    47. Re:A New Low by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Awww... does it hurt your feelings that, when our minimum wage is so low that two fully employed people can't feed a family of four on it, the government steps in to keep them from starving? After we've removed all federal funding for EVER teaching ANYONE about birth control? I'm so sorry. Let me give you a hug.

      No what hurts my feelings is we have schools that don't emphazise enough on educating those students that become the "two fully employed people can't feed a family of four on it". Education is not only 2+2=4 or I before E except after c. Work ethic, competetive spirit and the will to better your self should be part of it too. Unfortunatly the current educasttion system has a problem with the 2+2=4 part of it. Teaching birth control to corect a situation were 2 fully working adult can't feed a family of four is only a sing that we have given up on this part of society and expect them to be in that position. This is wrong.

      The people working minimum wage jobs should be those that are in/fresh out of high school and needing work history or those looking for part time suplimental income. maybe even those in transition from one job to another. Resolving to letting it be normal for someone with a good work record to suffer though a minimum wage job is horible and attempting to raise that minimum wage to compensate instead of raising thier education, work ethics or job opertunities is even worse.

      But that isn't the reason I wrote what I did in the parrent post. The reason i wrote it is to make the statement that the system is designed to make it apear as if you are getting somethign for nothing. One of the reasons people are poor and can't earn a living is because everyone is out to take from those that have and give it to others. The robinhood style taxes, frivilous lawsuites, fraudulant insurance claims, greedy CEO's wanting to enrich thier shareholders porfolio, All take a part in why these people can't aford to make a livving. Giving the government too much money for taxes and making it look like they arte giving it back to you out of the gernerosity of thier heart is only shaping this into a controled enviroment.

      Of course some people who can't save on thier own need this mandatory saving's so they can have somethign nice but wouldn't it be better if the government just took what they needed instead of excess in case they decide to spend more?

      Sounds like you were born into the least taxed, most government-hostile, richest society on earth... and deeply resent the fact that it's not even moreso. Let the violin music begin.

      I think this that you speak of is an falicy. The poor pay no taxes and even recieve someone elses in return. The lower midle class pay somewhat more taxesbut tend to get that majority of them back. The middle class to uper middle class just get hit the hardest with a tax burden the is marginaly too much for them to handle (but every one thinks it is ok because they are driving new cars and thier kids have good teeth)The upper most 10% of wage earners paid more then 1/3 of the taxes for the enitre country.

      Your comment is an obvious attemp to be stupid. I don't really know how to respond to such out right dumbness. The feds never had the right to colect taxes on people reguarding income levels untill around the civil war or WWII. Now instead of it being The government is too big and taking to much money from the public without enough results to justify it, it has become the government is taking too much from the poor and not enough from the rich. Then some political leaders try to make people think the way to equalize the diference between the "haves" and "have not's" is to take from the "haves" when it should be to let the "have not's" elevate themselve to the position of the "haves".

      I see you have bought into thinking like this by your comments. It is people like you that are a danger to society at large. There will always be a finite amoutn of

    48. Re:A New Low by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      how interesting you should ask, yes i have worked a low end job making less then $8.00 an hour. i used these as stepping stones to get to the jobs that pay more. I even to another stae with less then $50 in my pocket to get one of these other jobs. Life is what you make of it, in many cases it seams too hard to actually make somethign more then you have but it is entirely possable. However i don't see were this is going, i didn't write anythign in the parent post that was supposed to be putting anyone down. I was mearly making a mention that the money the governemt gives you in most cases is already yours. The comment about the earned income credit was just diferentiating the differences between people that get more then they paid in back. I know people that make $12-$15 an hour and recieve the earned income credit because they didn't work enough hours to make enough money or somethign stoped them from doing all earning all they wanted to earn. I don't think it is a bad idea to give this either, err untill it become a dependencie and people start refusing to better them selves because it apears that less work gives them more money because of the proccess. Then it becomes a problem.

      You mention welfare and food stamps. I don't have too many issues with this either except the ways it is being used. The welfare programs take too much away from those trying to get ahead and get a job compared to those that don't work for what ever reason. I would almost guarente that if it was a situation were you bearly had enough to make anythign without a job and when you got a job they still allowed you to recive a more apropriate amount of assistance that would encourage you to work harder until the person was back on thier feet, the role of welfare would be fare less prevalent in todays society. It almost looks like it is regulated to make sure people never get off the welfare roles in order to ensure job security for the workers adminstrating it. What a beutiful time we live in.

    49. Re:A New Low by DF5JT · · Score: 1

      "I consulted with a friend of mine before posting that... unfortunately for him, he was wrong. I also checked the IRS website and confirmed what you said. I trusted his advice because, well, he's a CPA at a major firm and gets paid incredible amounts of money to do what he does. I figured that he would know what he was talking about.

      My mistake."

      Your mistake is to be close to someone working at SCO.

    50. Re:A New Low by e7 · · Score: 1
      In other news, I won't be paying my taxes this year

      Finally made up your mind, eh?

      --
      Corollary to Moore's Law: The IQ of new computer owners is declining.
    51. Re:A New Low by canajin56 · · Score: 1


      Hehe, did you read the link? Canada isn't really higher. It's like 40% instead of 39.6% Higher, but not signifigantly.


      On the other hand, that website is out of date, and wrong. Canada's highest tax bracket is actually 29%, not 40%! Also, it kicks in at $100K, not $40K. You pay provincial taxes too...but in the US you pay state taxes (unless you live in one of the 7 without them), and the 39% figure does NOT include those! If you live in Montana, for example, you pay 11%, for a total of 50%. In Canada, the highest (Newfoundland) has you paying 18%, for a total of 47%. (Quebec may be higher, but the government website didn't list it for some reason.) Our lowest is alberta, @10% with no brackets, for a total of 39% So we are 0.1% lower for our least taxed province compared for the USA's lowest states, and our highest province is 3% lower than the USA's highest state. Then again, the brackets are also different sizes, so the averaged rate will be different too.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  5. Backups by KaSkA101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmm, so I guess they don't keep backups of their own data, if making copies of it would cause the data to be lost. I guess we just have to hope (or not) that their computers or hard drives never fail.

    1. Re:Backups by strictnein · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess we just have to hope (or not) that their computers or hard drives never fail.

      Don't worry, I'm sure they're using a RAID 0 setup.

    2. Re:Backups by hazem · · Score: 4, Funny

      That explains everything... Clearly, they are using a quantum-based computer. If you try to read the data to copy it, it gets changed. Can't fault them for trying to use the newest technology, I suppose.

    3. Re:Backups by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      That argument could easily be proven in court. Which is where I expect this to end up.

      Simply put, that has got to be the stupidest excuse I've ever heard of.

    4. Re:Backups by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

      That explains everything... Clearly, they are using a quantum-based computer. If you try to read the data to copy it, it gets changed. Can't fault them for trying to use the newest technology, I suppose.

      Yes, it's the all-new Heisenberg Data Store 2000 from Uncertain Storage Inc.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    5. Re:Backups by orthogonal · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hmm, so I guess they don't keep backups of their own data, if making copies of it would cause the data to be lost. I guess we just have to hope (or not) that their computers or hard drives never fail.

      There's a back-up bit on each suspect's Department of Justice file. If the backup bit is set (value = 1) for a particular file, it's backed-up, if it's not set (value = 0), then to save space no backups are made of that particular file.

      In order to economize even more on space and save government money on the database, in a brilliant bit of design, the backup bit was combined with the bad party affiliation bit: the bad party affiliation bit is unset (value = 0) for Republicans, and set (value = 1) for all other parties.

      Without backups, of course, some files are irretrievably lost, and the suspects are never prosecuted. It's mere chance that most of those are Republicans.

    6. Re:Backups by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not affiliated with Schroedinger's Ledger Service. Motto: "In the Black or in the Red, we'll all find out if the cat's dead!"

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    7. Re:Backups by gmack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Taking it to court would take longer than their current promise of december.

      When is the election in the US finished?

    8. Re:Backups by Jason+Earl · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, their computers are even more high tech than that. They are using Infinite Improbability Computers. No matter what data you put in all you get out are invoices for $200 hammers.

    9. Re:Backups by codergeek42 · · Score: 1

      RAID 0 is only striping...RAID 1 is mirroring...

    10. Re:Backups by uberfruk · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't worry, I'm sure they're using a RAID 0 setup.

      I'd bet they're using 0 RAID

    11. Re:Backups by tunabomber · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's the all-new Heisenberg Data Store 2000 from Uncertain Storage Inc.

      Why not just use a 3.5" floppy? Now THAT's uncertain. Those things go corrupt if you look at 'em cockeyed.

      --

      pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    12. Re:Backups by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like RAID negative one.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    13. Re:Backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest, then, that someone make a FOIA request to see how they are doing their backups (or if they are).

      If they give a general cursory yes response, like I expect they would, we can prove they're lying at least once.

      If they say no, then ... hey ... that's detrimental to national security!

    14. Re:Backups by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ever notice how a joke just isn't as funny anymore when someone explains it? Even when the explainer completely missed the joke to begin with?

      Not that that has any bearing on the current situation or anything.

    15. Re:Backups by Bishop923 · · Score: 4, Funny

      When is the election in the US finished?


      Depends on wether or not Florida has it's shit together this time.

    16. Re:Backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it this the same Ashcroft who wants to introduce new anti-copying laws? I thing he should inform his friends from RIAA not to worry, because downloading of music will crash computer/destroy pirated material anyway ;-)

    17. Re:Backups by codergeek42 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Dear sir, Please stfu. Sincerely, Moron.

    18. Re:Backups by dankow · · Score: 1

      There's a back-up bit on each suspect's Department of Justice file. If the backup bit is set (value = 1) for a particular file, it's backed-up, if it's not set (value = 0), then to save space no backups are made of that particular file.


      As I learned from a friend inside the DoJ that, not only is my backup bit set to 0, but my Evil Bit is set to 1. Damn, I'll never get a job.

      --
      I am the hub of Jack's digital lifestyle.
    19. Re:Backups by rhysweatherley · · Score: 1
      When is the election in the US finished?

      Depends on wether or not Florida has it's shit together this time.

      Florida will be squeaky clean this time around, because all the world's attention will be focused on it. You should instead be keeping an eye on other states, particularly those with Diebold machines and the like.

      After Farenheit 9/11, the only way Bush can win is either (a) massive terrorist strike just before the election causing rally around the flag patriotic nonsense, or (b) vote rigging. My money is on (b).

    20. Re:Backups by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's the all-new Heisenberg Data Store 2000 from Uncertain Storage Inc.

      Don't you mean the Hindenburg Data Store 2000 from RubYourFeetOnCarpet Storage Inc.?

    21. Re:Backups by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      Taking it to court would take longer than their current promise of december.

      When is the election in the US finished?

      You know the system's FUBAR'd when you can't tell someone to their face they're f--king lying through their teeth and instead you need to go to court and spend lots of money proving the obvious. Would it even be possible to drag such a case out over a long period of time?

    22. Re:Backups by KefabiMe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, I kind of hope that a state with their beta electronic voting systems screw up again. Imagine what would happen if the election went to the US Supreme Court twice in a row. I would hope then at that point Americans would be FORCED to think about voting, the amount of corruption that takes place, and (most importantly) just think in general about who they put in office.

      In that case we could avoid having to deal with Slashdot stories like this. (I am glad it is on Slashdot though, Americans especially need to take note of this guy)

      Then again, I think I'm just an optimist... The above is just wishful thinking.

    23. Re:Backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, that's what you need an IOMega Zip drive for.

    24. Re:Backups by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      I doubt Ashcroft thinks he's lying. What would make more sense would be for him to have handed down an order to, "Give me a technical reason to say no."

      Basically, why lie when you can ask someone to lie to you?

    25. Re:Backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit trying to rationalize your omission of the floppy drive, Steve.

    26. Re:Backups by Trepalium · · Score: 1

      Or punchcards, with an automatic random shuffler.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    27. Re:Backups by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      ...Infinite Improbability Computers.... ...all you get out are invoices for $200 hammers.

      Actually, that would be a Unity Probability Tabulatrix.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    28. Re:Backups by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Whose vote is Fahrenheit 9/11 going to change?

      Talk about preaching to the choir. Even if you agree with some of the things Moore says, he's such an asshole when he says them, he discredits his own position.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    29. Re:Backups by humankind · · Score: 1

      When is the election in the US finished?

      It's likely been finished, courtesy of Diebold. There is the minor formality of making people think that it matters they're going to the polls in November, but other than that, Bush has probably already been promised he'll win by those with the power to make it happen.

      The fact that half the posters here find more humor than horror in the realization that the American people can't get the information on their candidates they're entitled to is a testimony to how totally fucked up things are. We get what we deserve because we're a nation of apathetic self-absorbed, passive-aggressive weenies who live more in virtual worlds than real ones.

    30. Re:Backups by eyeye · · Score: 1

      Yes right wingers like you wont change their vote but there are a whole load of people out there who dont know what is really going on because it hasnt been spoonfed to them in the form of moving pictures.
      Thats what fahrenheit 9/11 is about.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    31. Re:Backups by Moofie · · Score: 1

      OK, the fact that you think I'm right wing amuses me to no end.

      Anybody who disagrees with His Liberal Majesty Michael Moore must be a jack-booted Ashcroftite. Righto.

      As a matter of fact, your contempt for the masses is about the most unpleasant tenet of the "liberalism" that everybody seems to think is a bad word now. The more positive (progressive?) tenets are being buried under "Gotta beat Bush!" which is a hell of a lame rallying cry.

      So, you're welcome to your preconceptions. Note that they do not serve you well.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    32. Re:Backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's > its

    33. Re:Backups by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      For those of you who didn't get it, there was some sarcasm intended for the line "Not that that has any bearing on the current situation or anything." And an excellent use of sarcasm it was. Keep up the good work!

      --
      do not read this line twice.
  6. well if it will crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then it must be running Microsoft(tm)!

  7. Not being able to copy? by jawtheshark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    McIntyre explained in a May 24 letter that the computer system - operated in the counterespionage section of the Justice Department's criminal division - "was not designed for mass export of all stored images" and said the system experiences "substantial problems."

    Does this mean that they never make backups either? Sounds like just a bad excuse...

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:Not being able to copy? by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Considering the thing is probably a gigantic solid state storage farm in a shelter somewhere near the center of the earth, using scavenged alien technology for preemptive disaster recovery... I doubt they considered they'd ever have to worry about it.

    2. Re:Not being able to copy? by mikael · · Score: 1

      "was not designed for mass export of all stored images" and said the system experiences "substantial problems."

      It's a ZX Spectrum with a wobbly RAM pack?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:Not being able to copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the sound of it, the data is probably stored on some sort of data tape, or drum style hard drives, and they are worried about how well they will stand up to being used. Or they could be stored on some other form of antiquated system and there are concerns as to whether it will be able to handle the sustained load that will be involved in such a massive data dump.

      Does this mean that they never make backups either?

      the above reasons making backups not feasable at all.

      Perhaps the slashdot bias extends to politics as well? I cannot believe that so many slashdotters seem to be blind to all of the reasons it might be dangerous to retrieve the data. The above scenarios only took me a few seconds to think up, and i'm sure there are more possiblities. The time period that was quoted for getting the data (they did say that they would get the data, just not right now) should allow them to properly plan to get all the data off, just not the stuff related to the FOIA request.

      It's this kind of knee jerk reaction that started the bolsheivik revolution. Hmmm.. Maybe I will get in on that Antarctic base business.

    4. Re:Not being able to copy? by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Never back up? Never read the data? Never actually use the data?

      What can you DO with the data?

      Can we file an FOA request for material that states how this is actually used? Or will this be declined because "Said documents are stored in special formats which do not allow their export beyond the system, and said printers use ink made from phosphorus ensuring that the papers ignite when read?"

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  8. Apparently they haven't heard of backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or hard copies. "Irreplaceable data" -- hah!

  9. Beam Me Up by the0ther · · Score: 2, Funny

    Seriously. If this is where we've arrived, where public officials try such a blatant lie...their incompetence is unmeasurable! Please, please, won't the aliens take me home?!?

    1. Re:Beam Me Up by JaxGator75 · · Score: 1
      What reason do "they" have to try and make their lies within the realm of plausibility? If you could get away with it, why would you put the effort into crafting an elaborate cover?

      "That's right, I'm playing golf with Don Cornelius on the Moon. Don't call here no more!"

      --
      Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
  10. Shut up/Go Away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like something I would make up to get someone to go away.

  11. This database will self-destruct... by Agent+Green · · Score: 0

    ...in 5...4...3...2...

    Sector not found on Drive C:\
    Abort, Retry, Ignore?

    --
    // Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
    // IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
    1. Re:This database will self-destruct... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Funny

      Quick! Toss it in the trash can where Chief is!

  12. Is the DoJ using by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Excel spreadsheets to store its data or something?

  13. As usual by SpaceCadetTrav · · Score: 0, Troll

    Here we see the typical Slashdotter over-simplified solution: smugly link to an open source product.

    1. Re:As usual by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Hey, do YOU know a way to link to a lynch mob instead? Give 'em a break.

    2. Re:As usual by JJahn · · Score: 1

      Yeah but PostgreSQL is a GOOD open source product. Unlike MySQL (flame if you will, but its just barely coming into the 90's now) Anyway, its obvious this is just bullshit cooked up by our wonderful DoJ, regardless of what database they are using copying it shouldn't be a problem.

    3. Re:As usual by captfi · · Score: 1

      Here we see the usual response from a person who is usualy considered to be the smugest being out smugged. P.S. I wonder if exporting the domestic lobyist data would crash it too.

      --
      "Never trust a computer you can't throw." -- The Mac
    4. Re:As usual by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Sorry but this is a case of people being so out of touch that it is not funny.
      If the goverment made that statment in the 60s, 70's, or maybe the 80's people would have believed it. Now there are too many people the actually work with databases that are as large as they are talking about. I mean how many people records could we be talking about? 100,000 maybe? That is nothing for a modern database. As to linking to open source projects. I have to admit that without open souce I would not know as much about SQL servers as I do. Millions of people have worked with SQL servers now because they could download MySQL or Postgres for free and play with them.
      Knowlege is power and a lot of people have enough knowlage to know that is a LIE.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:As usual by kfg · · Score: 1

      Yes, you have something of a point, generically at least, however, given the actual case under discussion they might just have easily linked to a supplier of parchment and quill pens.

      KFG

    6. Re:As usual by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      Or worse (and more likely) it's incompetence in the government and the people that are maintaining their systems.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    7. Re:As usual by llefler · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not the number of records that is the problem. It's the fact that they are on punched cards in the basement....

      We laugh at your puny drive failures.

      No smoking please.

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
    8. Re:As usual by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      ... locked in a file cabinet in a disused lavatory marked with a sign saying "beware of the leopard!"

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  14. yeh right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should get people in office that knows what the hell is going on? This sounds similar to, that $40 program can recover anything..... except for our data.

  15. Already suffered "major loss of data" by hoggoth · · Score: 5, Funny

    What this REALLY means is that they have already suffered a "major loss of data" but never made any backups and have been trying to hide the fact that the database has been GONE for weeks, months, or even years under grade school-level excuses.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    1. Re:Already suffered "major loss of data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trying to hide the fact that the database has been GONE for weeks, months, or even years

      In an ironic misread, I originally read this as " trying to hide the fact that the database has been GORE for weeks, months, or even years"

    2. Re:Already suffered "major loss of data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In an ironic misread

      This word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

    3. Re:Already suffered "major loss of data" by llefler · · Score: 2, Funny

      What this REALLY means is that they have already suffered a "major loss of data"

      Graduates of the Richard Nixon School of Data Integrity.

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
    4. Re:Already suffered "major loss of data" by stripyd · · Score: 1

      This doesn't conflict with Mr. McIntyre's statement if viewed from an idealist (in the philosophical sense, ala bishop Berkeley) stand point. Major data loss must involve the perception that the data cannot be accessed. Unsuccessfully trying to copy it would do it. Perhaps they should adopt a logical positivist approach and dictate the data can be copied as long as it isn't integrity checked in any way.

    5. Re:Already suffered "major loss of data" by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Obviously They did say it will happen... soooo, how do they know this? The last try must have turned all the records into ACSII art ;)

    6. Re:Already suffered "major loss of data" by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Were the Clinton White House email archivists graduate-level interns from that School?

      --
      resigned
    7. Re:Already suffered "major loss of data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      guess they used deathstars

    8. Re:Already suffered "major loss of data" by patbob · · Score: 1
      they have already suffered a "major loss of data"...the database has been GONE for weeks, months, or even years

      OR, it means that the database is corrupt, and touching the corrupt areas causes the system to crash (and corrupt more data). The oldest data is the most likely to be corrupted without anyone knowing. Might even be a hardware failure.. you happily go on thinking the data is OK until you tried to access it and.. kablooie.

      Does smell like a coverup for lack of backups.. perhaps the requestor should file for access to a backup of the data instead.. just to give them enough rope to hang themselves with. Then hand the situation over to the news media for investigation -- the inability to backup such a critical database has to be worth some mention on the media :-)

      --
      Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
    9. Re:Already suffered "major loss of data" by RedWizzard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What this REALLY means is that they have already suffered a "major loss of data" but never made any backups and have been trying to hide the fact that the database has been GONE for weeks, months, or even years under grade school-level excuses.
      Possibly. I still prefer the other theory: "we're not giving you the data you want, we don't care what the law says".
  16. ow my jaw! by MrLint · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, i think I broke something whilst picking my jaw up off the floor.

    If the computer will crash by accessing these records, then this implies the records are inaccessible. Not to mention that if the records magically 'disappear' all they have to say it "look we told you so"

    I dont think anyone is gonna believe this for a second. More like a lot of people want this information permanently buried as to avoid letting the public know whats going on.

    1. Re:ow my jaw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe they were trying to save money by storing their database in write only memory.

    2. Re:ow my jaw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More like a lot of people want this information permanently buried as to avoid letting the public know whats going on.

      Not permanently. They say that the records will be available from the new system in December(presumably getting there by psychic transfer to avoid the risks of copying). So they only need to keep the records away from the public until after November, for some reason.

    3. Re:ow my jaw! by physicsphairy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not to mention that if the records magically 'disappear' all they have to say it "look we told you so"

      I dont think anyone is gonna believe this for a second. More like a lot of people want this information permanently buried as to avoid letting the public know whats going on.

      Hey, if you want to view this information, feel free to take a drive down to Washington and read the print out.

      If you want something you can access on your PDA that is more regularly updated, I hardly think it constitutes a government conspiracy that a database that was never meant to be accessed by anything other than its present system will take a while to be ported.

      Sheesh, people, if you don't like the Bush administration vote for someone else in November. Let's quit with the conspiracy crap.

    4. Re:ow my jaw! by MrLint · · Score: 1

      actually a printout would mean the records are accessible, and could be copied and sent out.

    5. Re:ow my jaw! by physicsphairy · · Score: 1
      If you would read the article, you would find that there are four hours a day when the records are accessible from the Justice Department (though these, as you might suspect, are not as up to date as the actual database)

      The records are an order of magnitude larger than what might be easily "copied and sent out". I'm sure that might be arranged, though, provided adequate compensation. At least I sure hope the government is not in the business of spending $10,000 in toner and paper just to quench random individuals' curiosity.

    6. Re:ow my jaw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, i will be happy to just sit here watching tv as a good little consumer. no need to think for myself. the government knows what's right for me.

    7. Re:ow my jaw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you would read the article, you would find that there are four hours a day when the records are accessible from the Justice Department

      Would reading them outside of the designated 4 hours cause the ink to evaporate? Just curious.

    8. Re:ow my jaw! by gilroy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Blockquoth the poster:
      Sheesh, people, if you don't like the Bush administration vote for someone else in November. Let's quit with the conspiracy crap.

      You want conspiracy theories? How about the fact that the database will be publicly available, but "an overhaul of the system should be finished by December" -- conveniently after the election. Hmmm. I wonder why the Bush-Cheney administration might want foreign connections quiet until after Nov 2? Can you say "Saudi Arabia"?

      Now, most likely, this is some technical thing not directed by the White House or even Ashcroft. But this has been an administration with a proven track record of stonewalling, hedging, and obfuscating for political purposes ... they simply don't have any benefit of the doubt left.
    9. Re:ow my jaw! by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      At least I sure hope the government is not in the business of spending $10,000 in toner and paper just to quench random individuals' curiosity.

      Why not? Isn't that what democracy is about?

      Now if I own a single share of Microsoft stock, cannot I make a written request for all sorts of their documents, and if these are stored in electronic form, do they not bear the cost of printing them out? Is this not the responsibility of a publically held corporation?

      Is our government that much less democratic?

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    10. Re:ow my jaw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is our government that much less democratic?
      Yes!!

    11. Re:ow my jaw! by ManoMarks · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you had read the whole article, you would have seen that paper records are 12 months out of date. So yes, you can go to Washington a year from now to see the records through June 28th, 2004.

      --

      That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere

    12. Re:ow my jaw! by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Isn't that what democracy is about"

      No, it's not. The job of the government is to attempt to make the best use of the tax money they take (laughable I know, but that's the goal at least.) I for one do not consider printing out a list that YOU want for no real reason other that because you want it to be a good use of my tax money. If the expense were negligable (say 50 cents or so) that would be different. Honestly though, I would rather use the money to feed a few hungry children.

      Unless you're against feeding hungry children...

    13. Re:ow my jaw! by MrLint · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok let us dig deeper here. The records that have been printed out are over 12 months old (from article), thus implying at some point the whole thing has been printed, from the existing system.

      From this we can also conclude that they have been putting new data over the past year. The request was made in january. It is unclear how long it took to go thru red tape and on what date the request was denied.

      The article also says that the new system will be up in December.

      These facts and reasonable conclusions lead to some interesting questions. Is data still being put into the old system despite the fact that a large transaction will cause it to crash? If so how long has this 'problem' been known out, and is it not unwise to keep adding data to a possibly unstable system?

      Is it now the end of June, 6 months from the time of request, 6 months until the new system is up and running, since we 'know' that a large transaction will crash the old system, it stand to reason that some data is already on the new system and data is currently being moved to it. That being the case, why not provide the data on the new system, and then provide the copies of the data as its being transferred to the new system? This is reasonable course of action assuming all statements are true. If all statements are true then why was the request denied, as there is a reasonable process to allow access.

      Id really like to know 1) How much data we are talking about adn 2) what is it on. 10 years ago I was dumping mailing lists from a McDonnell/Douglas Microdata minicomputer which at that time i believe was over 10 years old, that same unit is still in service today and is being phased out. But i'll tell you this, if the IRS came and demanded a copy of the records saying it might crash certainly wouldn't mean you escape from complying.

      Oh and BTW, just because you dont like conspiracies, it doesnt mean they dont exist.

    14. Re:ow my jaw! by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If SCO can do it (i.e. provide a hard copy to IBM), then the DOJ certainly can. Just replace Ashcroft with McBride. The law could not be in any worse hands than it is now and we would actually get a printout.

    15. Re:ow my jaw! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, FOIA requests are not charged for if the amount of time it takes to find, redact (if necessary), and copy an item are less than about $20 or so (I forget the exact number). If it's more than that, you can specify a maximum amount you're willing to pay, or ask that they contact you with an approximate cost before proceeding.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    16. Re:ow my jaw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Hey, if you want to view this information, feel free to take a drive down to Washington and read the print out.

      The next sentence is one you should have included:

      Paper copies of records still are available for review four hours each day for people willing to travel to Washington, the Justice Department noted. Williams said the index available to researchers there is at least 12 months outdated, "which kind of renders it useless."
    17. Re:ow my jaw! by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      But this has been an administration with a proven track record of stonewalling, hedging, and obfuscating for political purposes ...

      You'd be hard pressed to name a recent administration for which the above isn't a valid claim.

      Of course, it's more convenient to only point fingers at those whose politics you disagree with.

      --
      resigned
    18. Re:ow my jaw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      November? Fascinating. I wonder, does anything important happen in November? Hmmmm....

    19. Re:ow my jaw! by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Informative


      No, it's not. The job of the government is to attempt to make the best use of the tax money they take (laughable I know, but that's the goal at least.) I for one do not consider printing out a list that YOU want for no real reason other that because you want it to be a good use of my tax money. If the expense were negligable (say 50 cents or so) that would be different. Honestly though, I would rather use the money to feed a few hungry children.


      Not that I am against feeding hungry children. But I think that we have to understand that democract requires transparency, and that transparency requires that the citizens can require any reasonable document from the government at any time for no other reason than idle curiosity.

      Regarding the "job of government" you are correct, but it does not answer my point regarding transparency and democracy. Just as the fact that as a shareholder of IBM, I can request a wide variety of documents and only pay photocopy costs (unless it is stored electronically, in which case, they must pay printing costs). It is not IBM's job to make these available to me to satisfy my curiosity, but by law they must do that. Which means that, as far as shareholders are concerned, IBM is more democratic than the US Gov't.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    20. Re:ow my jaw! by Alan+Hicks · · Score: 1

      If you had read the article you would have noticed that it is the searchable index that is 12 months behind, not the actual records. The records are there, it's just that finding them is a bitch.

      --
      Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
    21. Re:ow my jaw! by CharlesEGrant · · Score: 2, Informative
      If the expense were negligable (say 50 cents or so) that would be different. Honestly though, I would rather use the money to feed a few hungry children.
      The Freedom of Information Act allows agencies to recover the direct costs of searching, vetting, and duplicating the information. FOIA requests do not compete with hungry children for your tax dollars.
    22. Re:ow my jaw! by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      I don't consider an $8000 drapery to cover a stone tit a good use of my tax money either. The government is not a democracy if they refuse information to the citizens (especially when that info is not vital to "national security"). I pay my taxes, and if I want those documents, they'd better fucking hand them over. And take that "feeding hungry children" bullshit and cram it.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    23. Re:ow my jaw! by harkabeeparolyn · · Score: 1

      You're overthinking this. Go with the simplest explanation--- the cover story is just a fucking lie. It doesn't even sound remotely plausible. If anyone other than Someone In Authority gave you this crazy cock-and-bull story about not being able to retrieve data, you would laugh in their face.

  17. For just 50 million dollars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I will provide them a special "government edition" of drive image or ghost.

    1. Re:For just 50 million dollars... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Peter Norton, is that you?

    2. Re:For just 50 million dollars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /.-is-that-you-guy, is that you? We (your fans) were getting worried, and were afraid you might have gotten a job or something.

  18. I wonder by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Many Justice Department computer systems, especially at the FBI, are considered outdated. The FBI is spending nearly $600 million to modernize its antiquated systems.

    How will the FBI put all that old information on these new systems then?

    1. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By reading the screens of old VT100 and typing it themselfs.

    2. Re:I wonder by sybert · · Score: 1

      You might remember how totally outdated the FBI computer systems were during the reign of Louis Freeh. Muller's FBI has been spending it's entire time upgrading the FBI's systems and is still not finished. It would be understandable that the FBI would not want to put any resources into dumping an old database.

      Or they might be covering up that the (previous) president's top campaign contributors were foreign agents.

  19. Disturbing... by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered federal agencies in October 2001 to review more closely which documents they release. Ashcroft's policy lets officials withhold information on any "sound legal basis." Under looser policies issued in 1993, agencies could hold back information to prevent "foreseeable harm."

    particularly because the policy allows withholding information due to "foreseeable harm" to the Administration, and not necessarily to the country.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Disturbing... by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "foreseeable harm" rule was under Reno. The "sound legal basis" rule is under Ashcroft. Did Ashcroft tighten or loosen the rules? I would say he tightened them, because under Reno you could withhold information on a legally unsound basis just because it might cause foreseeable harm to her boss.

      Of course both rules suck, "our computer might crash" isn't a sound legal basis to deny this information.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:Disturbing... by letxa2000 · · Score: 0, Troll
      Particularly because the policy allows withholding information due to "foreseeable harm" to the Administration, and not necessarily to the country.

      Is that comment based on some real document that I can see, or are you being funny, or are you being Moore-like and just making it up as you go along?

    3. Re:Disturbing... by the+Luddite · · Score: 1

      Most all of the policies of this régime, erm, administration have been on the order of "How will this help us?" and not "How will this help everyone?". That is the core problem with the government structure as it stands (picture if you will a house of cards) and this is just another symptom of a deeper problem.

      This type of obfuscation in answer to questions from the outsiders (i.e. the General Public hereby to be referred to as "The Boned") are typical, historically speaking, of governments that we have worked to overthrow, namely totalitarian dictatorships. The unfortunate problem for The Boned is that what was once the Great Experiment has become the latest Banana Republic (and I don't mean the clothing store).

    4. Re:Disturbing... by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most all of the policies of this régime, erm, administration have been on the order of "How will this help us?" and not "How will this help everyone?". That is the core problem with the government structure as it stands (picture if you will a house of cards) and this is just another symptom of a deeper problem.

      To some extent you are right, but I think that there is a deeper problem. If you look at policies in general even before 9/11, you see that the Bush Administration was particularly opposed to transparency, which is a prerequisite for democracy. The attack on transparency in our government continues in meaningful ways (struggle over Patriot act) and less meaningful ways (Energy policy task force-- less meaningful because it is more or less clear what is happening here and paradoxically keeping the list secret more or less confirms the criticism against the Bush Regime re. composition of task force).

      The Bush Administration is as dangerous to us as Hitler, aside from the ethnic purification stuff, was to the Germans (i.e. WWII resulted in an incalculable academic, political, and cultural loss for the German people, mostly at the hands of the Nazis, particularly Hitler and Himmler).

      We are lucky we are still talking about this three years after.

      "[Bush says] 'the Constitution has served us well' ... You'd think he was talking about his health." Sen. Byrd.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    5. Re:Disturbing... by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced they can tell the difference. They certainly have not indicated otherwise.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    6. Re:Disturbing... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      "Our computer might crash" or was it "we lost the backup tapes" worked pretty well when Clinton was running things and White House email records came into question.

      Why not now, too?

      --
      resigned
    7. Re:Disturbing... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      aside from the ethnic purification stuff
      Oh, I don't know about that; I can think of a few example of the Bush Administration's "ethnic purification:"
      • Equating Muslims with terrorists in the minds of the public
      • Running roughshod over the separation of church and state
      Granted, he's not killing anyone yet (as far as we know), but you can tell a Muslim from a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant without making him wear a star.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:Disturbing... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Hitler didn't do any mass killing of Jews until well into World War II when things weren't looking so good anymore and there were some concerns about large numbers of pissed-off Jews running around after the War.

      Remember that Hitler started out as nothing more than authoritarian leader with a penchant for manipulating terrorist attacks into police power, a tendency to rely on stirring up peole with fear and nationalistic fervor, xenophobia, and a desire to exercise military strength.

      Really, the only major differences between Hitler's early reigme and Bush's that I see are:

      * Hitler *always* made ethnic issues a major portion of his campaign. Bush does not have an "ethic enemy within".

      * Hitler used physical intimination against domestic politicians before he had the legal right to do so -- his party had military strength of its own. Bush has not physically threatened supporters of opposing politicians.

      That being said, the extent to which the Bush/Hitler administrations parallel each other vary, but there *are* a startling number. Almost all the major political events have parallels.

    9. Re:Disturbing... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      It seems the only optimistic thing I can say is that it is a good thing that three years after the Reichstag^W WTC being razed, we are able to still talk about these things.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  20. How Conveeeenient by hondo77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The government said an overhaul of the system should be finished by December and copies should be available then.

    Not available until after the November election, eh? How conveeeenient.

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    1. Re:How Conveeeenient by qtp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not available until after the November election, eh? How conveeeenient.

      Not available until after the shredders cool down...

      Actually, the time between now and December should give them lot's of time to properly purge the records. People just don't appreciate how dangerous truth and knowledge can be to a Democracy.

      --
      Read, L
    2. Re:How Conveeeenient by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      Uh, truth and knowledge are the underpinnings of a Democracy. They are dangerous to a dictatorship. This alone is the primary reason for the 1st Amendment, and the reason that it is the First.

      I know it looks as though I missed the irony and sarcasm in your comment. But shit like this makes me so angry. I think it's high time that the US population brush up on their Rousseau.

      A good place to start is here.

  21. This deserves a prize! by eamacnaghten · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My congratulations to the Justice Department - this excuse deserves a prize! Although it is common for people to make excuses that bare no relation to reality, but rarely they show such imagination as this!

    This paces the Justice Department on par with Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the recently retired Iraqi Information Minister in it's inovation of repartee in the face of fact!

    I hope they do not copyright this reason as it is so good I think I will use it (if I can) when the circumstances arise.

    --

    Web Sig: Eddy Currents

    1. Re:This deserves a prize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This paces the Justice Department on par with Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf

      I'd go even further, I won't be surpised to see this one turn up in the next court filing by SCO. "Your honor, we have mountains of evidence showing millions of lines stolen by IBM and inserted into Linux, but we can't show you any of it for fear of destroying our computers"

    2. Re:This deserves a prize! by pjt33 · · Score: 1
      This paces the Justice Department on par with Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf
      Wikipedia alleges he's in the UAE, but is there confirmation that he's not really in Washington?
  22. Maybe they're telling the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    afterall, they might be using Access.

  23. Wow. by Niet3sche · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This makes me glad that I live in a state that utilizes MATRIX and seems to strive against individuals' digital personas being kept close to the individual's chest. *sigh*

    On a more serious note, perhaps the government should look into being this tight-lipped when it comes to combining, merging, and actively data- and text-mining databases and data sets ... you know, such as those that paint a complete and full picture about a person from individually innocuous bits of datum. Maybe EFF ought to get involved in this (don't flame - I've not hopped over to EFF for soem time now; I'm sure that they actually *are* involved). Then again, hopefully the INDIVIDUAL would ultimately attain/retain ALL IP over their OWN data.

    Yeah, I know. I can hear 100,000 people muttering, pipedream, along with me.

    1. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard something interesting about that MATRIX thing. It seems the DoJ/FBI (still) hasnt learned the concept of sharing data with local level law enforcement (eg, state and local police and governments). 9/11 has yet to teach them anything. Hence, the states are getting together to essentially backdoor the Justice Dept by using their own data - stuff that would normally be available from the feds if they would just get off their high horse.

      Now here's the disturbing part: I heard this not from some conspiracy theorist, but a former FBI agent that's now my home state's anti-terror chief.

    2. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give Me My IP.
      My IP is mine unless I sell it to you.
      I don't live in a Socialist-run country.
      My IP is not to be owned by the state.
      I live in a Capital-Intensive country.
      Give me money for my IP. Then you can say, "NO you cannot have your IP"
      That's how it works. My IP is mine. If you want my property to stay in the US, then let me have my info in my possession. Otherwise it is time to declare my property as part of the country of Wasnichtdumkopf

  24. Write-only DB? by Limburgher · · Score: 1

    Sounds like an RFC from April 1.

    --

    You are not the customer.

  25. Take a page from adult websites by maddugan · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am sure there are pr0n websites with backend databases more relieable than what the government is using.

    1. Re:Take a page from adult websites by base3 · · Score: 2, Funny
      backend databases

      No pun intended, I'm sure.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    2. Re:Take a page from adult websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind you, on a pr0n website, a "backend database" means something completely different!

    3. Re:Take a page from adult websites by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      I am sure there are pr0n websites with backend databases more relieable [sic] than what the government is using.

      Now we understand why John Ashcroft is so hot to shut down those porn sites.

      It's not just that he hates porn, he wants to seize their databases!

      (After all, under civil forfeiture provisions, you don't even have to get a conviction. Some real horror stories here: click this link to learn about the couple who lost a house and two cars on the mere allegation that they stole some inexpensive clothes.)

    4. Re:Take a page from adult websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      boy am I glad we don't have this in the UK!!!

      although with how far up Bush's rear end Blair is no doubt we will soon!!!

      Hey Tony say Hi to Dubyas tonsils for me!!

    5. Re:Take a page from adult websites by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      actually the porn business is always right up there with technology. no other industry exploits security flaws as much, they were easily the earily adopters of streaming media and i'm sure most of the internet economy is based on porn.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    6. Re:Take a page from adult websites by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      That only stands to reason. If you're in porn, you're going to have a well-exercised (and therefore highly stress-tested) back end.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Take a page from adult websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks jerk, I just shot diet pepsi out of my nose when I read your comment.

    8. Re:Take a page from adult websites by base3 · · Score: 1

      Sorry :).

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  26. Speaking of OS RDMSes... by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1

    MySQL, PostgreSQl, and FireBird SQL are mentioned. Has someone compared the features and reliability of these?

    1. Re:Speaking of OS RDMSes... by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

      Isn't Firebird SQL named after the browser?

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    2. Re:Speaking of OS RDMSes... by ktulu1115 · · Score: 1

      No, actually it's the other way around IIRC, hence the name change to Firefox and all the jokes that come with it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

      --
      # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
      #
    3. Re:Speaking of OS RDMSes... by nicolas.e · · Score: 1

      No. Firebird SQL predates the browser. That's why the browser's name changed, not the db's.

    4. Re:Speaking of OS RDMSes... by cft_128 · · Score: 1

      Now I'm waiting for Thunderfox

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    5. Re:Speaking of OS RDMSes... by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that was supposed to be a joke :) Guess I should've made it more obvious.

      The reason for the joke is because Firebird SQL seems to be mentioned a lot more simply because of the name conflict with Mozilla Firebird. Before that I've barely even heard of the project, now it seems to always be lumped in with Postrgres and MySQL.

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  27. Smug Slashdot Story Comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's blame Ashcroft!!! Whether he's actually involved or not!!!

  28. Re:Yeah, great. by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    You mean software that's expensive and clearly doesn't work?

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  29. Most likely irrelevant anecdote by Jokkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of my Linux machines is currently suffering from some substandard SCSI equipment and some DMA problems on one of the hard drive controllers; until I can schedule the downtime for software upgrades and hardware troubleshooting, I'm leaving things the way they are. As long as that's the case, the system mostly works, but certain disk-intensive operations (such as searching hundreds of MB of logs) degrade performance enough to make the system nearly unusable.

    I doubt that this is terribly relevant to the computing problems experienced by massive government databases, but I can at least conceive of how a "mass export of all stored images" (to quote the article) could significantly interfere with the database's everyday usage on a sufficiently poorly-designed/maintained/updated system.

    The article also states that the government plans on having the upgrades completed, and the data available, by December. (I'm not going to touch the issue of how accurate this statement is.)

    1. Re:Most likely irrelevant anecdote by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Why not script a remote computer to grab records at a very low rate - 1 a second or 1 a minute or even 1 an hour? It can build up the database and it would seem like normal everyday usage?

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:Most likely irrelevant anecdote by gmanic · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure. And the government has no means to rectify such situation on short notice?

      Ever wondered how fast they can get anything done to get more information about you??

      And you tell us about a scrappy SCSI problem, costing 0.000000001% of the governments budget?? (figures actually not verified - please use wisely) Downtime? Bah, when are they working anyway for the people (except on collecting data)?

    3. Re:Most likely irrelevant anecdote by cft_128 · · Score: 1
      The article also states that the government plans on having the upgrades completed, and the data available, by December. (I'm not going to touch the issue of how accurate this statement is.)

      Of course, after the election makes it much more politically convenient than before.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    4. Re:Most likely irrelevant anecdote by mo · · Score: 1

      Yes and if you relied on your linux machine to run a major database, we would accuse you of gross incompetence too.

      There's ways of making systems redundant, the least of which are read-only replication or a solid backup (and recovery) process. If you don't have them, you're incompetent. And if that incompetence interferes with the freedoms of a democratic nation, so much the worse.

    5. Re:Most likely irrelevant anecdote by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Politicans of all stripes make major efforts to delay all sorts of things until after elections. It's a testy time to be a Politician, before an election. Take Senator Kerry, for example. He's missed over 80% of the roll calls this session.

      It'd suck to be from Massachussets and count on him representing you in the senate. But now I'm being redundant.

      --
      resigned
    6. Re:Most likely irrelevant anecdote by cft_128 · · Score: 1
      The article also states that the government plans on having the upgrades completed, and the data available, by December. (I'm not going to touch the issue of how accurate this statement is.)

      And when he does show up, the GOP postpones the vote. Shoot, they even manipulate how they were going to vote to create close elections and highlight his absences (from linked article):

      GOP aides conceded that even if Kerry had voted for the war profiteering measure, Republicans would have switched their votes to make sure it failed anyway.
      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    7. Re:Most likely irrelevant anecdote by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      He only showed up that day at the Senate to obtain another campaign brochure bullet point. Why should they have played along with his stunt?

      --
      resigned
    8. Re:Most likely irrelevant anecdote by cft_128 · · Score: 1

      You mean play along and allow the vote to happen as it should? I noticed you didn't even comment on the other issue of vote manipulation... they all play politics, some worse than other.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    9. Re:Most likely irrelevant anecdote by Jokkey · · Score: 1
      Yes and if you relied on your linux machine to run a major database, we would accuse you of gross incompetence too.

      I'd agree that gross incompentence is a fair accusation. (The same sort of gross incompetence that, for example, gets the DoI kicked offline three times.) I am suggesting, though, that gross incompetence (instead of a conspiracy to keep data secret) might be a sufficient explanation.

      Or it might not. Maybe I'm not distrustful enough of government.

    10. Re:Most likely irrelevant anecdote by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      I find it funny that the only remotely reasonable pro-Bush arguments I've seen are "well, Kerry ain't perfect either", which is pretty awful.

    11. Re:Most likely irrelevant anecdote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too, my RAID-1 on a Windows 2000 box has a faulty disk, so I can browse the directories, copy a few files, but any more usage and pop! one of the disk drives unmounts. Since it is a software RAID, I can't mount it with a Knoppix disc.

      So, perhaps the DOJ is strapped for cash like me. I mean with so much money going to pr0n subscriptions and investigations so Ashcroft can make America safe for Islamic takeover.

      Just remember kiddies: Bush and Kerry are both members of "Skull & Bones" - but Ashcroft isn't! I can't think of a scarier member of government - for us domestic future "enemy combatants".

  30. Plausible deniability by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ashcroft is saying he doesn't know how without opening up the computer and copying it all using pencil and paper.

    1. Re:Plausible deniability by Moofie · · Score: 1

      [hansel]

      The files are in the computer! It's so simple!

      [/hansel]

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  31. Too late by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The system is already crashed. The Attorney General, head of the Department of Justice, is nothing but an incompetent liar. When faced with our open society, all he has is lies about fear. kill -9 this zombie process and start flushing the buffers while we prepare to reboot in November.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Too late by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      The system is already crashed. The Attorney General, head of the Department of Justice, is nothing but an incompetent liar.

      To the Ministry of Truth!

    2. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're one of the noisier rabid nuts on Slashdot. Its always safe to assume you'll chime in with some sort of extreme comment.

    3. Re:Too late by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      > kill -9 this zombie process

      You can't kill a process that's already dead. The best you can hope for is that the parent will reap its child.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    4. Re:Too late by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You seem to be that Anonymous carping Coward, who's always calling me names, but never has anything substantial to back it up. What's so extreme about calling Ashcroft an incompetent liar? His extreme behavior demands accurate descriptions. The failure of anonymous bitchers to understand my simple truths through your fog of denial makes *you* nuts, not me. Come down off the ledge, and join the consensual reality where cryptofascists stand out as the criminal threats to liberty, not pitiful losers needing anonymous apologies. Why do you hate America?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Too late by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      At the time of posting the current message, moderation score for the parent post:

      Moderation 0
      50% Flamebait
      50% Insightful

      Only one flame in response, AC calling me nuts with none of their own to back it up.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  32. In related news by Big+Nothing · · Score: 3, Funny

    This warning just in from John Ashcroft:

    "Whatever you do, do not vote for Senator John Kerry in the upcoming presidential election. Implementing such a vote risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating."

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
    1. Re:In related news by jlaxson · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, with touch-screen voting, that's not as +1, Funny as it was intended to be.

      --
      On Apple Input Peripherals: They're okay, I guess, but I was really hoping for a one-key keyboard and a 109-button mouse
  33. Hmm... Convenient much? by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "The government said an overhaul of the system should be finished by December and copies should be available then."
    I'm a little fuzzy on things like this. Would someone remind me if this is before or after the election?
    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    1. Re:Hmm... Convenient much? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Why, that would be just after the election. Neat coincidence, that.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    2. Re:Hmm... Convenient much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After. Election is in November. However, potentially new and different dishonest slimeball would not take office until January sometime.

  34. Easy by Smallpond · · Score: 3, Insightful
    SELECT * WHERE organization != "Haliburton"
    and Country != "Saudi Arabia"
    and Topic != "Energy"
    ORDER BY "Contribution Amount"
    1. Re:Easy by daemones · · Score: 1

      Try this instead:

      ORDER BY [Contribution Amount]

      --
      Alas, Babylon.
    2. Re:Easy by doormat · · Score: 1

      You forgot FROM tablenames

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    3. Re:Easy by dracken · · Score: 1

      0 records returned

    4. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Forgot the FROM clause:

      SELECT *
      FROM Echelon
      WHERE organization != "Haliburton"
      and Country != "Saudi Arabia"
      and Topic != "Energy"
      ORDER BY "Contribution Amount"
    5. Re:Easy by scifience · · Score: 1

      "When you make out the check for the war in Iraq, there are two Ls in Halliburton."

    6. Re:Easy by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      Surely an XML database would be able to handle this. After all, XML fixes everything!

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    7. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      best one, by far.

    8. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ERROR: SELECT * with no tables specified is not valid
      ERROR: column "Haliburton" does not exist
      ERROR: column "Saudi Arabia" does not exist
      ERROR: column "Energy" does not exist
      ERROR: column "Contribution Amount" does not exist

    9. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually several energy companies donated more to the Republicans than Haliburton and recieved no contracts. Haliburton had only donated $1.5 million in the year before the war IIRC but of course none of those other companies had been run by the VP.

    10. Re:Easy by waynemcdougall · · Score: 1

      LIMIT 17

      --
      Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
    11. Re:Easy by sybert · · Score: 0, Troll
      SELECT * WHERE organization != "Haliburton"
      and Country != "Saudi Arabia"
      and Topic != "Energy"
      ORDER BY "Contribution Amount"
      Results:
      Name,Organization,Country,Contributee,Amount
      Mochtar Riady,Lippo,Indonesia,Clinton,?
      James Riady,Lippo,Indonesia,Clinton,?
      Charles Trie,Triad,China,Clinton,>450k
      John Huang,Riady,China,Clinton,?
      Johnny Chung,,China,Clinton,>350k
      Liu Chaoying,PLA,China,Clinton,?
      ...

      It would be unthinkable if the president's top contributors were agents of a foreign government. Our president would never sell out our national security to another country.

    12. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I preferred the weasel who didn't gut the FOIA to the present weasel.

  35. lies & excuses by __aaitqo8496 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it's all just another lie told to us by our government. it's nothing new, but i think this republican majority government is realizing that all this access to information is not beneficial to the government powers which widely conflict civil liberties.

    it seems they've simply given up and just make up blantant lies which are served to the american public as excuses.

    1. Re:lies & excuses by zx75 · · Score: 1

      See, what you need to do is what we here in Canada just did, elect a minority government. That way it is impossible for a single party to push through changes that it wants made, without the support of other parties. It puts an amazing number of checks and balances against any one party being able to do something stupid that the people do not want to have happen.

      Oh wait... yes, America... that's right. The whole 'infallability of the president' approach, and two party system. You guys badley need a major electoral overhaul.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    2. Re:lies & excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get modded -1 overrated because the -1 Retarded mod system would crash the whole system if anybody used it.

    3. Re:lies & excuses by __aaitqo8496 · · Score: 1

      we obviously neeed an entire governmental overhaul. take a look at our most recent election. this isn't a time of electoral colleges anymore. but it's just a small piece of the whole puzzle. once a president has control, he just packs the house, senate, and supreme court with friends and backers.

      it's all corruption that amounts to padding everyone's wallet. i say let's freeze the assets of the higher ups while in office and see how things go from there :-\

  36. Not very original by Zygote-IC- · · Score: 2, Funny

    In my IT job I use the, "Sure, I could do that, but it would blow up the entire system," all the time.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to the important work playing City of Heroes.

  37. Yeah... by cardshark2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Hmm.... what good is a database if you can't get the data out of it?

    Whatever process they use to look at the data could be used to copy it and give it to the FOIA petitioners.

    Or maybe they just put stuff in there and don't look at the data, because it would crash. That would make a lot of sense.

    --
    WWJD? JWRTFA!
    1. Re:Yeah... by FatTonyDaAxeMan · · Score: 1

      It's the highest security DB possible, data in......nothing out!

    2. Re:Yeah... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Hmm.... what good is a database if you can't get the data out of it?
      Plenty if it has been produced by the most generous lobbyist among the contactors.

      Since the USA skates such a fine line between bribery and lobbying, this information should be open to scrutiny.

  38. Double meaning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Implementing such a request risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating"

    Maybe the system they are talking about isn't a computer system. Maybe it's the subsequent fallout from such a release of data. That would resolve the crash statement.

    A major loss in data? Maybe they're afraid of losing their desktops and/or access to TIA. Good times.

    1. Re:Double meaning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation:

      "Implementing such a request risks exposing yet another major scandal and could result in getting us voted out of office, which would be devastating".

      Could be that, or "the dog ate my homework".

  39. I've got an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's this great new invention they could use that wouldn't risk crashing anything: it allows you to transmit data without using an electronic connection. (Of course, then they'll just release a sanitized version anyway.)

  40. The Patriot Act by The_Real_Nire · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe we should tell John Ashcroft about open source database and copying solutions?"

    With the Patriot Act in effect, and all of your lines tapped, I'd say John Ashcroft already knows.

  41. The RIAA is making inroads. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps the DoJ is using a database that only allows a limited number of copies before it determines that the user is a copyright abuser and self-destructs.

  42. Probably already using MySQL, don't recommend it by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 1

    We weren't aware there were databases that could be destroyed just by copying them,' Bob Williams of the Center for Public Integrity said Tuesday. Maybe we should tell John Ashcroft about open source database and copying solutions?

    Actually, they probably already are using MySQL! I've had some pretty nasty crashes and corruptions with it. One crash using INNODB tables was unrecoverable.

    PostgreSQL OTOH has had 0 problems.

  43. Executive Secrecy by Morthaur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What this is, is perjury, and Ashcroft should be brought to task for it by Congress (*sigh* As _if_ they could be expected to do their job...).

    Ashcroft issued a directive upon taking office that F.O.I.A. requests should be obstructed as far as possible, in line with the secrecy that has surrounded this entire administration. This is merely one more crass lie in furtherance of that ideology. The man has lied constantly since taking office and has been allowed to get away with it. Why?

    Have we stopped caring about transparancy and republican values at home, whilst at the same time singing the praises of 'democracy' abroad? Are we all content to allow this proud nation to slip slowly but surely into a permanently-militarised social order? Will _you_ accept the suspension of habeus corpus, or of the entire Constitution, and live happily in a police state?

    Me, I'd rather die on my feet, with my fist in the air, than my knees. I refuse to trade my freedom for cold comfort.

    --

    +++++++
    "Look, dear, it's a crazy hairy scary man!"
    1. Re:Executive Secrecy by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      habeus corpus was suspended by another whacky republican admin many years ago, the Lincoln administration, I wonder what for? Oh yeah, a grave threat to the union.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    2. Re:Executive Secrecy by kindbud · · Score: 1

      Have we stopped caring about transparancy and republican values at home, whilst at the same time singing the praises of 'democracy' abroad?

      We have always cared about transparency and republican values at home.

      Are we all content to allow this proud nation to slip slowly but surely into a permanently-militarised social order?

      Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. And as you no doubt already know, War is Peace.

      Will _you_ accept the suspension of habeus corpus, or of the entire Constitution, and live happily in a police state?

      And Freedom is Slavery.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    3. Re:Executive Secrecy by Alan+Hicks · · Score: 1
      Ashcroft issued a directive upon taking office that F.O.I.A. requests should be obstructed as far as possible

      Allow me to call bullshit on this one, and quote directly from the linked article.

      Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered federal agencies in October 2001 to review more closely which documents they release. Ashcroft's policy lets officials withhold information on any "sound legal basis." Under looser policies issued in 1993, agencies could hold back information to prevent "foreseeable harm."

      So before Ashcroft took office, the Clinton administration created a policy for denying FOI requests of "foreseeable harm." For all I know they may have later changed that to something much more restrictive, but after 9/11/2001 Ascroft changed it to "sound legal basis." I don't know about you, but if there's "sound legal basis" for denying an FOI request I don't see where the problem is. There can and will always be stupid laws that say something like "FOI requests can be denied if the request is made by some one who has eaten cotton-candy within six months", but our government is set up with checks and balances to work those out of the system. No it's not perfect, but I challenge anyone to do any better.

      --
      Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
    4. Re:Executive Secrecy by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      Is `my data base cannot export' a "sound legal basis" for refusing (until after the election) this FOI request? Would the DOJ accept this excuse from a company under investigation? (I didn't think so.) There are some very selective blinders in use by the poster (and probably lots of other people).

    5. Re:Executive Secrecy by Alan+Hicks · · Score: 1
      Is `my data base cannot export' a "sound legal basis" for refusing (until after the election) this FOI request?

      Maybe, if it's the truth. I'm not going to speculate because I'm not their DBA (I'm not anyone's for that matter), but if they can't export the data without brining that system down, perhaps it is a solid legal reason. And whether or not it's a legal reason it could damn well be a good reason that it *can't* be done. Think about that court ruling that says IP addresses must be portable like phone numbers. Law says you gotta do it, but it just ain't possible, and that's a pretty damn good reason not to do it if you ask me.

      --
      Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
    6. Re:Executive Secrecy by Morthaur · · Score: 1

      You may carry on quoting from that article, friend, and I will happily continue to remember Ashcroft's actual statements upon assuming office. I will also consider the records of the respective administrations in responding to requests, especially as I have made them myself in my historical research.

      Ashcroft's policy is to withhold information wherever it is possible to do so. This violates the entire spirit of the F.O.I.A., as it explicitly seeks to prevent public access wherever there is a legal leg to stand on. The fact that requests have frequently been denied for less-than-sound legal reasons is beside the point.

      And furthermore, in reponse to your statement below defending this database bullshit, I will politely point out that this is _not_ a sound legal reason. If the information cannot be retrieved safely to-day, that is grounds for re-arranging matters so that the data _can_ be retrieved, not for denying the request outright. This is public information, and I have paid to have it collected--if I want to see it, I will not take this kind of bureaucratic double-speak as a sound excuse for withholding it.

      --

      +++++++
      "Look, dear, it's a crazy hairy scary man!"
    7. Re:Executive Secrecy by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to speculate because I'm not their DBA (I'm not anyone's for that matter), but if they can't export the data without brining that system down, perhaps it is a solid legal reason.


      Have you read any other message in this entire story? The idea that there is a technical reason for this is complete bullshit for a number of reasons. All they're doing is *reading* the data. The data has be read in order to be used by anyone on a regular basis. Furthermore, they talked about moving the data to a new system. They would have to be able to read everything in order to accomplish that.

      The whole concept of a database that will fail just by reading it is complete bullcrap, even to the most incompetent DBAs.

    8. Re:Executive Secrecy by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      The data has be read in order to be used by anyone on a regular basis.

      Just out of curiousity, what makes you think anyone (in government or out) uses this data on a regular basis? Or at all? A great deal of data is collected by the government on a regular basis, which is then filed and forgotten.

      As to moving it, it is just barely possible (I have no clue as to the truth of falsehood of the DoJ statement) that the new system is being built from the original paper records, not from the old system.

      Perhaps the "old system" is so archaic that it literally cannot be used, so small requests are answered by someone visiting the file cabinets, but large (all encompassing) requests are not practical.

      Might be amusing to put together a list of "reasonable" FOIA requests, and submit them every couple years to measure repsonsiveness of the system. Myself, I would not be surprised to find that most of the data held by the government was physically impossible to access, even by the government, most of the time....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  44. Sorry, doesn't work that way. by Rufus88 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Charitable donations result in a tax *deduction*, not a tax *credit*, at least here in the U.S.

  45. Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by Randym · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Under looser policies issued in 1993, agencies could hold back information to prevent "foreseeable harm."

    I hereby call for the resignation of John Ashcroft on the grounds that his ineptitude in responding to legitimate FOIA requests clearly causes "forseeable harm" to American democracy.

    Not to mention that the excuse he gave is *not* one of the reasons permitted to be cited by the government to avoid giving us -- the American people, who paid for it all -- *our* information.

    Mr. Ashcroft is from Missouri, the "Show Me" state. Tell me, Mr. Ashcroft: what part of "Show me the public records" do you not understand?

    --
    DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
    1. Re:Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by multiplexo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      John Ashcroft is the biggest fucktard to ever hold the post of Attorney General, he's even managing to make Janet Reno look good. Look at Ashcroft's record, he's from Missouri, the "Show me how" state, he's an incumbent senator and he loses to a dead Democratic challenger. Think about this, the citizens of Missouri decided that they would rather vote for a dead guy than Ashcroft. How the fuck does any incumbent senator lose to a dead challenger? Jesus Christ, how much fucking paste did Ashcroft eat in second grade anyways? Was he nibbling the lead paint chips off the walls? Do they even allow him to have regular scissors at DoJ? Or do they just give him those left-handed kindergarten ones so he doesn't hurt himself?

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    2. Re:Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by pchasco · · Score: 0

      Under looser policies issued in 1993, agencies could hold back information to prevent "foreseeable harm."

      And which illustrious leader was in his first year of office in 1993?

      SENATOR: So what's on the dress, Mr. President?
      PRESIDENT: I foresee that the dissemination of that information could cause foreseeable harm to my genitals, as the Mrs. will certainly castrate me...

    3. Re:Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Saddam gassed his own people!

    4. Re:Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Reno had the balls to stand up and accept blame for the Waco fiasco. Ashcroft doesn't have the balls to admit he's deliberately hiding this info.

      Posting AC for the obvious reason.

    5. Re:Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Churchill gassed the Iraqis!
      The US napalmed Vietnamese!
      Nazi Germany blitzed London!
      Allied forces razed Dresden!
      US tortured Iraqis!
      Iraqis beheaded Americans!
      Isrealis massacred Palestinians
      Palestinians massacred Israelis
      Chinese massacred Tibetans
      Celts fought Picts ... your point?

    6. Re:Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by GarryOwen · · Score: 1

      He lost to the wife of a dead guy because of the sympathy vote. If you look at the polls leading up to the lection, Ashcroft was leading till his competitor died. The Democrats played dirty in his election by using the widow, and now they are reaping their rewards.

    7. Re:Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I suppose next you are going to tell us the Dems killed the dude themselves in order to get the sympathy.

      He still lost to a dead man, call it what you want he still lost to a fucking dead man.

    8. Re:Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by multiplexo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      If you're referring to the fact that Ashcroft as AG might be revenge on the Democrats for playing dirty and getting Jean Carnahan to replace her husband Mel then you're probably right, although he seems like revenge on the rest of us as well. So much for Democratic perfidy, although what if Ashcroft, who is detested by all liberals and a lot of conservatives helps to drag Bush down in 2004? Could this be construed as part of a Democratic ueber-master strategy?

      You're missing my point though, any incumbent senator who's worth a shit should be able to crush a competitor like a bug in a vise, especially a dead one, even the dead one's widow trying to get into office on a sympathy vote. Hell, look at senators such as Scoop Jackson, Strom Thurmond, Lyndon Johnson or Jesse Helms. Those guys wouldn't have had any problem smacking Jean Carnahan down, despite whatever sympathy vote her dead husband was worth. Lyndon Johnson probably would have ended up winning the election and fucking her. Scoop Jackson would have won that election and sold Boeing aircraft to the state of Missouri and Thurmond or Helms could have won that election and gotten the MIssouri schools resegregated (which wouldn't take that much work, but still).

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    9. Re:Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Saddam GASSED his own PEOPLE!

    10. Re:Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      How the fuck does any incumbent senator lose to a dead challenger?

      It's easy: When the state governor, who is of the opposite party, states that he will appoint the widow in the stead of the deceased.

      Now you end up with all of the benefits of an actual candidate, and none of the liabilities. It's not possible to respond in kind to any attack ads (only a real son of a bitch could say not nice things about a widow mere days after she became such) and you really can't talk about her record or stances on issues either (because she's not an official candidate.) There's also the matter of the SIGNIFICANT sympathy vote.

      Long story short, incumbant loses. It's worth noting that Jean Carnahan lost when she was forced to run for re-election two years later. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.

      (FYI: I'm anti-Bush, and anti-Ashcroft.)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    11. Re:Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Wait.. The government ... us -- the American people. Whatever happened to of the people, by the people, and for the people. WE should be the government, not some rich white shmucks from texas. Screw a republic, let's use e-voting (open source) to institute a direct democracy.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    12. Re: Resign, Mr. Ashcroft by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > At least Reno had the balls

      Is there a mod for "poor choice of words"?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  46. Response Conflicts with the Law? by Jtheletter · · Score: 5, Informative
    I don't pretend to have a full understanding of the Freedom of Information Act, but isn't there a whole section detailing reasons that a request can be turned down? I know the obvious ones such as endangering national security (as if that weren't an excuse they could stretch a mile anyway), or the like, but I seriously doubt that a request could legally be denied on the basis of GROSS INCOMPETANCE and LACK OF JOB SKILLS on the part of the person fulfilling the request.

    That's like a request being denied because the clerk was too tired to go down in the basement to find the files.

    If fulfilling the request somehow breaks something, then the response should be to fix the damn thing and then fulfill the request.

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    1. Re:Response Conflicts with the Law? by hng_rval · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's what they are doing. They say it should be fixed by December, coincidentally 1 month after the election. At that point, the electronic records will be open to the public.

      You can get the hardcopy records for 4 hours if you live in the D.C. area, but those are 12 months out of date.

      --
      Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
    2. Re:Response Conflicts with the Law? by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      Sure, go ahead and sue. Then they'll get you the records *far* after the records could be useful [see November Election]

    3. Re:Response Conflicts with the Law? by Colazar · · Score: 1
      Turning down a request for information for no apparent reason worked so well when Congress asked him for the memo redefining torture, he must have figured he could do it again.

      --
      He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
    4. Re:Response Conflicts with the Law? by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      You'd think they would have noted how successful Clinton was in stonewalling on requests for White House email archives. "Duh, we seem to have lost the backup tape" worked much better. At least it seems to have worked well with the people who happen to be raising a hue and cry right now.

      --
      resigned
  47. Why even make up excuses like this? by FauxReal · · Score: 2, Funny

    They might as well cut to the chase and just destroy the data... But then again, they'd lose track of all the favors they need to hand out after the elections. I guess they can wait till (hopefully) some court forces them to share the information. Then they can use that "The data was destroyed" excuse.

  48. Call it Hubris by localman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The FBI is spending nearly $600 million to modernize its antiquated systems.

    Call it hubris, but how many people here think they could modernize their systems for a tiny fraction of that?

    1. Re:Call it Hubris by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Obviously they could just buy a warehouse full of old Pentium 1 machines and install Debian on them.

      But, the darn fools, they just won't get at it. It's a conspiracy or something!

      --
      resigned
    2. Re:Call it Hubris by Backov · · Score: 1

      You only got some dumbass AC replying, so I'll chime in.

      It's obvious that they could. But then that government contractor wouldn't get the big payday.

      Can you say "Pork" boys and girls? I knew you could.

      --
      In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
  49. Maybe they tell the truth? by t_allardyce · · Score: 3, Funny

    What they mean is their database runs on "EasyDB123 Trial Version" and they cant give more than 10 queries per day or they will be forced to upgrade.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  50. What absolute filth by Tyfud · · Score: 1

    I can't beleive they'd lie this blatantly. Even Exporting the information in their database wouldn't cause a crash. If that were the case, they wouldn't be able to perform a search in the databases as exporting generally uses the same indexing methods for queries. This was a horrible response. I mean, if they stated that the 4,000 hampsters who power the DOJ mainframes, can't move their wheels fast enough to export the data, it would have been far more plausible than this rediculous answer taken from the ID-ten-T book of computer phrases.

    1. Re:What absolute filth by eidechse · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I can't beleive they'd lie this blatantly.
      • Lewinsky
      • Lead up to Waco debacle
      • Iran-Contra
      • Watergate
      • Gulf of Tonkin
      • Tuskegee "Experiment"
      After things like this, to name just a few, why is it surprising?
    2. Re:What absolute filth by Tyfud · · Score: 1

      Because of the subject matter they lied on I find it surprising. In any of the ones mentioned above, the truthful information was hard to come by, and in debate.

      However, there's nothing hard to come by for this response. Anyone who's messed with any database in the world knows that they're lying through their teeth. It doesn't take a grand jury to prove that.

    3. Re:What absolute filth by eidechse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's possible that ready access to the information requested would reveal more unseemly activity. That might be the reason for stonewalling on this particular subject matter.

      I disagree that there's debate about the nature of the things listed above. I don't think that anyone is still saying there was no deceit in those cases. Exactly who knew, to what extent, and when are the only details in contention.

      I do agree that to make as assertion this stupid must come from unbelievable arrogance. Then again the strategy of denial and ridicule has been succsesful in the past.

  51. Old information? Interesting point..... by oliverthered · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lets say the information is held on magnetic tape, now after a while I suppose it starts to get a bit brittle.
    Running it through a reader without first restoring the tape could degrage the data and tape to the point where it could no longer be reconstructed, e.g. all the ferite comes off of the tape and floats accross the room in a plume of dust.

    So, if the data's stored on old tapes they may have a case.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Old information? Interesting point..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      But they're asking for RECENT data. Storing it on old tapes sounds like something much worse than negligence would be going on.

    2. Re:Old information? Interesting point..... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      There also a government agency: nothing would supprise me!

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:Old information? Interesting point..... by protoshoggoth · · Score: 1
      Step one: copy to 'fresh' tape. The end. I mean, given this Ye Olde Tape scenario the data is useless to anyone, including themselves, unless and until they have a go at copying it. I guess the only argument then would be that they're waiting for development of better brittle-tape-reading-technology before trying to access it. Which is not an argument that I would put past this gang.

      In any case they talk about it being in "a database" which would seem to imply something on disk.

    4. Re:Old information? Interesting point..... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      step 1: copy to a new tape.... Lots of tapes, lots of care and attention, may take till asy november.

      I sure that databases have been around longer than disks.

      The thing is, it wouldn't supprise me if new data was on old crap tape, because of budget problems etc...

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  52. I wouldn't necessarily blame Ashcroft for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government departments and agencies run in totally different ways than we are accustomed to in the private and academic settings.

    The bulk of the agency remains from administration to administration and form their own little dark empires and hide all these problems and this seems much more likely than John Ashcroft thinking lets protect the administration.

    You probably had some pinheaded bureaucrat make the decision to use Crappy, Inc.'s CantcopyDB 20 years ago because his brother works there and now someone is finding out that this decision was rather unwise.

    1. Re:I wouldn't necessarily blame Ashcroft for this by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Considering that he's the boss of the entire department, shouldn't he be firing the incompetant fucktards who can't run a database then, rather than making excuses for them?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  53. Job Offer: DBA to export data by TedTschopp · · Score: 1

    Well, here is another way for the current administration to stimulate the job market. Hire an american born and bred DBA to go fix this now.

    Heck, I bet you could even find one who would be willing to do it for real cheap.

    --
    Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
    1. Re:Job Offer: DBA to export data by Tyfud · · Score: 1

      I would do it for free. Exporting the nessasary information would take half an hour, at the most, if it was a complex series of requirements/fields.

  54. FARA Short Form Listing - 2002 by ka9dgx · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well, they started to do something like this... here's the Short Form FARA listing from 2002 for starters.

    If they could do it then, why can't they do it now?

    --Mike--

  55. Re:Probably already using MySQL, don't recommend i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    0 problems, oh kay...

  56. I guess I'm the only one... by Scott+Richter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...who sees a FOIA resquest like "Give us an entire copy of that massive freaking database running on a clunky old IBM 360 with a tape drive" as a bit unreasonable. One need not invoke evil or anything else to find an explanation of why this was a bad idea. And don't overexamine the reason - very likely, they may not want to wast such a strenuous task on the machine until the ultimate upgrade, which is PLANNED. Remember you're getting a technical explanation from a technical person, who repeated as best they could what the sysadmin told them.

    What next? Can I send a request that says "I would like a copy of every piece of paper ever produced by the US?" Do I then have the right to moral outrage when they refuse?

    Seriously, this is freaking ridiculous. There's plenty of reason to go after Ashcroft without resorting to silly crap like this.

    I would see nothing wrong with a $.01/page fee for FOIA request. Pay up if it amounts to more than $10.

    1. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by Tyfud · · Score: 1

      Yes, you apparently are. I don't agree with you in the slightest, and I'm a long time DBA.

    2. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by Scott+Richter · · Score: 1
      Yes, you apparently are. I don't agree with you in the slightest, and I'm a long time DBA.

      And I assume you worked for a company that did all this for free like our government is expected to?

    3. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by ljavelin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, do you have IBM Mainframe experience? Do you have the mainframe experience to predict the difficulty and dangers of exporting such a database?

      I do. Let me tell you - it's trivial to take a dump of an IBM database. DB2, IMS/DB, FOCUS... or any other DBMS that'll run under MVS, VM/CMS, or AS/400. It's all rather trivial, and, in fact, standard operating procedures in IBM mainframe shops mean that there is already a tape that can be grabbed right of a shelf.

    4. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by Tyfud · · Score: 1

      And I assume you worked for a company that did all this for free like our government is expected to?

      That's the misconception. They're not doing it for free. We are paying them to do it. We are paying taxes on money earned, we are paying taxes on money spent, we are paying taxes on living in a state. We are paying for these government offices to exist. Without taxpayers money, the DoJ wouldn't even exist.

      Therefore they're not doing it for free. It is their job, to mitigate the requests of the public, as long as that information is deemed public.

      Were it confidential information, I would completely accept this response. But electronic data doesn't cost anything. They're not going to the library and asking for them to make a copy of something for $.05. There's no paper. It's all electronic. And to use the unrealistic excuse that the "Database" would crash and data would be forever lost as the only line of reasoning...is simply poor form.

    5. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by finkployd · · Score: 1

      And I assume you worked for a company that did all this for free like our government is expected to?

      If only they thought to impose taxes so they wouldn't feel like they were serving ungrateful masses for free...

      If the government is storing this data on computers that are unable to retrieve it, why bother storing it anyway?

      Finkployd

    6. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, I missed the "it costs too much" statement Ashcroft inserted between the completely made-up statements about computer crashes. Are you making up excuses for him now because the ones he made up weren't good enough?

    7. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't *have* to do it for free. They're allowed to charge fees for duplication (and more, depending on your status - see http://archive.aclu.org/library/foia.html#request

      That doesn't mean they won't artificially inflate the costs if it's something they don't want you to see, but they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their tiny little hearts.

    8. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by Scott+Richter · · Score: 1
      I do. Let me tell you - it's trivial to take a dump of an IBM database. DB2, IMS/DB, FOCUS... or any other DBMS that'll run under MVS, VM/CMS, or AS/400. It's all rather trivial, and, in fact, standard operating procedures in IBM mainframe shops mean that there is already a tape that can be grabbed right of a shelf.

      Really? 1) Would you provide a copy of that to any moron who called you and 2) would you format it for me to comply with the FOIA instead of whatever custom-made from-the-60's program was used to generate it?

      Doubt it.

    9. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by Scott+Richter · · Score: 1
      That's the misconception. They're not doing it for free. We are paying them to do it. We are paying taxes on money earned, we are paying taxes on money spent, we are paying taxes on living in a state. We are paying for these government offices to exist. Without taxpayers money, the DoJ wouldn't even exist.

      Yep, and I think all the rest of us taxpayers would rather have something better done with our money than have the gov offices reply to ridiculous requests. If you want some records, fine. But I see nothing wrong with a numerical limit, or a fee for excess.

      Were it confidential information, I would completely accept this response. But electronic data doesn't cost anything.

      The labor does, if it's in a system not designed for rapid recovery of reams of data. And this being the government, I bet this system isn't. If this request would take a few days to fulfill, then they should have to pay for the privilege. Remember, they want a copy of the ENTIRE DATABASE. And the article didn't say in what form. If they'll use whatever format the gov uses, maybe it isn't as bad.

    10. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by Grrr · · Score: 1

      Scott -
      they don't have to do "all this for free"! Tsk tsk.

      As an AC already pointed out, they can charge fees for duplication - which has almost certainly been used to discourage large requests...

      <grrr>

    11. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by LMCBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would see nothing wrong with a $.01/page fee for FOIA request. Pay up if it amounts to more than $10.

      Your statement implies that FOIA requests are currently free (as in beer). They aren't.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    12. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      So you could walk into any shop, with whatever mix of Mainframes and layer upon layer of legacy systems, and neatly dump the whole database to a flexible modern format for instant retrieval?

      Man. They need guys like YOU at NASA. There's tons of historical space data that it would be great to restore.

      --
      resigned
    13. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least with respect to point 1, you'd be required to by law if it was a properly executed FOIA request, which, in the incident in question, was the case. As for point 2, it would be utterly trivial to write a conversion filter to dump the information to plaintext.

    14. Re:I guess I'm the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, retrieving a dump of a database is usually pretty trivial. The hard part is updating the systems that make use of the legacy database. In this case, however, that would be unnecessary, as all they want is the data.

  57. Actually not the case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have to handle high load, but the people that run adult websites are tight-fisted and not likley to have any kind of substantial redundancy or backup - after all, you can always make more porn.

  58. I guess they must be using MS servers...... by thewldisntenuff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The feds can't handle the /. effect, eh? :)

    1. Re:I guess they must be using MS servers...... by bonch · · Score: 0, Troll

      After all, Apache servers never go down when Slashdot links to them...

  59. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by Starji · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll probably be labeled as a terrorist for this post

    No, you'll be labeled "informative" :-P

  60. There's only one thing to do about this... by James+Turpin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Vote against this administration. The reason they are doing this is that revealing the information would loose votes for the current administration. In order to balance the scales of democracy and make the election more fair, everybody who reads this article should vote against Bush. Because this administration has already admitted by its actions that it is corrupt.

    --
    Mathematics is not a crime.
  61. Causality loop (not a Star Trek reference) by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How do they know that the records will be destroyed by accessing them? Have they accessed the records already and destroyed them?

    More importantly, if they can "fix" the records in time for December, by their logic, wouldn't this process endanger the records from destruction in the first place?

    Only government would pull a paradox out of its ass as an excuse.

    1. Re:Causality loop (not a Star Trek reference) by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Only government would pull a paradox out of its ass as an excuse.

      Really?

  62. Ha Ha. Total incompetence. by twitter · · Score: 1
    I won't be paying my taxes this year as I firmly believe the influx of cash will "Break the Bank".

    You will pay for TIA just like everyone else. I wish it were not so. Either they are incompetent or dishonest, and both are unsettling.

    I doubt they are up to the task. These jokers can't keep track of foreign lobbyists, people who register themselves and make themselves as conspicuous as possible. How on Earth are they going to keep track of terrorists? Can we be sure they can keep terrorists and foreign powers from reading it and planting false information?

    A sad parody, from Neiven's Fallen Angels, comes to mind. Technical incompetents had taken over. Their databases of "technophiles" were filled with entries like "Sherlock Holmes".

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  63. Re:Probably already using MySQL, don't recommend i by azadam · · Score: 1

    Infidel! :P

  64. Making Data Public Would 'Crash System' by craXORjack · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I couldn't read the article because it was slashdotted, but I think he must have been talking about our form of government: the feudal system.

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    1. Re:Making Data Public Would 'Crash System' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! Who gave John Ashcroft mod points?

  65. This is reminiscent... by scrod98 · · Score: 1
    ...of the state of Massachusetts system that is used to register luxury vehicles, The list of vehicles is hard coded by manufacturer and no one knows exactly what is on the list or how to add a new one.

    The guy that did the programming many years ago is no longer around. And apparently no documenttion for the code either.

    --
    LETS DECOMPOSE & ENJOY ASSEMBLING
  66. Using MySQL? My ass! by Infonaut · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Actually, they probably already are using MySQL!

    Obviously you've never worked in a government agency. The rule of thumb in the government IT department at the agency I once worked for was this: "If it's inexpensive (or free) it can't be good. If it's not made my Microsoft or Oracle, it can't be good. If it contributes to a heterogeneous environment in any way, it can't be good. If you came up with a solution to a vexing problem on your own and it doesn't cost millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to complete, you're fired."

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Using MySQL? My ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, MySQL has some pretty pricey licenses and support contracts. And trying to admin it (as well as addressing all its numerous limitations) can certaining be a hugely convoluted affair, requiring thousands of man-hours.

    2. Re:Using MySQL? My ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, MySQL has some pretty pricey licenses and support contracts. And trying to admin it (as well as addressing all its numerous limitations) can certaining be a hugely convoluted affair, requiring thousands of man-hours.

      You just made a funny!

  67. Now that you mention it... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    ...Has anyone ever seen John Ashcroft and Comical Ali at the same time?

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  68. "available in December" -- just after the election by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    To me, a rather damning part of the whole statement was that the data would be available in December -- basically, "You can have the data, but not if you plan to use it to investigate the candidates' integrity for this election".


    Hmmm....

  69. 2000 by serano · · Score: 0, Troll

    So that's what happened in Florida in 2000.

  70. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by pjkundert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, sir. Not a terrorist.

    Simply not "+5, Informative"

    Moderators, get a clue. Your job, when moderating something as "Informative", is to promote posts which, when viewed with a reasonably objective eye, actual contain (get ready now...) Information.

    Perhaps I'm just not enough of a lib-leftie wing-nut, but "ultra-right wing Jesus freak who actively hates gays, black people, non-Christians, ..." doesn't qualify as "Information".

    If, to the liberals in the group, this does indeed qualify as "Information", then please accept my humble apology... ;)

    --
    -- -pjk Perry Kundert perry@kundert.ca http://kundert.2y.net
  71. Sounds to me as if... by Angostura · · Score: 1

    What we have here is a card index file.

    Seriously. Copy that all out by hand probably would 'crash the system' which in this vase would equate to a bad case of writer's cramp.

  72. He didn't mean the computer system would crash.. by toonrmeusa · · Score: 2, Interesting
    He meant the government system would crash. If the Bush administration released any data.

    By the way, take a look at Bush's interview with an Irish journalist. A real journalist, not one that has to submit questions three days ahead of time.

    --
    Toon toon! Black and white army!
  73. There Is No Spoon by notcreative · · Score: 4, Funny


    DEEP VOICE: Unfortunately, no one can be -told- what the data on contributions from foreign lobbyists is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.
    (shows a blue pill.)
    You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe about the FOIA.
    (a red pill is shown in his other hand)
    You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how fucked up the DOJ really is.
    (you begin to reach for the red pill) Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.

  74. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by flacco · · Score: 2, Funny
    Fuck Ashcroft. Fuck him up the ass.

    NOW it makes sense. i thought he annointed himself with oil before his swearing-in for *religious* reasons...

    (no, seriously, this jesus-psycho actually annointed himself with oil.)

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  75. Not to preach, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, please, won't the aliens take me home?!?

    There happens to be a religion which teaches general distrust for governments, the development of an individual moral code, and a final escape into a world that actually makes sense.

    These beliefs were all part of one of the earliest flavors of Christianity, which happened to be one of the very first to be declared heretical by the government-backed version of the church.

    bored? why not check it out?

    1. Re:Not to preach, but... by lonesome+phreak · · Score: 1

      I personally peg myself as a Christian Gnostic. I tell interested people about it...it's funny yet annoying how many people think I'm saying agnostic. I explain the origin of the word, and some of them get it. They ask me for more info and I hand them VALIS. bwahahahaha.

      Because God is crazy, and so it everything else.

      --
      Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
  76. Ashcroft stopped making backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when their Xerox copier started
    "eating" the originals. So, there!

  77. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by NineNine · · Score: 1

    I agree. I just needed to vent. I wasn't intending to be informative at all. Anybody with a clue should already know that Ashcroft is the worst thing to happen to this country since McCarthy.

  78. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    Wow, you got modded up to "informative" with that litte tantrum. I'm amazed. I'm now seriously considering a permanent retirement from Slashdot...

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  79. POWERPOINT! by cshark · · Score: 1

    Ha!
    Sounds like the message was lost in a powepoint presentation somewhere along the road. You know, someone who knew what they were talking about made a presentation, and it was sent to a bunch of people who had no idea what they're doing technically, and low and behold, databases that self destruct when you open them! I'm not sure it's it's funny or sad.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

  80. Maybe They were using very long filenames! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    checking the gzip link, I find:

    gzip 1.2.4 may crash when an input file name is too long (over 1020 characters).

    -J

  81. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by base3 · · Score: 1

    Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  82. Not so surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, it happens to us all. I recently wrote to Tony Blair saying I couldnt' pay my 180 pounds sterling for the Iraq war since everytime I take my wallet out of my pocket, my pants catch file.
    Give 'em a break.

  83. Which would be devastating? by alw53 · · Score: 2, Funny



    What a coincidence! My financial information is stored in the same kind of database, so I cannot risk giving a copy of it to the IRS.

  84. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by lawpoop · · Score: 1

    Hear hear.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  85. A quantum database? by jfern · · Score: 1

    " We weren't aware there were databases that could be destroyed just by copying them,' Bob Williams of the Center for Public Integrity said Tuesday."

    Maybe they're using a quantum database?

  86. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by 311Stylee · · Score: 1
    You're preaching to the choir. As for synonyms for evil, I found a few:

    • bad
    • immoral
    • iniquitous
    • reprobate
    • sinful
    • vicious
    • wicked
    • nefarious
    • base
    • vile
    • pernicious
    • damnable
    • calamitous
    • and my favorite:
    • execrable


    (thanks to m-w.com)
  87. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1
    this ... Nazi [Ashcroft]

    You must be affiliated with the democratic campaign! Why, this is despicable! Why aren't Democrats everywhere outraged by this post? This shows exactly how low the level of discourse has become! Organizations like slashdot are ruining the national civility in this country. Every democrat everywhere should denounce slashdot and speak to all my other talking points! Right away!
    [/sarcasm]

    --
    WWJD? JWRTFA!
  88. is it possible... by bryanthompson · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...that it really would crash their system? This is from the article:
    "What they're asking for is a lot, and it's not something at this particular point in time we have the technical ability to do," Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said Tuesday.

    McIntyre explained in a May 24 letter that the computer system - operated in the counterespionage section of the Justice Department's criminal division - "was not designed for mass export of all stored images" and said the system experiences "substantial problems."
    So, is it possible that the equipment is just too old and sucky to handle a big request like that?

    it's about more than just "Select * from foreignlobbyists order by date desc"

    They undoubtedly have thousands and thousands of scanned images of documents, records, transcripts, etc. Inserting new data and adding things is a heck of a lot less of a load than getting all of it out.

    I do think it's pretty absurd of an argument... but if they were truly trying to hide all of it, don't you think they'd come up with something more clever than, 'uhh, well... it'll crash our system'. Maybe it's rediculous enough to be true.
    1. Re:is it possible... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      My guess is more that it's a typical IT ("We can't do that because of [insert stupid, simple, and potentially disasterous technical reason]") BS statement. The real reason is probably more along the lines of "We don't have funding to do this", "Someone in the administration will get pissed at me if we do this", "I don't feel like doing this", "I don't like you", "I'm too busy to handle this", "I don't want to risk *touching* this thing because any interactions have some possibility of placing me open to blame for taking it down, and that would get me in trouble", etc. He probably didn't think this would get as far as Slashdot.

    2. Re:is it possible... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      > My guess is more that it's a typical IT ... BS
      > statement

      Of course, but, most of the time, IT BS doesn't amount to as high a crime as treason. Denying a freedom of information act request without solid cause, might be.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:is it possible... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Guess who would prosecute treason?

      Yup, the Bush Administration.

      Guess which department?

      Yup, the Department of Justice.

      Guess who isn't going to get nailed for treason?

    4. Re:is it possible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In response to your sig:

      Those mofos are friggen insane and even they know that voting for Bush would be stupid, how bat-shit insane would I have to be to do something even they wouldn't?

    5. Re:is it possible... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying they have this huge database that they can add stuff to, but not get stuff out of? What the heck kind of database is that? Even if they wanted one specific piece of information, they still have to search the thing; that's what databases are for. And if they can read through the data to search it, then they can read through the data to copy it out, too. At the very worst, they could just do lots of little searches.

      Although I don't know why I bother to reply, since your sig reveals your bias anyway...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:is it possible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the problem is that the database is simply FILLED with Bin Laden's - those damn bastards even threaten to crash all of our databases!

  89. New excuse for students? by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1

    Man! And to think I used "the dog ate my homework" all through my high school years. The DoJ definately gets an "A" for creativity on this one.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  90. Regime Change by Java+Ape · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Frankly, I'm sick of the rampant hypocracy of the "United Corporate States of America" and our war on freedom. Worse, the battle's already lost.

    I've written enough letters to my congresscritters that the probably have me filed under "wacko" in several different categories. Their replies show a polite distain for my pitiful rights and nearly-useless vote.

    Knowledge is power, and those in power are determined that we lemmings be kept ignorant of the the deeds done in our name for our own good. The only thing more dependable than finding our representatives have sold us down the river for personal profit, is that keeping such dealings quiet is a matter of national security. After all, if all the little lemmings figured out they were being cheerfully led over a cliff they might not follow so blindly. Computer malfunction my arse. I work as an Oracle DBA -- if I EVER responded to a request for data this way I'd be canned on the spot, and rightly so. Somehow, I doubt anyone is suddenly unemployed at the justice department.

    Personally, I'm beyond disgusted. I'm voting again EVERY encumbent, since I don't think there's a human being in office worth the air they breath. Maybe if everyone voted against all incumbents for a decade or so we'd flush the professional policiticians out and take back our country.

    On the other hand, I'm seriously considering emigration to a land where freedom means something, like Russia!

    1. Re:Regime Change by taustin · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm voting again EVERY encumbent, since I don't think there's a human being in office worth the air they breath.

      I can't help but wonder how frightened any incumbent should be of someone who can't spell incumbent.

      Maybe if everyone voted against all incumbents for a decade or so we'd flush the professional policiticians out and take back our country.

      No, then we'd have government run by professional bureaucrats who are all appointed, and completely unanswerable to the voters.

    2. Re:Regime Change by the+Luddite · · Score: 1

      To quote the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on the entry for Politicians...

      "Politicians: The first one up against the wall when the revolution came."

    3. Re:Regime Change by Java+Ape · · Score: 1

      Dang, Slashdot needs a spell-check button. I usually post when something just chaps my hide, and I tend to type rather more quickly than I can think. Especially since my spelling is detestable at best (*SIGH*).

    4. Re:Regime Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You know how to predict how likely a politician is to buck the party line and do the right thing? It's directly proportional to the amount of time they've been in office. If everyone gets voted out of office, then their replacements are all freshmen, and...guess what? Freshmen need party money and support or they won't get re-elected, so they jump through any ridiculous hoop their parties want them to. Once a candidate has been in office for a while, they have two options--take money from industries who have more money than either party (the Fritz Hollings approach) or declare "fuck it" and make some pricipled stands every now and again (although less frequently than you'd think). Why? Once you've been in office long enough, you're harder for the PARTY to displace when the PARTY doesn't like you. The RNC would love to replace John McCain with some vacuous Bush yes-man, but they just can't. Arizona loves McCain. And Seattle loves Jim McDermott, so he can afford to oppose a war BOTH parties would
      like to start.

      In fact, "throwing the bums out" without any regard for the slight variations in their voting records is likely to have the opposite effect you desire. It will take power away from the people and give it to the parties. Like a lot of simple solutions, your simple solution is wrong.

      So is the answer to NOT vote anyone out, so that they all become aged incumbents more likely to follow their consciences? Hell no. That's even worse. The think to do is to make it easier and cheaper to run for office--so that all politicians are less dependent on their parties and corporations for cash. Campaign finance reform, public financing, media reregulation--all of these will help with this goal.

      There's a certain sick fascination Americans seem to have with hurting themselves in a way they think SHOULDN'T hurt. They vote to slash taxes, then complain that government is getting more inefficient and they want to slash them some more. They complain about the DC political machine and then vote for term limits, and wonder why the machine got stronger. They divert resources from antiterrorism into a subsidized war crimes experiment, and wonder why we're not as popular as when we were stopping terrorism (then they vote to send in more troops and "private security consultants").

    5. Re:Regime Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut it, wacko.

  91. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by 311Stylee · · Score: 1

    There.. it is now "+5 insightful"... happy?

    come on back.. we need less of 'monopinion' and more thought!

  92. Probably would cause a database crash.. by mivok · · Score: 1

    .. at least it would if a link was posted to it on slashdot.

  93. Schrodinger's Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly PETA managed to take the cat out of the apparatus and put in ashcroft's database instead.

    Other possible excuses:

    1) Um, we sent the data to you but a dog...er...terrorist ate it in transit.

    2) I would supply you the information but I'm afraid I left it in my other supercomputer.

    3) We're doing the best we can but until GW gets back, he says we're not to touch the punch-cards.

    4) Bill Gates says divulging this sort of information will harm national security.

    5) "Please excuse my son (and his data) from truancy. He was suffering from flu-like symptoms."

  94. It's stored in qubits.... by Zzz · · Score: 1

    ... and it disappears when you look at it.

  95. System Crash by drtomaso · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Implementing such a request risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating," wrote Thomas J. McIntyre, chief in the Justice Department's office for information requests.

    Translation, for any non-techies visiting today:

    "Implementing such a request risks a scandal in the President's Administration that cannot be spun and could result in a major loss of a national election, which would be devastating."

    Seriously folks, I firmly believe that another four years under this administration threatens our physical security, as well as our civil liberties. I'm not one to usualy cry "Special Interests!", but this is exactly the kind of data that must be made public for a democratic republic to work. December is just too late to allow voters to make an informed decision, but I suspect thats the point.

    1. Re:System Crash by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      as well as our civil liberties
      We still have the 2nd Amendment.

      Remember that; you might need it soon.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  96. Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...such a request risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating"

    Dear IRS:

    Thank you for the kind note reminding us about payroll tax withholdings (yes, we do remember that the S in IRS stands for 'service' though the little pamplet you sent about all that was appreciated).

    Regarding the issue of us not submitting any payroll tax payments, well, you see our database gurus got together and discovered that the process of running such reports through our employee database actually risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data which would be devestating.

    I'm sure you'll appreciate this difficulty (if not, please contact the Justice Department and they can fill you in on the details). I'm sure there's enough other taxpayers to chase that the loss of our money is of no significant matter.

    Good luck with your own database issues, by the way. I see you too have your hands full - apparently several billion dollars spent upgrading things didn't work after all. If I were you, I'd stop sending out those tax deliquency messages or else you too could be affected by these nasty database crash problems!

  97. Quick, someone notify the RIAA by Derekloffin · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the MPAA for that matter. The Government has found a truly uncopyable storage media and I'm certain both of these organizations will be overjoyed to put it to good use.

  98. WOM? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

    They must have computers that use that most elusive of beasts: Write Only Memory.

  99. America, Land of the SOLD - Home of the WE OWNZ U? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So,

    It is illegal for a citizen of the United States to know what foreign powers have purchased his government out from under him?

    If USA Government Officials have accepted large sums of money from foreign powers, and then execute policies that are damaging to the United States of America (but helpful to the foreign power) - are they not covert operatives in service of a foreign nation?
    (i.e. Spies and Enemy Combatants - under the Patriot Act?)

    It seems MOST vital to National Security to Expose those officials in Government who are on the Take by a foreign power.

    Would exposing their conflict of interest be grounds for treason? (or is taking bribes ok?)

    'Stop Asking Questions Citizen.'
    - That doesn't seem like the kind of Freedom George Washington and Abraham Lincoln fought for,
    now does it?

  100. Ok, folks, discussion is all downhill from here by bonch · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The second someone resorts to the lazy intellectual copout of calling someone a "Nazi," not only do they dilute the real tragedy of what happened in history as a result of real Nazis, they reveal themself as the lame thinker that they are.

    Read up on what real Nazis did. Denying some information request for a technical reason (witness all of Slashdot pretending to know the "real" reasons when it could very well be a database-in-transition issue) has nothing to do with being a "cocksucker," believing in Jesus (not that it's a bad thing, right, "open-minded" liberals?), or being a Nazi. Take that gutter ball political garbage somewhere else.

    1. Re:Ok, folks, discussion is all downhill from here by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      While you're right that this particular issue does not warrant someone calling Ashcroft a Nazi, neither is it likely that they suddenly formed their opinion about Ashcroft from this single incident. Furthermore, the Bush administration has more parallels with Hitler's Nazi administration than any US administration since, and Ashcroft is probably one of the most similar figures -- he is uber-authoritarian, promotes the idea of the government setting the people's ethics, advocates large-scale domestic spying and analysis, opposes oversight of the government by the administration, plays fear games with "terrorists" as a boogeyman, and has steadily pushed for and recieved unprescedented police powers.

    2. Re:Ok, folks, discussion is all downhill from here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a break. The only reason to equate anybody with the Nazi regime is to somehow connect the evil and horror associated with the term "Nazi" to another group you disagree with.

      Nobody in the Bush administration has done anything on the level of the Holocaust, the gas chambers, the totalitarian regime. If you seriously believe that, well, there's nothing I can say to break your paranoia. Such insane comparisons are why the left is perceived as so radicalized these days, turning people off.

    3. Re:Ok, folks, discussion is all downhill from here by mindfucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, hello -- The Bush <=> Nazi comparison is not about gas chambers. It is about systematically exploiting public anger/fear (9/11 anyone?) to push through their ultra-Nationalist war-mongering agenda.

    4. Re:Ok, folks, discussion is all downhill from here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      Love,
      bonch (aka Overly Critical Guy)

    5. Re:Ok, folks, discussion is all downhill from here by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      While you're right that this particular issue does not warrant someone calling Ashcroft a Nazi, neither is it likely that they suddenly formed their opinion about Ashcroft from this single incident. Furthermore, the Bush administration has more parallels with Hitler's Nazi administration than any US administration since, and Ashcroft is probably one of the most similar figures -- he is uber-authoritarian, promotes the idea of the government setting the people's ethics, advocates large-scale domestic spying and analysis, opposes oversight of the government by the administration, plays fear games with "terrorists" as a boogeyman, and has steadily pushed for and recieved unprescedented police powers.

      You forgot to mention that he is ALSO refusing to turn over information regarding the torture of Iraqi prisoners, in violation of a congressional order.

      What amazes me is that Ashcroft isn't in jail, right now: Violating congressional orders, perjury, holding US citizens without trial....

      What the hell does this guy have to do before someone stops him?

      If you see the footage where Ashcroft refuses to turn of over the information, it truly amazing.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    6. Re:Ok, folks, discussion is all downhill from here by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      neither is it likely that they suddenly formed their opinion about Ashcroft from this single incident.

      They formed their opinion of him because he's a <gasp> conservative. Not only that, he is a <gasp> Christian! Those two wouldn't be so bad, but he isn't a moderate conservative or a stay-home-on-Sunday Christian. He actually <gasp> believes in something. That's simply unacceptable for most liberals.

      When people have been taught all their lives that conservatives are evil thugs wanting to starve old ladies to get at their pensions, they won't blink when you tell them that Ashcroft is a Nazi.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  101. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

    Has anyone McCarthy accused of being a commie been cleared?
    Has anyone McCarthy accused of being a commie been found guilty using records from the ex-Soviets or declassified US info? Oh wait, I know that one, yes.

    There were serious forces trying to undermine the US government under the direction of the Soviet government from the mid-30's on, including FDR cabinet members. This man was determined to root them out.

    --
    09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  102. uk perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know quite how these things tend to play in the states, but over here I would read this as "that database on which we spent X millions of your money is in fact total crap and we couldn't find our arses with both hands"

    While most readers will [probably correctly] take this to be a rather poor government whitewash, it could equally be a sign that the government's IT strategy has been fragmented and piecemeal for ages.
    This tends to happen in democratic nations because big IT contracts, like other government contracts, tend to go to companies favoured by the extant administration (despite all the charming fiction about open tendering).
    When a new administration is eventually voted in, it's time for them to pay back various favours to certain friendly companies, and so new expenditure will be announced.

    The end result of this is government departments and organisations each with their own mishmash of systems with no thought at all given to interoperability.
    The chances of them ever getting their shit together enough to collate everything into a massive uber-database with every record on every citizen in the UK is nil, so I'm not that worried.

    Like I said, I don't know the situation in the States vis-a-vis government records, but everywhere in the world, governments all share the same founding principles of confusion and inertia.
    That, and there's waaay more people in the USA. 5x population = at least 5x records = a lot more than 5x complexity.

    All that being said, this remains a transparent and contemptible display of ass-covering by Ashcroft..

    1. Re:uk perspective by kindbud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While most readers will [probably correctly] take this to be a rather poor government whitewash, it could equally be a sign that the government's IT strategy has been fragmented and piecemeal for ages.

      It's both. The goverment is giving us rather poor whitewash, and their IT strategy has been terribly fragmented and piecemeal for ages.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:uk perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For once, you think there is truth to their excuse? That lame-ass IT excuse they give? Are you stupid??

      It's not simply a government white-wash, and it's certainly not an IT issue. It's simply an excuse which most Americans (and our legislature, and our judicial system, and quite frankly most of the people in the world, including those from your homeland) would believe. And that's really all they need to say in order to avoid having to share their information with the rest of the world.

  103. Executive Secrecy-AC is best served cold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I refuse to trade my freedom for cold comfort."

    If you don't want it.? I'll take your Air Conditioning.

  104. Re:How is gzip a copying tool? by zoloto · · Score: 1

    gzip directory/* | //network/share/file.gz

  105. Backup Excuse #2 by serutan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Overloading the DOJ servers at this crucial time during the War on Terror could bring critical network communications to a halt, making America vulnerable to terrorist activity.

    To justify anything nowadays you have to use the "t" word.

    1. Re:Backup Excuse #2 by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Honestly, that's a significantly more plausible excuse than "it'll delete everything".

  106. Freedom of Information Act - is a Joke by Honest+Man · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's intended to give the Government full access to information across it's many levels - not so the public can access it..

    Really, who are we trying to fool here? The Gov't is not going to release anything it considers useful for at least 50-100 years.

    Sorry, I guess I dont have much faith in the legal system when Judges and Gov't officials can outweigh the will of the people - this is not the America I was born in....frankly its more like the Russia I remember as a kid and thinking 'I sure am glad I live here in a Free Country'..... Now I sit here and wonder when an 'honest' Judicial/Governmental system will come around and really think about the people's needs instead of who's lining their pocket book..

    I'm not holding my breath on this being released - because the Gov't is more paranoid about giving up data than p2p users are in sharing in public places, lol.

    1. Re:Freedom of Information Act - is a Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god those judges didn't override the will of the people and kept black students apart from white students.

    2. Re:Freedom of Information Act - is a Joke by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Now I sit here and wonder when an 'honest' Judicial/Governmental system will come around
      ... he said, as he voted for GW Bush and republican congressmen.

      This country isn't a dictatorship. The public still has the power, if people would just get off their ass and do something about it. It's as if appathy is a disease that's taken-over, and left people incapable of doing anything but complaining on web forums that nobody important ever views...
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Freedom of Information Act - is a Joke by Honest+Man · · Score: 1

      lmao!

      Like the majority of people in the US, I did not vote for Bush. (Nor will I if he bothers to try for a second term!)

      That said - many people in our legal system and Government read Slashdot (as has been proven in the past) and you should not undercut Slashdot readers' impact. We are a representation of global opinion and while many are slanted one way or another, we give our honest opinions in an open forum where in the 'real' world we may not always be as expressive (because frankly there are people like yourself whom think the world is a great place right now when its really not - times are getting worse and wars are still being fought - people die every day, in our Country and others).

      The day the Gov't starts over-turning the concepts our forefathers fought for (constitution, bill of rights, etc) then you're definitely wrong - we the people definitely do not have the power we had nor do we have 'freedom'.... perhaps a muddy vision with rose colored glasses of what used to be and wish we still had... In the last few years we've lost a great many rights that you must have overlooked (I suggest you review the last 5 years of Slashdot and then get back to us all here who have kept up with the news)......Step away from the rose glasses and wake up. ;)

  107. Civility by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Great Thinkers Address Freedom Of Speech

    "Free speech exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free."

    -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

    "The truth is found when men are free to pursue it."

    -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936

    "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

    -- George Orwell, 1945

    "Any time we deny any citizen the full exercise of his constitutional rights, we are weakening our own claim to them."

    -- Dwight David Eisenhower, 1963

    "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant."

    -- Robert F. Kennedy, 1964

    "Go fuck yourself."

    -- Dick Cheney, 2004

  108. Re:Ahhh... - OMG! by gui_tarzan2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "*hint* what if they are in the middle of a software upgrade?"

    First of all, I can't believe anyone with a brain would try to use an open database during a software upgrade. I know ours won't let anyone log in during the upgrade process. I can't believe how lame this whole discussion is. Even though I *really* don't like some of Ashcroft's decisions, he's still better than the former by far. Anyway...

    B A C K U P

    Hasn't anyone thought about this??? Good grief. I NEVER work on a live database. We ALWAYS work from backups no matter what we're doing with them. I'm stunned that an excuse like this would even be spoken by someone in IT. "Oh yeah, it'll crash my system if I make that BACKUP/export that information... so I don't make backups or do exports...". Backup, export, whatever. If the system is that unstable whoever's running it should have a backup every hour or a darned good alternative job plan when it does crash.

    I'm sorry I sound pissy, but it just irritates me to no end when people don't use simple common sense.

    --
    Have you hugged your penguin today?
  109. Re:Yeah, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > use software which has contractual support, is secure and massively scalable

    From all indications, it seems pretty safe to say you're wrong on all 3 counts.

    Or maybe they want to use something cobbled together by the company run by someones nephew, who really did such a nice job with the campaign posters in the last election cycle, and you know what? he promised he would just give a huge chunk of the money right back to the party, anyways.

  110. Befuddled Boob by rastin · · Score: 1

    Remember Jonny: Only Satan blows smoke up peoples' asses.

  111. Administration marked by lack of transparency by tehanu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the scariest things about this administration is the sheer lack of transparency. While all governments like hiding things, this one seems to think that the public has no right to know anything, of course for their own good. Even Congress seems to be out of the info loop! Everytime someone tries to ask them for transparency or information they stonewall them sometimes with ridiculous reasons like this (or by swearing at them aka. our vice-president). Combine this with laws that reduce rights of ordinary citizens (aka. Patriot Act) and how they are trying to increasingly concentrate power in the hands of the President (who seems to think that Congressional and Judicial oversight of his activities is a bad thing) who professes the theory that a President is legally allowed to do anything to foreign and US citizens eg. torture, infinitely holding them, invading a country etc. and the only reason he doesn't do it is because he's nice (rather than because it's say illegal to torture someone) and America is heading towards dangerous waters.

    1. Re:Administration marked by lack of transparency by CoitusRex · · Score: 5, Interesting
      In this light the following quote from Bush, in response to Bob Woodward asking if the president explained his positions, is not surprising at all:
      Of course not. I'm the commander. See, I don't have to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.
    2. Re:Administration marked by lack of transparency by GarryOwen · · Score: 1

      Quick history lesson, it has been done before with Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. Compared to Lincoln, Bush is a freakin easy going.

    3. Re:Administration marked by lack of transparency by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      America has been in dangerous waters for quite some time now. The only difference in this administration as compared to the last administration (or even his father's!) is that now we're header more directly toward the rocks.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Administration marked by lack of transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History lesson:

      This is the third time you have used that argument in this one thread.

      And remind me again how our current state of affairs bears any similarity to the entire nation coming apart at the seams outside of the possiblity that is where we are headed if things continue as they are?

    5. Re:Administration marked by lack of transparency by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

      I guess G.W. couldn't even sit through The Lion King. Remember kids, like Mufasa said "There's a lot more to being king than getting your way all the time."

    6. Re:Administration marked by lack of transparency by dvk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > One of the scariest things about this administration is the sheer lack of transparency

      Perhaps you have heard of this guy called FDR? The one who was so flipping secretive and un-transparent that compared to him Bush seems made of glass?

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    7. Re:Administration marked by lack of transparency by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Even Congress seems to be out of the info loop!

      Yes, but if they weren't mostly Republicans, he would be impeached in an instant, and the problem would be solved.

      The courts are barely even objecting... Their rulings have been mixed, although they are starting to force a few things to be done different.

      So, since none of the 3 branches are doing their jobs, it's finally left up to the public. Vote out Bush, and vote out just about everyone in congress.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Administration marked by lack of transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess G.W. (or Dubyuh as he is known here) has forgotten that he's OUR EMPLOYEE. We, the PEOPLE pay his salery, furnish him with the perks (home, food, bed, etc.) and he IS answerable to US. He is not In-Charge for life. Ashcroft and the rest of the Administration work for G.W., therefore they work for us, too. I think he needs to be reminded of this. I have a feeling he's going to get chapter and verse this November.

  112. Not quite true. by TahitiNut · · Score: 2, Funny

    Officials subject to Constitutional Advise and Consent are impeachable. However, as we know, getting a blow job and not sharing is the only impeachable offense currently recognized by the Greedy Old Perverts.

  113. Reply to sig by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.

    I post humorously. That really improves my karma.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  114. Re:Probably already using MySQL, don't recommend i by cft_128 · · Score: 1

    How long ago were you running MySQL? I've never used the INNODB table handler but when my DB have been running on a stable system the DB has been fine... when the whole system was unstable there were problems but never unrecoverable. Postgres never seemed to have the SELECT performance we needed but I have not re-checked in a while.

    --

    Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  115. If they want to follow the letter of the law... by DrDebug · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... and not the spirit of the law all they have to do is make access available over a single 300 baud modem line where no one entity can be on for more than 5 minutes.

    Security through obscurity. A government tradition.

  116. I wanna job by rastin · · Score: 1

    We have how many unemployed IT professionals in this country and those idiots can't even replicate to a read only database.

  117. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'll probably be labeled as a terrorist for this post, and summarily arrested and imprisoned without a trail

    Would you be so kind and give us, Mr. 99, your name and address? We have some problems to track your real irentity...

    Sincerely,
    Ashcroft

  118. Can you Americans understand now by xutopia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    why the rest of the world believes you are not living in a "free society". Maybe NATO should invade your country and free you for your opressors.

    1. Re:Can you Americans understand now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh stick it up your ass. Like your country is any better.

    2. Re:Can you Americans understand now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Okay, you're seriously missed the grandparent's point. He/she is NOT saying "US sux, we rulez". Rather, they're saying that the world is a complex place with some countries better in some aspects and other countries better in another aspect.

      *I* think my country is better, but at the same time, I don't consider it ethical for me to invade your country against your will and impose my implementation of freedom upon you. Freedom comes in many forms and the freedom of self-determination is arguably more important than freedom of speech, due process, trial by jury etc.

      And remember, no country has complete freedom of speech either, there's libel, slander, incitement of violence, copyright'ed speech.

    3. Re:Can you Americans understand now by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Maybe NATO should invade your country and free you for your opressors.

      Quite frankly, a good 80% or so of the population would cheer anybody on that came to assasinate the President.

      This is a short-term issue. A criminal has been elected to the seat of the president, and since congress is Republican, the checks and balances aren't working, and he hasn't been impeached. However, the public gets their say in a few months, and in an instant, things will change dramatically.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Can you Americans understand now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A criminal has been elected to the seat of the president...

      Or was he...?

    5. Re:Can you Americans understand now by dave420 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If most of the US population wasn't so easily lead. "Ooh! Look! Bad guy on a stick! Vote for me - I did that!". Bush has to pull an Osama-a-like out of a closet and parade him around on a stage, and he's in for another 4 years, guaranteed. THAT's the sickening part. Sure - 80% of Americans hate Bush, but give them the slightest spin as to why they should like him, and they'll change on the spot. How else do you think he's still in power?

    6. Re:Can you Americans understand now by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Bush has to pull an Osama-a-like out of a closet and parade him around on a stage, and he's in for another 4 years, guaranteed.

      You can say "guaranteed" all you want, but that doesn't make it a fact. I certainly don't believe people are that idiotic.

      Hell, Americans were smart enough to kick his father out after one term. I have no doubt we'll see the same with him.

      War isn't the only issue, and it's a minor issue in fact.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  119. Backups and Quantum Computing by wass · · Score: 1
    Well, copying a qubit on a quantum computer is strictly forbidden, one can only 'transmit' a qubit from one point to another. No fanout is allowed.

    So maybe this implies the DoJ keeps their records on a quantum computer? ;-)

    --

    make world, not war

  120. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Has anyone McCarthy accused of being a commie been cleared?"

    Fred Fisher.

    And fuck you.

  121. See? Code is Free Speech! by e.m.rainey · · Score: 5, Funny
    /* politcal-pseudeo-C */
    int ashcroft_test()
    {
    int error = ERROR_NONE;
    char *quote = "[i]mplementing such a request risks a crash that cannot " \
    "be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating";

    if (isTellingTruth(quote) == TRUE)
    {
    if (ashcroft.budget < ashcroft.expectedBudget)
    {
    ashcroft.requestLargerBudget();
    error = ERROR_BIG_GOVERNMENT;
    }
    else if (ashcroft.StaffIQ < IQ_SEA_TURTLE)
    {
    ashcroft.admitIncompetence();
    error = ERROR_INCOMPETENT_GOVERMENT;
    }
    else
    { /* developer note: I could never get
    * this condition to activate in
    * testing... oh well. */
    error = ERROR_UNKNOWN;
    }
    }
    else // less than honest answer
    {
    if (isTooDifficult(quote) == FALSE)
    {
    ashcroft.takeVacation();
    error = ERROR_LAZY_GOVERNMENT;
    }
    else if (dislikeFOIA(ashcroft) == TRUE)
    {
    ashcroft.evadeFOIA();
    error = ERROR_CLOSED_GOVERNMENT;
    }
    else
    { // some sinister plot I'm sure!
    crackpots.startDreaming();
    error = ERROR_UNKNOWN;
    }
    }
    return error;
    }
    --
    The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
    1. Re:See? Code is Free Speech! by lordkimbot · · Score: 1

      Hilarious!!

      --
      sig mind freed
    2. Re:See? Code is Free Speech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice piece of code. I was hinking about good ways to code the isTellingTruth() method. Perhaps yopu could test for the LipsMoving boolean property.

  122. Electronic FOIA Amendments of '96 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/p age1.htm

    "Second, the amendments will require agencies to use electronic information technology to enhance the availability of their reading room records. They specify that for any newly created reading room records (i.e., "records created on or after November 1, 1996"), an agency must make them available to the public by "electronic means." 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2). The amendments embody a strong statutory preference that this new electronic availability be provided by agencies in the form of on-line access, which can be most efficient for both agencies and the public alike, and they allow until November 1, 1997 for it to be provided. To meet this new requirement through on-line access, agencies should have Internet or World Wide Web sites prepared to serve this "electronic reading room" function by no later than that date. "

    What am I missing here? Why are they allowed to act like the FOI act and the Internet were just invented last Tuesday, and they haven't had time to comply?

  123. Perhaps... by tyler_larson · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If the computer will crash by accessing these records, then this implies the records are inaccessible. Not to mention that if the records magically 'disappear' all they have to say it "look we told you so"

    Perhaps it's not as simple as that. From what the DOJ seems to be saying, extracting and compiling a report of this size using the existing interface could, quite understandably, render the system unstable. In theory, then, such a system may behave unpredictably and could potentially damage the database. That would, of course, imply that the DOJ database is built on unstable, outdated technology--but we already knew that. They're working to improve that, but it will take many years and millions of dollars.

    The reporters aren't asking for (nor are they entitled to) a complete backup of the database. That would be comparatively easy to provide, but is obviously out of the question, as it would include much more than just the authorized content.

    Perhaps they'd have better luck if they made a whole bunch of small queries: Instead of saying "send me everything you've got", they could say "Send me all relevant content for August 1947", then "Send me all relevant content for September 1947", and so on.

    You could argue that the instead of forcing the reporters to take the time and money to make thousands of small, separate requests, they should be able to make a single blanket request and have the government office subdivide it internally. However, such an assumption would not take into consideration the fact that you're working with a government office that is only helping you because they're required to by law. Give them a single excuse to say no and they won't hesitate to give you nothing at all.

    --
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
    RFC 1925
    1. Re:Perhaps... by MrLint · · Score: 1

      tyler, you have a good point and a well reasoned post. I touched on some of your points elsewhere in the thread. Please take a look.

    2. Re:Perhaps... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      But the relevant content from August and September 1947 would probably just prove that McCarthy was right, and that there were high-placed communist moles in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. So scratch that. Also avoid the Kennedy Administration, etc. etc.

      --
      resigned
    3. Re:Perhaps... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful
      However, such an assumption would not take into consideration the fact that you're working with a government office that is only helping you because they're required to by law. Give them a single excuse to say no and they won't hesitate to give you nothing at all.
      Am I the only one who sees a problem with this fact, given that we're supposed to be part of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people?"
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Perhaps... by winwar · · Score: 1

      So, then, why exactly does the DOJ have to compile the whole report ALL at ONCE? Can't they extract the data in small chunks then reassemble it for the whole report? I mean, it might be easier to run one query, but a series of smaller queries ought to be able to get the same information and not overload the system.

      Other than it's the only excuse they could use not to comply with a FOIA request of course....

    5. Re:Perhaps... by greenrd · · Score: 1
      Are you suggesting there is a conspiracy among journalists to deprive the public of information about communist infiltrators from over 50 years ago?

      You're nuts, man! No mainstream journalist is wacko-left-wing enough to want to do that, surely?

    6. Re:Perhaps... by protoshoggoth · · Score: 1
      In theory, then, such a system may behave unpredictably and could potentially damage the database.

      But you do concede that there are backups of the data. And the point of a backup is of course to reload the database if something "bad" happens. They're acting as if somehow irreparable harm could be done by simply running a report that crashes the system. This makes No Sense. Unless they have no backups. And, as you imply, there seems to be no reason to presume that level of insanity.

      Alternately, they need to licesnse this magical Unstable Data Technology to the RIAA, who would LOVE to have something that somehow simultaneously corrupts all copies of the data if a single copy is accessed too often.

    7. Re:Perhaps... by Khyron42 · · Score: 1

      My thought on the whole discussion of a backup was not to give it to the reporters/evil public/left-wing conspiracy theorists, but to restore it somewhere other than the production system and work with it from there to fulfill your legal requirement to answer the request. This would be at no risk to the "real" database since everything would be separate... but then, maybe every other Hollerith card reader has been scrapped already.

      --
      Pavlov's Dog ate the bell, and now he's barking at Schroedinger's cat all the time... -Me
  124. I don't think you understand .... by taniwha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when he said "will crash the system" he really ment "will crash The System" .... ie having the people know more about what the government is doing is inherently bad for having a well run govt. and besides if we find out who's paying off who it might be made to stop

    1. Re:I don't think you understand .... by nfgaida · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you up, but I don't have the points. That's the same thing I though of when I read the title.

      --
      *elevator music plays*
  125. isn't that a novel idea by Archfeld · · Score: 1, Insightful

    lie thru your teeth about somthing you know nothing about..WTG US GOVt.

    If the data is so bloody critical IT HAD BETTER BE BACKED UP ON A REGULAR BASIS, Make one of the backups available for retore and public perusal, I'd think that 30 day opld data would be sufficient for most uses.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  126. Yeah, got me there by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 1

    I was going to add SCO, but I was worried that by referencing SCO I might destroy records critical to the effort against SCO.

  127. Quantum computing? by Lonath · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe they're quantum databases containing all possible information, and actually looking at them to copy them would collapse the possibilities into only one state.

    1. Re:Quantum computing? by fo0bar · · Score: 1
      Maybe they're quantum databases containing all possible information, and actually looking at them to copy them would collapse the possibilities into only one state.

      Texas?

    2. Re:Quantum computing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously dude, I can't understand how this got 4, funny... it should have gotten 0, redundant. It's the 10th post mentioning quantum computing that has been bumped up by some sorry nerds, and all the other ones had hard to pronunce names of scientists as well

  128. But seriously, they do by xixax · · Score: 4, Insightful
    McIntyre explained in a May 24 letter that the computer system - operated in the counterespionage section of the Justice Department's criminal division - "was not designed for mass export of all stored images" and said the system experiences "substantial problems."
    I am willing to believe that what Mr Ashcroft says may even be true. I have seen enough to not be suprised that the Govt. commissioned a database that copes with scanned documents being gradually over many years, but chokes utterly when the accumilated data needs to be exported.

    There one was a datavault built on compartively unusual hardware which operated post-maintenance for many years, it was an insanity to empty because the vendor did not do Gigabit ethernet for it and the 100 MBit cards were scrounged from the vendor's junk-pile. Sucking terrabytes of data from crappy, second qaulity NICs took months. So negligence rather than conspiracy might be the actual reason.

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
    1. Re:But seriously, they do by stalin1440 · · Score: 1

      negligence rather than conspiracy is the explanation of most things ...

    2. Re:But seriously, they do by StormyMonday · · Score: 1

      One thing to keep in mind is that, with Government contracts, if it's not in the spec, you don't get it. They probably have the exact data export facilities that the original contract specifies, and not one bit more.

      Also, this database is probably running on something like an old UNIVAC, with manuals on clay tablets. Not a good candidate for a quickie upgrade.

      --
      Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
    3. Re:But seriously, they do by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      that's like saying "the floppy i saved my homework on is corrupted", in other words, the dog ate my homework, or "I'm lying"

  129. Two words! by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 1

    Pizza pie!

  130. Florida by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Florida pulled a really fast one on the entire nation. While everyone was talking about hanging chads, dimpled chads, and killer-ninja chads, we missed the real point. The chads made a few thousand votes indeterminate.

    But we got so caught up in them that we missed the 10's of thousands of black voters who were erroneously classified as felons and denied their right to vote. It's a simple search on Google to see some things about it, and the classification was done in what appeared to be a deliberately incompetent manner.

    So maybe the electronic voting machines will be used to throw the election.
    Or maybe the electronic voting machines will be a smokescreen for some other shenanigans.
    Or maybe we're all seeing conspiracies where there are none.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  131. misquote by GunFodder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I believe they misquoted Thomas J. McIntyre at the top of the article. This should have read:

    "Implementing such a request risks a crash of our Administration that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of credibility, which would be devastating to our hopes of being reelected."

    Notice that they will be able to supply this information in December, which is conveniently after November.

    This could work out like Nixon's tapes though; the fact that this information exists and the current administration is withholding it from us could be enough evidence to damn them in the court of public opinion.

  132. It's not the software it's the people by Felinoid · · Score: 1

    Back at home like about 20 years ago the city building code inspection and enforcement team was visiting the house like once every 6 months.

    Long story short it was during finals and when someone would get on the roof to fix it.
    Once the requests got petty (Example: Repaint the house) she went to the city to get a complete copy of the building code.
    They had nothing but excuses. "It's too expensive, too hard, Can't be done".
    So she got ahold of one of a city counclemen and he informs her they had the book behind the desk to give to anyone who asked.

    That was 20 years ago. A few years later once he's out of office he mentions realistate fraud in the city offices.
    Today it's not a problem. It's all on the city website.

    I think this time ALL the DB venders could get together to deminstrate how it's not a problem with the products THEY sell.
    High time someone challanged them on the "the computer can't handle it" excuses.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
  133. Give credit where credit is do by 00zero · · Score: 1

    Homework that eats itself? That's at least college level material.

  134. NO FUN by quantaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean co'mon, it used to be you took at least ten seconds to figgure out exactly how the government was BS'ing you, they're not even trying anymore!!

    --
    I stole this Sig
  135. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! by zogger · · Score: 1

    oh man this is TOO FUNNY!

    "The government said an overhaul of the system should be finished by December and copies should be available then."

    Hmm, lemme see here, big ole elections are in NOVEMBER.

    foreign lobbyists, uh huh, sure.... all on the up and up... no shenanigans here with letting FOREIGN PEOPLE give money to DOMESTIC politicians. Nope, don't need to see no data there! I'm sure it's all in order and it's just a temporary glitch!

    Another AMAZING coincidence produced for your enjoyment by DieNeoConStarBold

    Remember Citizens! Trust us, or the terrorists have won!

    heh heh heh heh heh

  136. The solution. by Cow007 · · Score: 1

    Just another example of how the government and private compinies don't know how to properley use technology. Haven't they ever heard of BitTorrent? If they used that then there would be no problem making this information available.

    --
    411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
  137. Re:Liberal censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I routinely get modded "Overrated" for voicing an opposing opinion, because such mods don't get metamodded.
    Or perhaps you're, you know, over-rated? Just a thought. Is the tin-foil hat a bit too tight?
  138. More BS by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

    Just more BS coming out of our DoJ. Hahaha DoJ what a joke. In my opinion this cannot be fixed by voting people into office, the only fix is revolution (evolution perhaps).

    This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. -- Abraham Lincoln

    Where do we start? How do I sign up? (hello echelon)

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  139. Slashdot doesn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can't handle the mod system on Slashdot, FARK is always in need of another moron to post in in their threads.

    1. Re:Slashdot doesn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a moron! I write reasonably thought out and logically sound posts. How dare you!

  140. Never subscribe to malice... by Banner · · Score: 1

    That which can be explained by incompetance.

    Really, the amount of conspiracy theories and Ashcroft bashing here is really ridiculous. I suspect that the system probably is FUBAR'd, possibly beyond the chance of recovery. We've all seen before how government agencies let their computer systems slip into really bad shape if it has nothing to do with getting revenue.

    Odds are it's some proprietary database format some senator's son came up with and sold them, and it really can't handle massive downloads. Or worse yet it has been wiped by accident and they're just playing CYA.

    1. Re:Never subscribe to malice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, the amount of conspiracy theories and Ashcroft bashing here is really ridiculous. I suspect that the system probably is FUBAR'd, possibly beyond the chance of recovery.

      Puleaze.... if the data is there it can be copied. Whatever FU'd system it's on is irrelevant. You could stick a camera in front of a monitor with an OCR and get the data. There is no excuse!

      It's not a conspiracy thing. It's a blatant disregard for the laws of the country. These people should be rounded up and sent to some dictatorship country that they're innately equipped to manage.

  141. Whoops, Sorry by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

    I think he meant to write SSN# No. Number.:)

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  142. Funny you should mention that ... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    From your post ...

    Please equate Ashcroft to being a "Nazi,"

    From the FA ...

    The Center for Public Integrity sought information about lobbying activities available under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, a 1938 law passed in response to German propaganda before World War II.

    At the time (1938), for those of you too young to know, Germany was run by the Nazis.

    I know there's a conspiracy in there somewhere, but I'd probably have to file a FOI request to find it.

    1. Re:Funny you should mention that ... by demachina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if Prescott Bush, George W. Bush's grandfather, was registered as a Foreign Agent in 1938. He was the U.S. banker for Fritz Thiessen, one of Germany's wealthiest men and a key money man who helped put Adolph Hitler in power. Fritz wrote a rather dull book about it called, "I Paid Hitler". When Union Banking, of which Prescott was a principal, was seized in 1941 for trading with the enemy, it was something of an embarrassment to the Bush family.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:Funny you should mention that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sssssssssh!

      The "boys" have worked long and hard to erase all that stuff from public and government records.
      If you repeat it you are Un-American! Heil.

    3. Re:Funny you should mention that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does the Goodwin thing work if Nazis are actually relevant to the thread?

    4. Re:Funny you should mention that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Goodwin thing? Oh, you mean Goodwin's law, which states that all threads will eventually include a comparison to the Nazis? I guess it just confirms it.

      (FYI, Goodwin never said anything about that requiring the discussion to end.)

    5. Re:Funny you should mention that ... by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      they only had 40%, it was a coalition, man! the coalition of the (w|k)illing.

    6. Re:Funny you should mention that ... by demachina · · Score: 1

      "The "boys" have worked long and hard to erase all that stuff from public and government records.

      If you repeat it you are Un-American! Heil."

      Well actually in one case their is a record. The records for all of the property seized under the trading with the enemy act, and there was a lot of it, because its was trendy in the 20's and 30's for America's moneyed class to invest in Germany and then Nazi Germany, was recently declassified. You can view them at the national archives or order copies. The main one is the one above. The archives in general are at:

      http://www.archives.gov/index.html

      The doc is not especially interesting though it does list Prescott Bush as a share holder in Union Banking which was seized by the Roosevelt administration. I wonder if that fueled the family hatred of the democrats.

      The Harrriman family owned the lion's share of the stock but apparently the Harriman's gave the relatively poor Bush family buckets of money and they did the leg work. One of the Harriman's and Prescott were fellow Skull and Bones men at Yale.

      --
      @de_machina
    7. Re:Funny you should mention that ... by demachina · · Score: 1

      Botched the URL for the records of interest.
      Tryhere

      341 248
      All of the capital stock of the Union Banking Corporation and all rights of the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart and the August Thyssen Bank in the debts of said corporation.

      Its not proof of a major Nazi conspiracy just that Prescott Bush was a principal in Union Banking and Union Banking was banking for people in Nazi Germany, the wealthy Thyssen family, and Fritz Thyssen funded Hitler, and encouraged many wealthy industrialists to back him a ta pivotal point in his rise, before they realized what a mistake it was, but at that point it was to late.

      --
      @de_machina
  143. MOD PARENT UP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... and then down. And then up a couple of times, then down one more by a stickler for on-topic posts. Then down to zero by one pissed off moderator using all his points at once. Slowly climb back to +3. Down again. Up again. Down. Up. Down. Finally, when the story is 13 days old and the editors have already posted a couple of duplicates, sneak in and mod it up to +5, Insightful.

    Hey, if they won't give me mod points, I can at least be a Back Seat Moderator!

  144. Re:"available in December" -- just after the elect by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

    I read it as "You can have the data, but not until we've removed anything you may be remotely interested in".

    Relevant quote from article: Ashcroft's policy lets officials withhold information on any "sound legal basis." Under looser policies issued in 1993, agencies could hold back information to prevent "foreseeable harm."

    --
    DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  145. Huh? by TahitiNut · · Score: 1

    FOIA requestors are required to bear the reasonable additional costs of information rerieval and transcription. Try it sometime.

  146. origin of the term JBOD by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    Don't worry, I'm sure they're using a RAID 0 setup.

    Phbt, as if.

    Justice Dept management: "So what do we use to store our stuff on?"

    Tech: "Well, at the moment, just a bunch of disks."

    Justice Dept management: "well shit, that's not going to sound very good in the report. Just a...hmm..we'll call it, JABOD!"

    Assistant: whisper whisper acronym-making regulations (AMRs) whisper

    Justice Dept management: "Right! JBOD!"

  147. Already suffered "major loss of data" by joe_bruin · · Score: 1

    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

  148. Ashcroft: My Dog Ate My Homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Cheney administration can't even lie competently.

  149. It just keeps gettng weirder by bigberk · · Score: 1
    As I understand it, we're observing one of two things:
    1. Government incompetence like we've never seen before (funny but mostly harmless), or
    2. The US Government shall break its commitment to its citizens, at the Executive's sole discretion (not so funny)

    Actually, I think the whole 'enemy combatants' thing (Guantanamo prisoners outside both US, and International law) is another great example of how ready the Executive is to side-step the established systems of the country, whenever they feel like it. Remember that we put these guys in power to work for us! Actually...
  150. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by Felinoid · · Score: 1

    "lib-leftie wing-nut, but"

    Evil right wing conspericy conservitive pagan here :)

    I have a theroy as to why so many Slashdotters are Democrats and folow blindly.

    1. The democratic party tends to have this "We are experts do as we say or else" addatude.
    2. The alterntive (the republican party) has this whole bent of "Well Microsoft is a company and people can choise to not buy Microsofts product".

    Of that I can only say:
    1. Why support a political party who is usually in support of censorship and other agendas where Slashdot is usually on the other side.
    2. Yeah right I chouse to buy Microsoft Windows when I buy my PC to install Linux. Yep. Becouse I can see all those OsLess and Linux PCs at the computer store and wow look at all those PCs with out Windows preinstalled.

    Last time I went to the store I think I saw ONE Macintosh and it was hidden away from the rows on rows of PCs the salemen always take people when they ask about getting a new computer.
    "No sir thats all we have".

    Actually there IS 1 other reason...
    The CDA drafted and crafted by the democratic party actually won strong and vocal support from the REPUBLICAN party.
    (The CDA for those with short attention spans was the law to censor the Internet of "objectionable" matreal).

    The democrats knew most people would misunderstand what "objectionable" would mean in law. Sadly the entire republican party were amoung those people. However Slashdotters were not.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
  151. Wow! Such insight! by TahitiNut · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's true that not all fascists are Nazis.

    It must also be true that Hitler wasn't really Hitler until the six-millionth Jew was murdered by the state. Up until that time he wore his "Gott Mit Uns" beltbuckle with pride and proclaimed "I'm not really Hitler so stop saying that!"

    Heaven forbid any "good German" should actually look at the conditions and attitudes that led inexorably to the atrocities of autocratic power (that corrupts) in order to prevent any such abuses, regardless of scale, in the future. Let's just wait until the six-millionth 'evil-doer' is murdered, huh?

    Yeah. That's rational. (Sheesh!)

  152. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    He's finally down to "-1 Troll". Good...

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  153. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    Why does annointing himself with oil make him a "jesus-psycho"? This is normal practice for many Pentecostal Christians. They were common in my home town so this practice doesn't strike me as unusual. If you've never encountered Pentecostals before, it might seem weird. But from my perspective it's no more unusual than Catholics not eating meat on Fridays or Amish growing beards.

    Ashcroft is not asking anyone else to annoint themselves. It is not a requirement for anyone in the Justice department. It is his own personal decision. It affects no one else.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  154. (OT) Re:Probably already using MySQL, don't recomm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I've never used the INNODB table handler but when my DB have been running on a stable system the DB has been fine"

    Well he did say he was using INNODB, which is required if you want transactions, etc.
    If you're not using transactions, you're probably better off using a database like SQLite.
    (Also, MySQL with InnoDB is slower than PostgreSQL. Rollbacks are O(n), etc. It's horrible.)

  155. AYdB by switcha · · Score: 1
    All your database are belong to John.

    They set us up the dirty bomb!

    --
    You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  156. Yes. Please. by TahitiNut · · Score: 1

    Better sooner than later.

  157. Re:Official announcement to Slashdot by jburroug · · Score: 1, Troll

    Well as the AG of the US, Ashcroft is in charge of the Justice Department and along with his boss, Dubya, is ultimately responsible for the policies that drive such decisions. So it's perfectly fair to bring up his name in an article relating to the actions of DoJ.

    Fine I won't make fun of the fact that he believes in Jesus, but can I still make fun of his fear of calico cats, fear of the breast of Justice , the ritual annoiting in cooking oil for every office he takes or for his musical stylings?

    --
    "Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
  158. The most productive use of this DoJ response ... by TahitiNut · · Score: 1

    ... would seem to be obvious. Require that they cease and desist in the obsessive collection of massive amounts of surveillance data that does not serve the public interest. They're clearly in possession of far more data than they can resonably use in the interests of Justice.

  159. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by Damek · · Score: 1

    Most Slashdot visitors are Democrats? Out of what orifice did you pull this anecdotal statistic? See, because in my experience, most Slashdot visitors seem to be libertarians who probably vote Republican. But I bet it's really about half and half like the nation at large. Not counting the international Slashdot visitors...

  160. Funny how that works... by heybo · · Score: 1

    The government said an overhaul of the system should be finished by December and copies should be available then.

    Yes! Right after the Elections!

    Funny how that works

  161. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by flacco · · Score: 1
    Why does annointing himself with oil make him a "jesus-psycho"? This is normal practice for many Pentecostal Christians. They were common in my home town so this practice doesn't strike me as unusual. If you've never encountered Pentecostals before, it might seem weird. But from my perspective it's no more unusual than Catholics not eating meat on Fridays or Amish growing beards.

    to be fair, i think they're all psycho :-)

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  162. Next FOI request... by dcavanaugh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The internal memo that describes the "technical problem" that prevents releasing the data.

    1. Re:Next FOI request... by LesPaul75 · · Score: 1

      The fact that the DoJ made this decision probably means that there is something really, really "bad" in that database. My guess is that this move is not intended to stall the release of the information until after the election, but to stall the release until that particular information can be destroyed. I think that Williams' group stumbled onto more than they expected. It's just a shot in the dark, of course... but for the DoJ to whip up a crock of sh*t like this, there's got to be something completely hideous in that data. It's silly to even guess what that might be, but let your imagination run wild...

  163. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm.... I'm liberal and i didn't find the above really all that funny or informative.

    I think instead of assuming that the people that mod such tripe up are "liberal" you might want to consider the possiblity that they might instead belong to the "stupidity" party. There are plenty of both liberal and conservative members.

    Trust me, stupidity and ignorance is hardly a market the slashdot lefties have cornered.

  164. Coming::Back!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rumor has it executives from Digital::Convergence have been meeting with Bush administration officials. Could a proposal to re-activate the 'Cat' as a mechanism for tracking every taxpayer be in the works? Imagine a government and big business ploy to track every consumer/taxpayer with a barcode on their physical person!

    Certainly barcoding each tax return would be nonunique; with a social security number uniquely identifying a filer. Could a more intrusive human barcode be in the works? In 1999, the USPTO issued a patent for an invisible human barcode. Armed with millions of CueCats, tax men and merchants worldwide could track the movement of money (and people!).

    According to MoveOn.org (and posts on AlGoreDemocrats.org), Michael Moore has been circulating a draft of a script to follow Sicko (currently in the works about the US medical system) called 'Beep This' which exposes the Bush administration's bar code plans with Digital Convergence. Rumor has it part of Microsoft's DoJ settlement with the Clinton Justice Dept. involved Microsoft's endorsement of bar coding plans already under consideration. Of course, Kerry's big business connections (including campaign contributions from major chinese barcode manufacturers) doesn't look good either.

  165. Good for IRS audits by hikerhat · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can't show the IRS my records, because they'll vanish if I access them. But trust me, I've paid all my taxes.

  166. Q: Incompetance or Dishonesty? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yet again we get a claim of incompetance as a counter to implied dishonesty. I suspect both are involved.

    The political excuse of this time appears to be something like "I'm a useless idiot so it isn't my fault - and I didn't know about the money no matter how many people told me". An excuse like that should not be acceptable.

    This current excuse that letting people look at things will let all the smoke out of the magic box is just childish.

    have been trying to hide the fact that the database has been GONE for weeks
    In the city where I live a state government department (not in USA) has a wharehouse full of boxes with dates marked on them, and no other form of identification. These boxes have been building up for decades, and all of the paperwork is effectively inaccessable.

    The paperwork involving lobbying is undoubtably a different story - we got to see the Nixon-Saharto connection (Indonesion president - big donation one day proir to the invasion of Timor) when the paperwork was released recently, but the information would have been a tightly gaurded secret back in 1975 since it could have brought down the government sooner.

  167. Never could avoid a good flame war.. by Lewis+Daggart · · Score: 1

    "If men strive and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."

    The verse literally says 'seed depart from her'. This doesnt bring to mind visions of a miscarrage to me. Rather, its refuring to a premature birth.

    So men fight and hit a pregnant woman. If this forces her into labor early, but the child is fine, the man pays whatever fine the judges determine. However, if mischief follows, (the child dies) he's to pay life for life.

    The punishment for killing someone, intentionally or on accident is already layed out. If this is just the same thing, and the child doesnt matter, why state it again? Rather, it's put there to emphasize the point of the child's life being important as well.

    1. Re:Never could avoid a good flame war.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's creative. I've personally never heard of people refer to a human as "departed" except in death.

    2. Re:Never could avoid a good flame war.. by Lewis+Daggart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, that's creative. I've personally never heard of people refer to a human as "departed" except in death Hence the problem with applying modern day euphimisms with a 6,000 year old lawbook.

    3. Re:Never could avoid a good flame war.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fetus is NOT someone. It's NOT a child. It doesn't have a soul.

    4. Re:Never could avoid a good flame war.. by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      lol, the lawbook doesn't even have to be 6 years old, let alone millinia.
      Many modern law books turn language around so much you need a translator with years of education and arguments still erupt with multiple translators (we call them lawyers, see what I mean about it) and fervent argument. Kinda like dark-ages religeon.. HEY THAT EXPLAINS IT!

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    5. Re:Never could avoid a good flame war.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At what age does the soul get installed?

      And what about the child of atheist parents?

    6. Re:Never could avoid a good flame war.. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      At birth?

      Or perhaps not ever?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Never could avoid a good flame war.. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Funny

      The soul gets installed after it's downloaded but before it's executed. If it comes as source code, it must also be compiled, usually with a "make" script (R-rated).

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Never could avoid a good flame war.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At what age does the soul get installed?

      After stage 1 has been compiled?

  168. Obviously Ashcroft has a DRM database. by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    See, as a friend of the RIAA and MPAA Herr John has already implemented internally at the Justice Department the iLobby database that only allows the key to a purchased Senator to be Authorized two three computers.

    The FBI, the CIA, and the RNC alrealy have their coppies and if they let the .Lacky file out on a P2P basis they will have to repurchase the .Lackey at full price. They will also be subject to prosecution for Unlawfully Acting in the Public Interest, a class 1 felonly only slightly less severe than Hanging Offense of Copying "The Little Mermaid" onto disposable disk so your 3 year old won't destroy the original.

    (No wonder these people think copying data is a crime, they think the Xerox(tm) machine is a deeper mistery.)

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  169. Jeb Bush's checklist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Rigged electronic voting machines? Check.
    - Restore voting rights to grateful felons? Check.
    - Mass citizenship for right-wing Cubans? Check.
    - Janet Rehnquists's phone number? Check.
    - Out-of-state alibi for election eve? Check.

    Yep, Florida has its shit together. Bring it on!

  170. Don't forget to vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can, at least trade one group of bad leaders for another. There must be a lot of embarrasment potential for pre elelctions in there.

    I would guess the Bin Laden/Saudi-Bush entries would cause a bit of a problem...Rumsfelds Iraqi bio-chem weapons sales to eradicate Iranians, etc.

    I think if they just said, 'Fsck off! We are above any more disclosure, peasants!' I would respect them more.

  171. Think I heard about that by smchris · · Score: 2, Funny

    Must have a hair trigger on that database. I hear that can blow enough sectors out of a cylinder to take down a domain at full gallop.

  172. No backups? by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this imply that they never backup their system because that would make it crash? And if they do make backups why not just hand over one of those?

    Of course the real answer is that they just don't want anyone to have that information.

  173. Why do we have to ask? by Hibernator · · Score: 1

    Why do we still have to make a request for government information in this digital age we live in? If it's not classified as secret, why isn't the information just always available on-line?

  174. Re:How is gzip a copying tool? by rick-o · · Score: 1

    gzip directory/* | //network/share/file.gz

    I don't even know where to begin telling you what's wrong with that.

  175. Re:Liberal censorship by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hard to say, over-rated IS an abused mod, I've seen it. Pretty shure I got hit once or twice myself.
    The problem isn't really whether he is over/underrated (currently 1,insightfull). It's the fact that under/over-rated don't get meta-modded.
    If a moderator honestly thinks a post deserves to be modded down, (s)he should have the guts to subject himself to meta-mod. Also over/under-rated should be fixed. There are, rare, valid reasons to use them, but with the no-metamod glitch they get abuse as political tools rather than honest moderating.

    Mycroft

    --
    https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  176. Add to this job description from DOJ site... by lordkimbot · · Score: 1

    'Knows not to press 'Complete database download' button...

    Job Title: Information Technology Specialist
    Announcement Number: 04-01-WV034
    Salary Range: $48,947 - $76,261 (GS 11/12)
    Vacancies: 3
    Occupation Code: 2210
    Promotion Potential: GS 12
    Opening Period: 06/17/2004 - 07/01/2004
    Duty Location: Clarksburg, WV
    Area of Consideration: All Sources

    Salary:
    GS 11: $48,947 - $63,629
    GS 12: $58,665 - $76,261 ....

    DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
    GS 11/12: Assists with the development, implementation and management of the CAU
    Information Technology (IT) security audit program to ensure that system, network
    and data users comply with the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)
    Security Policy. Performs pre-audit preparations by assisting with the design of
    IT system queries/test scenarios based on having thorough knowledge of the
    outcomes that would result from those queries/test scenarios when CJIS security
    policies and procedures are being complied with. During the audit, instructs
    agency personnel to execute the IT system queries/test scenarios or
    interrogatories prepared above to assess, evaluate and verify that CJIS system
    users and contributors IT systems' hardware, software, etc., are in compliance
    with CJIS security policies and procedures. Reviews CJIS system users and
    contributors IT systems' security contingency plans and disaster recovery
    procedures to identify additional actions/planning required for compliance with
    the CJIS Security Policy and/or industry standards and requirements. Conducts
    security policy risks assessments of CJIS system users and contributors, and
    compiles data for the Contract Administration Office's risk assessment that
    ensures continual certification and accreditation of all CJIS systems. Prepares
    post-audit recommendations for changes/improvements to CJIS system users and/or
    contributors IT practices, policies, and procedures when system queries/test
    scenarios demonstrate that the IT systems are not in compliance with the CJIS
    Security Policy.

    QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS:

    APPLICANTS MUST MEET THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS BY THE CLOSING DATE OF THIS
    ANNOUNCEMENT.

    GS 11: One year of Specialized Experience (as described below) equivalent to at
    least the GS-9 level or three full years of progressively higher level graduate
    education or Ph.D. or equivalent doctoral degree. Also, see Selective Placement
    Factor below.

    If attempting to qualify by substituting education in lieu of Specialized
    Experience, copies of college transcripts must be attached to the Basic
    Requirements Sheet. Education completed in foreign colleges or universities may
    be used to meet the above requirements provided you can show that the foreign
    education is comparable to that received in an accredited educational institution
    in the United States.

    Education used to qualify for this position must demonstrate a Major study in one
    of the following fields: computer science, information science, information
    systems management, mathematics, statistics, operations research, or engineering,
    or course work that required the development or adaptation of computer programs
    and systems and provided knowledge equivalent to a major in the computer field.

    GS 12: One year of Specialized Experience (as described below) equivalent to at
    least the GS-11 level. Education is not applicable at this level. Also, see
    Selective Placement Factor below.

    SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE:
    GS 11: Experience that demonstrated accomplishment of computer project
    assignments that required a range of knowledge of computer requirements and
    techniques. For example, assignments would show, on the basis of general design
    criteria provided, experience in developing modifications to parts of a system
    that required significant revisions in the logic or techniques used in the
    original development. Accomplishments, normally involve

    --
    sig mind freed
  177. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he's not wearing his tin foil hat

  178. Well, we could...Dress-up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "He's the Attorney General. The American people deserve better than this."

    OK, so he's a modern day J. Edgar Hoover.

  179. Its all about the election. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The truly telling part is that they say they will be able to release all the requested data AFTER THE ELECTION.

    But before then:

    1 - They can not release CURRENT data on FOREIGN influence peddling.

    2 - Pay no attention to the movie/documentary Fareinheight 9-11, which SHOWS EVIDENCE of the President of being BOUGHT by BILLIONS in Saudi Arabian dollars.

  180. New Memory by CTRamsden · · Score: 1

    They must be using write-only memory.

    You know, kinda like read-only memory; only different.

  181. Perhaps it is on very old media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article does not go into how old the information is, but if the information is on very old, brittle tapes or some other type of dilapidated media, then simply reading from that media might cause physical damage, in the same way that turning the pages of a very old book might cause the page to crumble to pieces.

    1. Re:Perhaps it is on very old media? by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      The article does not go into how old the information is, but if the information is on very old, brittle tapes or some other type of dilapidated media, then simply reading from that media might cause physical damage, in the same way that turning the pages of a very old book might cause the page to crumble to pieces.

      Then article does mention (did I mention I'm the same orthogonal who submitted the article?) that the older information is available in hard copy; the data they won't release is the most recently entered data.

      So they can enter the data, they just can't extract it or copy it.

      Suuure.

      I'd love to see the design of that database. Was the database file created on /dev/null?

    2. Re:Perhaps it is on very old media? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      Was the database file created on /dev/null?
      Of course not. The DoJ can afford real WOM, they don't need the emulation.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  182. What if... by crem_d_genes · · Score: 1

    It really was some security script they used that they don't want to tell us about that really could start wiping the database if a request ever came to dump all. In that case an earlier post that said smaller requests should be made and that would be the solution.

  183. Hey, stop being so condescending by mcc · · Score: 1

    The Justice Department's IT division has been one of the great success stories of WOM technology.

  184. If FOIA requests were court cases by defile · · Score: 1

    The DOJ's response would be grounds for filing a motion for contempt of court.

    "We're in the middle of a system upgrade, wait until December -- the election should be over by then."

  185. why don't we help them migrate then ? by corporatewhore · · Score: 1

    well ?
    and make a spare copy while we are at it ?

    --

    you think it's easy, but you're wrong...

  186. Re:How is gzip a copying tool? by zoloto · · Score: 1

    probably a lot, considering I don't use it.
    Then again, someone refreshing my memory would help.

  187. Re:Well, we could... Dude. Read between the liens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from Dictionary.com
    lien

    The right to take and hold or sell the property of a debtor as security or payment for a debt...

    Best regards,
    "Foreign Lobbyists"

  188. Re:Ahhh... - OMG! by nfsilkey · · Score: 1

    Maybe that explains why nothing ever changes in the bureaucracy that is our government: Everyone in IT is too scared to migrate off of the antequated and obfuscated LISP and COBOL which keeps everything running. When you work for the state, time and technology move along at _very_ different paces.

  189. This was the best part.... by Danse · · Score: 1

    "The government said an overhaul of the system should be finished by December and copies should be available then."

    Umm.. if ya'll can wait til after the election, we can give you all the info you want :)

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  190. Don't read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything in Dean's book could very well be true or it could be compleat fiction. Save doing all the research yourself you don't know.

    Actually DO read it so you know where he stands and how he thinks. If you agree with him then vote for the guy. Vote with knowladge.

    But in that for goddess sake DO NOT take anything the guy says for the gospel truth.
    Don't take anything Bush says as the truth.

    Yeah it gose for Ashcroft but I don't think anybody needs to be told that now....

    1. Re:Don't read it by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not Howard Dean; read John Dean's book. Former counsel to Richard Nixon. The book is Worse than Watergate.

  191. You are all mass murderers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As you read this, you are likely to have a trillion bacteria feasting on your dead skin. If you shower or bathe, especially if you use soap, you'll kill several billion of them. Each of these bacteria are ALIVE!

  192. Lincoln's Illegal War by Morthaur · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Lincoln's act was equally indefensible. The Civil War was completely unconstitutional and, contrary to high school history myth, was _not_ fought to defeat slavery. No provision of the Constitution bars states from leaving a union that they freely entered into, and the express implications (from the Founders' writings) would indicate that the opposite was true--that the individual states would always retain this privilege.

    As for Lincoln, he knew that he lacked the authority to abolish slavery, and he never did so. Have you read the Emancipation proclamation? It did _not_ free the slaves and was intended only as a temporary economic punishment for the rebellious states. Note that the three slave states that remained in the Union did not lose their slaves until the passage of the 13th amendment.

    Besides, even had Lincoln wished to carry on with an illegal war against American citizens*, he could just as easily have re-located the capital to New York (where it was initially) and let Maryland secede; suspending the Constitution to 'save' it sounds like fragile and specious reasoning to this historian.

    * Note that, as the Confederate States were never recognised as an independent nation, the United States Army was utilised in a 'war' against American citizens, in flagrant violation of the Constitution. Lincoln was indeed a great man in many respects, but his actions shredded the Constitution and completely re-fashioned the executive branch and its purview.

    --

    +++++++
    "Look, dear, it's a crazy hairy scary man!"
    1. Re:Lincoln's Illegal War by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      The South fired first, on Fort Sumter. That was the only excuse Lincoln needed for a legal war.

      What do you mean "suspending the Constitution"? Lincoln (in my opinion wrongly) suspended habeus corpus, but that is explicitly permitted by the Constitution.

      Lincoln did some good (opposing slavery and keeping the union together) but the bad he did along the way has also caused a lot of damage.

      Most irritating is the almost religious reverence many people have for Lincoln, particularly residents of Illinois.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Lincoln's Illegal War by Morthaur · · Score: 1

      Being fired upon by US citizens is not grounds for war under any legal definition. The Constitution is quite explicit in defining wars, and this was not one. It would be considered a police action or some sort. Was the government's raid on the Waco compound a 'war'? This would fit the same definition; the Confederates would be considered a militia comprised of US citizens, not the army of a rival government. For that to have been the case, the US would have needed to recognise their government, and Congress would have needed to declare war.

      As for the suspension of habeas corpus being legal under the Constitution, you are partially correct. It can be suspended, but only by Congress, not be executive fiat. This is what I mean when I say that Lincoln cast aside Constitutional limits on executive power, effectively shredding the document. His actions have provided the foundation for every executive abuse that followed. Very little of the president's current authority is actually invested in him by the Constitution; the presidency is, supposedly, a weak office with few direct powers.

      Allow me to give you a common example. How often do people refer to the president as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces? Did you know that FDR was the last such Commander? According to the Contitution, that power is contingent upon a declaration of war by the Congress; it is not a part of the normal job responsibilities of the presidency. The president does not have the authority to utilise the US armed forces in time of peace, hence Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, etc., were illegal wars.

      --

      +++++++
      "Look, dear, it's a crazy hairy scary man!"
    3. Re:Lincoln's Illegal War by pudge · · Score: 1

      Being fired upon by US citizens is not grounds for war under any legal definition

      The problem is that wars are fought when laws fail. The American Revolution was "illegal" too. BFD. It doesn't really matter how it began or if it was legal when both sides are fighting each other, especially since the South was illegally seceding and fired the first shot. I agree that it was unfortunate, but both sides violated the law and came to it. To say the North violated the law is ridiculous.

      This is what I mean when I say that Lincoln cast aside Constitutional limits on executive power, effectively shredding the document.

      Your hyperbole weakens your argument. He does one thing you think is wrong and it shreds the whole document? FDR did more to damage the Constitution, setting it aside regularly, than any other President in history. BFD.

      Very little of the president's current authority is actually invested in him by the Constitution; the presidency is, supposedly, a weak office with few direct powers.

      Yes. I wish it would return to such.

      How often do people refer to the president as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces?

      I do all the time.

      Did you know that FDR was the last such Commander?

      If you mean the last one referred to often as such, you're wrong. If you mean the last one who officially had that title, you're wrong. I am not sure what you mean. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." That's a position he holds, period.

      According to the Contitution, that power is contingent upon a declaration of war by the Congress

      No, it's not. Perhaps you are confused with the clause "when called into the actual Service of the United States"? This modifies the circumstances in which he is the Commander in Chief "of the Militia of the several States," not of the Army and Naby of the United States.

      it is not a part of the normal job responsibilities of the presidency

      Yes, it is. You're just wrong. Now, it is debatable whether he can send the armed forces into action in his role as Commander in Chief, without the consent of Congress, but he has that role, that set of responsibilities, with or without such actions. It's like saying the VP is the President of the Senate, having all the powers that implies, even when not actually presiding over the Senate at the time.

      The president does not have the authority to utilise the US armed forces in time of peace, hence Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, etc., were illegal wars.

      Nothing in the Constitution requires a formal declaration of war for the use of the armed forces. Even if you believe Congress must approve the use of the armed forces -- which courts consistently find to be not the case -- there's no requirement for war to be declared. Congress approved the use of force in Iraq, so it was therefore legal. Sorry, you're just wrong.

  193. Are they backing up their data? by jridley · · Score: 1

    This implies that they are not backing up the database. If they are, then just hand over a backup. How can handing a tape to someone cause the backed up system to crash?

    Or maybe it's not the software that is the "system" that they are saying will "crash." Maybe it's their system of keeping secrets that will crash. (paranoid enough for ya?)

  194. Best Part by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

    While I lament you spell-check woes I you missed the best part of this troll's post.

    No, then we'd have government run by professional bureaucrats who are all appointed, and completely unanswerable to the voters.

    I'm not sure how this would work. If you continue to always have every office filled by someone who had never been there before, IE always voteing the incumbents out, then how would you end up with a "government run by professional bureaucrats?"

    There is another reply to your orignal post that goes along these same lines as if voteing against incumbents will leave our goverment in chaos. And while I will acknowladge that to a point it is not a great idea to fill up our "leadership", my there is a laugh unto itself, positions with a bunch of noobs the bottom line that I think your driveing at is that you don't reward incompetence and/or not acknowledge accountability.

    It takes a blind man, or a brainwashed one by the media who sadly are very skilled at that trade right now, to see that the system is broken. I have to fight the urge every day to become like you, someone who writes letters only to see them dismissed because I'm just some pleeb. Somehow if I don't become too much a part of the system I can hate it more efficently. But the sad truth is that unless I try and do something nothing will change at all and that will not work either. Ok, I've ranted enough and now I need a drink.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  195. Look at the bright side by Anonynus+Covvard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now there's an established precedent for other large databases to be non-discloseable, i.e.
    "No, Mr. Ashcroft, I can't give you {my list of '2600' subscribers} / {my ISP customers' DHCP logs} / {my library-card-holders' book-borrowing history}
    because it would crash my database." ;-)

    As for the responder who said od Ashcroft, "but I've had it with this guy": how can anything like this really surprise you by now? It's an anti-populace [sic] mentality that starts at the top and pervades throughout this President's administration. To paraphrase , "It's turd-els, all the way down." They no longer have even the decency to feign shame or embarassment at the lameness and transparency of their evasions. ("We don't need no stinkin' justifications!")

    Another responder said, "the FOIA requestor isn't entitled to request the entire DB backup".
    Errmmm, why not? How is that different from having the right to request all the separate entries individually? It's a DB of FOREIGN LOBBYISTS, for pete's sake -- what could be in it that we shouldn't be allowed to see?

    A suggestion for the original FOIA requestors: change the form of your request. IANAL, but I know of nothing in the FOI Act which bars requests for info which didn't exist until the day *after* the request is made. "OK, Mr Ashcroft, let's do this instead. Surely your people must be using this DB for something, right? OK, my request is, for the next week, whenever your people update or access the DB, I'd like a hard-copy. A screen-print will be fine, thank you. I'll even loan you a camera to capture the screen image. And btw, I'll be back each week with an identical request, until your DB is 'stable'."

  196. To paraphrase Dick Cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Message to John Ashcroft: Go fuck yourself.

  197. The timing of the eventual release is .... by innerweb · · Score: 1
    ... fascinating. When do we vote? November? Release in December? Even if this really is nothing more than a tech issue, after everything else they (the current junta) has lied about, covered up or smugly deceived us with, this to is rather suspect.

    InnerWeb

    --
    Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
  198. WOW by RobFrontier · · Score: 1

    That is just absolutely dumbfounding. I hope my fellow americans take into account that voting for Bush or Kerry won't help. Find an alternative you can live with.

    1. Re:WOW by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wrong. Even if you think both Bush and Kerry are gutter trash and the Dems and Republicans are useless, if you endorse a more liberal party (the Green Party, say), it is to your interest to see the Demms win. The Demms leech votes away from the other, more liberal parties because their margins of winning are slim, and folks would rather see a Democrat in office than a Republican. The only way that more liberal parties will *get* votes is for the Demms to get a significant majority, and then for those voters to slip away to the more liberal parties. These votes are *not* going to go directly from Republican to Green.

      If Demms get twice the number of votes that the Republicans do, then it's likely that Green or others might get a significant number of votes. Anyone who chooses to keep the Demms from winning by a significant margin is simply postponing the day that other parties can become serious contenders.

      Splitting voters is one of the most effective ways to gain a majority. What you are doing is one of the most useful tactics that a Republican would want to take to ensure that Bush wins the election.

    2. Re:WOW by RobFrontier · · Score: 1

      You're assuming I would vote for a more liberal party. I have no intention of voting for anyone remotely liberal. I don't care if the Democrans split votes and the Republicrats win, because it makes absolutely no difference. The differences between the two are so miniscule they don't matter.

  199. Interesting by agentpi · · Score: 1

    I guess they discovered a new "feature' to Windows. It is possible however that the information they are speaking of is not completely under their control, but perhaps under the control of another party against the release of the requested information. But I think it is more logical that the government has a special build of windows that destroys everything if anything is copied. This is not a bug, its a feature!

  200. The DoJ probably found huge amounts of old core by TahitiNut · · Score: 1

    ... memory and had to rewire it, using cheap PRC labor with suitable profits for crony middlemen. (It fills a couple of old blimp hangers near a hydroeletric dam and has the side benefit of warming a few swimming pools.)

    But they forgot about the write-after-read circuits.

    Ooops!

  201. Annointing oil by bmasel · · Score: 1

    If he read Hebrew, he'd understand that Old Testament annointing oil is Kaneh Bosim, or hempseed oil.

    --
    Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
  202. Re:Modding review by libcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You accuse liberals of not arguing, yet you site not a single fact. And you don't even come close to the topic. The topic was the DoJ not releasing information. The conversation turned to Bush because so far he has fought the FOIA many times to hide things from us, the reasons are up to you. What you said is unnecessary, and close to libel. Hence I think it was fair that you recieved that rating. (btw. party affiliation, and "sexual skeletons" do not go hand in hand)

    --
    RIAA and the MPAA, putting the "F U" in "fair use".
  203. Data available via ANALOG? by rm3friskerFTN · · Score: 4, Informative
    From the AP article in question one finds a DOJ link that was most interesting:
    Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA) Counterespionage Section [these are the people who evidently maintain the database in question]

    The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit administers the FARA and maintains a public office to make all registration materials available to the public. In addition, it administers and/or provides advice for certain other statutes related to either matters requiring registration with or notification to the Attorney General.

    Public information (ANALOG only cause they use Sperry-Univacs rather than FAA vacuum tube computers - feel safer?) relating to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) can be obtained in person at the FARA Registration Unit Public Office located at:

    Department of Justice Registration Unit 1400 New York Avenue, N.W. 1st Floor - Public Office Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20005

    Researching Hours: 11 AM - 3 PM Mon. - Fri.
    Filing Hours: 8:30 AM - 5 PM Mon. - Fri.

    Having worked at NASA JPL many years ago, I sympathize with the task of trying to move data between Sperry-Univac 1100 written tapes, onto a PR1ME 850 and thence to a NEC 8088-ish PC (ms-dos 3?) with a 5-in floppy AFTER failing with the OCR equipment
    --

    I believe Juanita

  204. Re:Ahhh... - OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe the FIFA was really just intended for the commoners to feel like they are informed, while in reality it was never intended for US to use.

  205. awww, come on, you've seen it in the movies by dekeji · · Score: 2, Funny

    The hero or villain (as the case may be) pulls too much data out of the computer system too fast and soon sparks fly and the whole thing goes up in smoke. This kind of "system overload" is going to be a real problem with computers 10-20 years down the line, as Hollywood has shown us. The computers at the DOJ are just a little ahead of their time.

  206. I think they're telling the truth. by Effugas · · Score: 1

    Seriously.

    If they try to extract the named data, the database will crash. Of this I have no doubt. Why? Hehe.

    It's not a bug. It's a feature.

    --Dan

  207. ashamed by humankind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm utterly ashamed that I am from a country that would so blatantly lie to their people like this. It's totally insulting to the intelligence of anyone who's evolved beyond a single-celled creature. Then again, this is a sad, poigniant testimonial to how ignorant and apathetic Americans have become. It's really a shame that people aren't outraged that their government would act so despicable.

  208. In lieu of the databases being held back by humankind · · Score: 1

    You can probably get a glimpse as to what they reveal by going to see Michael Moore's movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11" which documents a number of Bush's funding sources and lobbyist friends, not the least of which is the entire Bin Laden family. No doubt this BS the DoJ is feeding people is designed to hide that fact, but Moore's film exposes it. Go see the movie and tell your friends to go see it - it's obvious FOI will be useless while Bush is in office, and Moore's movie also documents changes in FOI policy that have begun to be implemented to further hide Bush's ties to foreign lobbyists. Even if you don't like Moore, you can't deny the evidence that is overwhelming in this movie that the mainstream media is conveniently ignoring.

    1. Re:In lieu of the databases being held back by Zigg · · Score: 1

      It's overwhelming, allright, but if it's by Moore,

  209. You don't know why? by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    Because the government (is supposed to, anyhow) takes the request, pulls any and every document that matches the criteria in the search, then goes through those documents

    Some get marked "classified" instantly. Some of the classified stuff may actually get downgraded (because of age or lack of relevance in the current time period). Some formerly public stuff (that at one time was classified, then made public later) has actually been made classified again. In some cases, this was wholly successful (and we will never know what cases those were), all public copies having been retrieved or destroyed. In other cases, the public has won (or been sceded to) - such as the case of the Economist and the H-Bomb plans...

    Those papers that are allowed through, then have to be copied, read, blacked out (ie, redaction), then copied again. Most of the stuff isn't even on computer - it is still large warehouses of paper and tons of copy machines.

    One huge, ancient, creaky and wasteful system - just like every other part of our lovely government...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  210. Here's what they won't tell you by humankind · · Score: 1

    If you want to get an idea of what information they have in their database, go see Michael Moore's movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11" - it details a lot of the information that these FOI requests would likely provide, and he documents some interesting cases of censorship specifically designed to hide Bush's dealings with lots of Arab benefactors.

  211. What would SSN flat sound like? Maybe SSM#? by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 2, Funny

    A flat SSN does not make sounds. In the way of becoming flat though because of the pressure exerted by water at these depths, a submarine makes sounds.

    I guess like a coke can, just lasting longer.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  212. I can! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Now, would you please help me explain it to the apathetic morons who make up the majority of the American public?

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  213. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
    See, because in my experience, most Slashdot visitors seem to be libertarians who probably vote Republican.
    I agree; I for one am a libertarian, and I'll be voting for a republican congressman (John Linder - gotta love the national sales tax), although I would modify that statement a bit:

    "See, because in my experience, most Slashdot visitors seem to be libertarians who probably vote Republican except when Republicans threaten their civil liberties"

    It sucks that I'm going to have to vote for Kerry, but I'd vote for Micky Mouse* if I thought he could beat Bush

    *that'd be close, though, since I hate Disney (for copyright extensions) too
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  214. US Troops. by torpor · · Score: 1

    Yeah. Um.. Those responsible for the abuses aren't U.S. Troops.

    They're independent, private contractors.

    So, technically, The Solicitor General wasn't telling a lie. Welcome to politics, where your aversion and misunderstanding of doublespeak is something you'll have to check at the door, but only if you're a Citizen.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:US Troops. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what you get when you privatize things. You end up paying and never know what you get or if what you paid for is worth it.

    2. Re:US Troops. by greenrd · · Score: 1
      That's bullshit. What are the media you listen to / watch just a bunch of liars or what? US troops are definitely implicated. In fact, the DoD and the President authorised a policy of breaking the law and abusing "suspected terrorists", which was then applied in Iraq to detainees (including minors and females) who weren't even suspected of terrorism. Read Seymour Hersch's work on this.

    3. Re:US Troops. by torpor · · Score: 1

      hey, i'm not saying i agree with the situation, just that - by using private, independent contractors - the current U.S. Administration is exploiting a loophole in the Geneva convention that lets them ... essentially ... do whatever they want.

      They've already proven willing to do this. This is one of the most law-unabiding group of criminals ever to have wrenched power from the State, and they're doing it freely and willingly.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    4. Re:US Troops. by freqres · · Score: 1

      If only we were more humane and only sawwed their heads off with a scimitar instead. Maybe then people of the world wouldn't be so upset with us.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    5. Re:US Troops. by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Private England never served in the US military. Those responsible are not going to receive courts martial or anything like that.

      Jesus man, use your brain.

    6. Re:US Troops. by torpor · · Score: 1

      dude, chill. i think that -all- military are criminals, not just the sub-contracted, non-responsible kind.

      and yes, before you meatheads go on with your 'security rules' bullshit, its bullshit. give me peace over warfare any day, and yes: peace is far cheaper than war.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    7. Re:US Troops. by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      All the pictures I've seen have included active duty US military personel. They may have been acting at the behest of some contractor, but there were most definately US troops involved, and they are now facing court marshall.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    8. Re:US Troops. by greenrd · · Score: 1
      What exactly is your point? Because some fringe extremist terrorists cut people's heads off, that gives us license to torture and humiliate Iraqis, or something??

      I truly don't understand what you're trying to imply there.

  215. So how is it maintained? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    So how is the database backed up?

    However, from the phrasing it sounds like data loss would be permanent and irreversible. I think that answers my question.

    This brings new meaning to "working within the system". I foresee a flurry of unusual requests from the public to assorted government agencies.

  216. Re:Ashcroft is a Nazi by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    The difference is that he made it part of a public ceremony.

    What it says to me is "I'm entering power as a representative of Pentacostal Christianity," rather than "I'm entering power as a representative of all citizens of the United States"

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  217. With apologies to Futurama ... by RPoet · · Score: 2, Funny

    Said Ashcroft, "I don't pretend to understand Ashcroft's Law, I merely enforce it."

    --
    "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  218. Re:Liberal censorship by feargal · · Score: 1

    Usually I use the over-rated option where I'd really like to use an Incorrect option.
    The over/under-rated options are there to correct bad moderation as it happens, the meta-moderation to correct for the future.
    I never realised moderations of over/under-rated were not meta-moderated.

    --
    "A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
  219. In the 3rd Reich by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Germans voted for Hitler, reluctantly.

  220. No, Bush Administration == Bad by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    Of course, it's more convenient to only point fingers at those whose politics you disagree with.

    Almost as convenient as making unfounded and incorrect claims to defend your favorite politician.

    Read some discussion on the differences beween the Ashcroft and Reno DoJ and come back and tell me that the Bush administration smells as sweet as the Clinton administration.

  221. Re:Liberal censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also over/under-rated should be fixed. There are, rare, valid reasons to use them

    Rare? What about the common case where someone is modded Informative but their post is heavily flawed and liable to mislead? They aren't trolling, it's not flamebait, the post isn't offtopic... it's just wrong. What's a moderator to do?

  222. outsourced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DOJ outsourced this DB architecture
    in the early 1990's to a then little
    known foreign company, al something,
    run by a nice looking guy, named Ben,
    in a small middle eastern country and
    the price was really cheap. The DOJ was
    so happy to have saved so much money
    for the taxpayers. Only one problem with
    the finished work was that they
    forgot to include a routine for
    making backups.

  223. Re:Liberal censorship by greenrd · · Score: 2, Informative
    Since plagiarising that Spidey 2 review you've lost all credibility in my book.

  224. This proves my point. by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

    If God says 'before I formed you in the womb' this contradicts, rather than supports, the notion that life begins at conception. Emphasis on "before." Of course, guys can do what they want. It's not until the problem becomes a woman's problem that people actually want someone to be responsible for their actions.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  225. Simpler Solution by jaghatarjankare · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should tell John Ashcroft about open source database and copying solutions?

    And he'd listen?

    Just do your job and vote the summabitches out of office and the world will thank you.

    It's been a long four years and the planet can't survive four more and neither can you.

  226. Re:Wow! Such insight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the left has fallen apart in this country because the right succeeded in making minimum wage heartland American's in trailer parks believe that the left enjoys killing babies, loves to make baby Jesus cry, spends their enourmous taxes on pornographic art while painting the right as the moral authority in Gods Own Country.

  227. Re:Ahhh... - OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, its pretty damned hard to obfusticate COBOL that is one of the languages strongest points its so verbose that it almost has to say sane. COBOL is very wordy so if you want to write something more complex then it has to be you make it sound really stupid to read you code. COBOL is very good for some applications. Most of business transactions are handled best with simple control-break processing, COBOL excels at that, its also not half bad to read and write form a database back-end in COBOL. I assure you that its possible to write an accounts payable package with COBOL more quickly and with fewer bugs then you could with C, C++, Java, C# or anything else. Its also a lot quick to gain an understanding of most COBOL applicaitons then it is to really learn someone elses C app in an out, that is big important when the lead developer winds up in the ER and you have to maintain it all of a sudden.

  228. Re:Liberal censorship by swv3752 · · Score: 1

    They are, but seldom, and one has no contextfor the moderation so most meta mods don't do anything about it. I personally tend to rate any negative mod unfair just for that reason.

    --
    Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
  229. It's happened before, it'll happen again by ianscot · · Score: 1
    he literally has himself annointed with oil,

    And when taking office as Attorney General, he called on Clarence Thomas to do the anointing. These are truly inspirational times for secular rule in America.

    Or how about those songs? The "Let the Eagle Soar" thing that shows up in the previews for the Michael Moore movie is just the tip of the iceberg. This guy writes his own patriotic songs, which he wants his staff to join him in singing for inspiration at morning meetings. You've seen Tony Robbins on the infomercials and attended mandatory High School "Pep Fests," but the Attorney General of the United States outdoes them both in grotesquely bizarre "true believer" motivational techniques.

    But what would our Attorneys General be without the Republican party? Don't forget your former KKK member who held the office: Ed Meese. Reagan was feeling especially "optimistic" the day he appointed Meese to uphold our nation's laws. It's a rich vein of history, that trail of Christian Right-appeasing Attorneys General...

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  230. I am disgusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aschcroft needs to go - he couldn't even beat a dead guy for re-election.

    Anybody who has anything to do with these computers and keeping of these records should be fired on the spot. How can our information that we payed for can be kept on such an unreliable system.

    Oh but wait in december it will be better. what a joke - does this adminstration think we are all two years old and can't see through their lies.

    everyone should vote every incumbant out of office in november - get the fricken corporations out of washington.

    lets all re-defeat bush again in november. or wait maybe if we vote him in then he won't be reelected - I am so confused - these elections used to be so easy.

  231. While we're OT... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

    I always liked Deuternomy 25:11-12 myself. :->

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  232. Beautifull.... by FatSean · · Score: 1

    ...

    But the reaction I always get when I use that line of argument is: "But that feeet-hus could be the next Einstein!"

    --
    Blar.
  233. Nitpicking by MoebiusStreet · · Score: 2, Informative
    He refused to open gun records of suspected terrorists for fear of pissing off his buddies in the NRA.

    In this action, he was following the law. Releasing the data would be in violation of the legislation that created the NICS system.

  234. Re:Ahhh... - OMG! by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
    Good grief. I NEVER work on a live database. We ALWAYS work from backups no matter what we're doing with them.

    Good grief! NEVER work on your backups. What if something happens to the live database? You should have a clean backup you know hasn't been messed with. Oh, but you never work on your live database.

    So your live database is actually a clean backup to your backup which is live since that's where you do all your work. I just hope when you backup/export you go from the backup to the live, rather than from the live to backup which would over write the work you've done on the backup.

    But I hope we can all agree this is a load of B.S. If the excuse given by the DoJ isn't true, those responsible should be locked up for breaking the law. If the excuse is true, someone should be locked up for incompetence of an extreme degree.

    If you're a USian, one more reason to register and vote.

  235. Perhaps not as bad as it sounds. by jasenj1 · · Score: 1

    Here is the actual letter "denying" the request. The relevant bits are, IMHO:
    "ITM advises that the current application was not designed for mass export of all stored images, and thus, the information is not readily available in the format requested." (emphasis added)

    So it is not as simple as copying the database, but exporting a large number - thousands? millions? - of image records out of the DB into some format the requester asked for.

    Also, "this is a new feature request which would be costly and take a considerable amount of time to implement."

    So the requesters asked for something in some format the DB is not designed to deliver. I couldn't find the original request. They may have asked for all the documents in TIFF format sorted by dollar amount contributed, or any other thing.

    So this is not a case of "we won't answer your question" but "what we have wasn't designed to answer your question the way you want it answered." By today's standards, the DB in question may be very lame, but that doesn't imply a conspiracy.

    - Jasen.

  236. God's Will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget to mention that we're doing God's will; just like the radical muslims.

  237. Naked Justice by Rupert · · Score: 1

    I have mixed feelings about that one. Certainly, Ashcroft is a boob, but if it was a female AG covering up the statue because it "degraded women", you know Rush, Sean et al would be all over it and we'd be trying to defend the action.

    --

    --
    E_NOSIG
  238. Re:Wow! Such insight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Nice touch, devoid of any intellectual point.
    Much like anything you post. And by the way, quit trying to deny that you're a troll--it's obvious to everyone with half a brain--especially when you troll the front page of Slashdot.

    Now go back into your troll hidey-hole, dipshit.
  239. Re: Your .sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Which currently says:
    I routinely get modded "Overrated" for voicing an opposing opinion ...
    No, you get modded as "Overrated" because most of what you post is overrated crap. Get over yourself.
  240. Re:Liberal censorship by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

    Sure there is a use for overrated. Factually wrong information.
    Often, I have found posts with outright lies (I'm not talking opinions, I'm talking idiots spouting technobabble) that has been modded as Informative. Often, they're refuted clearly in later posts, but they obviously do not deserve a +5. Yet, I can't in good faith hit the with "Troll" or "Flamebait". So, overrated. Until the good folks at Slashdot see fit to include a (badly needed, in my opinion) -1, Wrong.

  241. Re:Liberal censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And guess what! Because posts are given to more than one metamoderator, if you're in the minority with your 'unfair' you get to lose karma! Isn't that nice?

    It would be nice to be able to metamod your conscience, but it'll cost you and it won't affect anything if you're in the minority.

  242. Re:Liberal censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

    Love,
    bonch (aka Overly Critical Guy)

  243. Crash of What System? by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a hard time imagining some database queries consistently causing a computer system to crash while other queries do not.

    What sounds much more likely is that the concern is not about computer systems crashing, but that other non-computer "systems" might "crash" as a consequence of disclosure.

    For example, a system in which foreign influence is peddled to affect U. S. government policy.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  244. (OT) Sig... by rbird76 · · Score: 1

    if so, I guess that means that a foreign terrorist leader and an insane dictator care more about the future of the US than our President does; considering the last four years, that sounds about right.

    P.S. I'm sure a lot of people would like to know how you talked to these two. One is in hiding/dead for three years, while the other is in a country even more closed than Asscroft's mind. How did you get on their mailing lists?

  245. Backslash and Full Stop? by lcsjk · · Score: 1
    Obviously, you still think // are backslashes. You ain't been around long have you? They lean forward; that's why they are called forward slashes.

    See http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/backslash.h tml

    You instructed your novice to press "full stop" Are you using one of those new automobile keyboards? (If it still says "h tml", I did not do it!)

  246. the problem isn't that Ashcroft believes.... by rbird76 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it's that he thinks everyone else should have to, as well.

    Religious beliefs are a part of what makes someone who they are. The problem with Ashcroft is that he has decided that people sould believe what he wants, and that others should be shown the errors of their ways. While cloaking the statue of Justice at the DOJ (an eerily symbolic act), he has been extraordinarily resistant to furnishing information to the public (a precondition for democracy) while being selective with his targets in the "war on terror": porn is a good target, while people who send anthrax are not, a position seemingly inconsistent with a stance taken for "public security". His "phantoms of lost liberty" comment was priceless, too - while Ashcroft claims to preserve freedom, he attempts to censure its exercise as being un-American.

    Ashcroft acts as a man who believes his power does not come from people, but in spite of them; such people are dangerous, regardless of their religious beliefs. The country exists to respect the rights of its people, one of the most fundamental of which is religious freedom. His actions are in opposition to the freedoms that allow people such as he to believe what they do and to exist as believing people.

    In addition, Ashcroft acts inconsistently with what he claims to believe. If God had wanted to force people to believe in Him, He could have - after all He makes the rules. God wanted people to choose freely to follow Him - a message repeated over and over in the Bible. Forcing people to believe and behave how Ashcroft believes they should contradicts this - it ultimately reinstates the falsity of the Pharisees who Jesus criticized so long ago, and might not even work anyway (because forcing actions disconnects souls from acts, and thus means that people won't know where they stand with God anyway).

    So, his religious beliefs are not a problem in themselves - his insistence and his willingness to suborn democracy to make his beliefs real are.

  247. Forward Slashes? by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    Or you could call the forward slashes "virgules." Not only will they not make the mistake, but they'll likely have no idea what you're talking about and will stop talking to you. :)

    The Air Force documentation around here often refers to them as virgules and it generally confuses people at first.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  248. Low or High Tech by aoptik · · Score: 1

    I really never heard not being able to copy data. If the High tech method of copy does not work why don't they just copy it into a other mainframe physically .. more expensive .. and time consuming but i bet it would work ? Opps i said more expensive .. it will never happen never mind cheap B*st*rds I bet there are many other methods available to copy the data ... O well

  249. Prescott Bush, the record to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Center for Public Integrity sought information about lobbying
    activities available under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act,
    a 1938 law passed in response to German propaganda before World
    War II. Database records describe details of meetings among foreign
    lobbyists, the administration and Congress, and payments by foreign
    governments and some overseas groups for political advertisements and
    other campaigns."
    ...

    "The government said an overhaul of the system should be finished by
    December"
    after the election.

    Among whom is Prescott Bush, Senator, father of GHW Bush and grandfather
    of G W Bush

    http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
    George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography --- by Webster G. Tarpley &
    Anton Chaitkin

    Chapter - II - The Hitler Project
    Bush Property Seized--Trading with the Enemy

    In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was
    preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott
    Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old
    son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to
    become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered
    the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which
    were being conducted by Prescott Bush.

    Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over
    the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The
    U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock
    shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland ``
    Bunny '' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates
    of Bush.@s1

    The order seizing the bank `` vests '' (seizes) `` all of the
    capital stock of Union Banking Corporation, a New York corporation,
    '' and names the holders of its shares as:
    [ see the webpage for list ]
    `` all of which shares are held for the benefit of ... members of the
    Thyssen family, [and] is property of nationals ... of a designated
    enemy country.... ''

    By Oct. 26, 1942, U.S. troops were under way for North Africa. On
    Oct. 28, the government issued orders seizing two Nazi front
    organizations run by the Bush-Harriman bank: the Holland-American
    Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation.@s2

    U.S. forces landed under fire near Algiers on Nov. 8, 1942;
    heavy combat raged throughout November. Nazi interests in the
    Silesian-American Corporation, long managed by Prescott Bush and his
    father-in-law George Herbert Walker, were seized under the Trading
    with the Enemy Act on Nov. 17, 1942. In this action, the government
    announced that it was seizing only the Nazi interests, leaving the
    Nazis' U.S. partners to carry on the business.@s3

    These and other actions taken by the U.S. government in wartime were,
    tragically, too little and too late. President Bush's family had
    already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler
    for his takeover of Germany; in financing and managing the buildup
    of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against
    the U.S.A.; and in the development of Nazi genocide theories and
    racial propaganda, with their well-known results.

    The facts presented here must be known, and their implications
    reflected upon, for a proper understanding of President George Herbert
    Walker Bush and of the danger to mankind that he represents. The
    President's family fortune was largely a result of the Hitler
    project. The powerful Anglo-American family associations, which
    later boosted him into the Central Intelligence Agency and up to
    the White House, were his father's partners in the Hitler project.

    President Franklin Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo
    T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing the property
    of Prescott Bush under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order,
    published in obscure government r

  250. Re:Liberal censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you have anything better to do, Disevidence?

  251. Re:"available in December" -- just after the elect by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    > To me, a rather damning part of the whole statement was that the data would be available in December -- basically, "You can have the data, but not if you plan to use it to investigate the candidates' integrity for this election".

    Like he said, he didn't want to break the system.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  252. Re:Liberal censorship by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

    hmm, yeah I guess rare was a bit overstatement, less common maybee.
    I have seriously seen so many false informative I suspect they became background noise and I just tuned out the obvious use for over-rated.
    Still it's used far more often for drive by modding, and since you can't meta mod it, it's a problem.

    Mycroft

    --
    https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  253. Re:Liberal censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you have anything better to do, bonchly Critical Guy? Why are you still here? Haven't you done enough to destroy any shred of what might have been your credibility by posting a front page troll?

    BTW, that wasn't Disevidence you stupid piece of shit. And neither is this. So go fuck yourself.

  254. Re:Liberal censorship by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

    Really, Your the first person I've ever heard claim over/under rated can be meta modded.
    I've never ever seen over/under rated in MM, and I usualy MM 4-5 times a week. at ten mods per mm that makes 40-50 a week, or about 250-300 times this year sofar. And that is just me, lots of other people say largely the same. I don't think it happens. Perhaps you missremember? or are relying on 2nd - 3rd hand info?
    As far as context, the current score of the post is obvious context. if a post is sitting about where it should be (in the meta mods opinion) the obviously it was higher or lower, thus the mod is likely reasonable. If however an on topic post that is not a troll or flaimbait is at -2 overrated then you can be pretty shure its wrongly modded overrated, or if a gnaa troll is at +5 underrated, then yeah that's probably wrong to.

    Mycroft

    --
    https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  255. This is why you can't trust the government! by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    And it's not because the government is evil, you can't trust them because they are screw ups!

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  256. Dishonesty and Irresponsibility by billstewart · · Score: 1
    It's normally good practice not to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but I think both are happening here (and besides, this _is_ the Ashcroft administration.)

    If their database truly risks crashing, self-destruction, and Bad Things happening by allowing the public to retrieve the public's data from it, then they're being totally irresponsible by not maintaining adequate backups. If the news articles are correct and this is running in some proprietary system on a Windows 95 machine, then all they need to do is back up the disk drive to another machine (if necessary by plugging the drive into another machine.) Then make a copy of that copy and go to work - that will give them a safe environment in which to extract data from their currently write-only database environment, because if it crashes, you re-ghost the test drive and try again.

    Furthermore, they can copy it to a newer machine that has a CD-ROM or DVD writer, and burn copies for the public at less than $0.50 for the entire database, as opposed to $0.50 per page of dead trees.
    They might argue that the data is in some proprietary database format and copying it would violate the license - but this is clearly Fair Use, if they need to make backups of the data and aren't able to do so without risking crashing the system.

    If the newspaper articles are incorrect and the database is on some antique mainframe-like thing, not a Win95 box, then they still need to extract a backup copy and make copies of the backup copy available for forensic analysis. If nothing else, running "strings" on the data would be a good start...

    Of course, that doesn't mean they can expect the copy to survive Slashdotting...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  257. Idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, poor guy.

    Yes he's poor like me; forced and coerced to pay taxes for services he is able-bodied to provide for himself.

    Having to pay taxes on the goods you buy to support the roads you use,

    Show me the appointment of CalTrans (a private corporation) or even the State of California (another private corporation, existing within a dejure state/California) to build roads.

    the police who protect you,

    A gun in your hand is better than a cop on the phone.

    the judges and district attorneys who fight for your rights against much more corruptable institutions than even government.

    They are not judges, but executive administrators. There haven't been any judges since the year 1789 when the condederacy was lost and these several Republic states had installed each a federated State. If the people were intent to preserve the Republic, while the false judges/executive administrators and their BAR esquires/militant attornies operated with lineage to the federation; a conflict of interest arises and they are against the people and vice versa.

  258. praise Jesus; praise God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KJV is also the only interpretation that puts all faith towards God.

    KJV is also one of the few that are Public Domain: sincere.

    KJV is also the one of the few that proves and continues the truth that all faith and devotion be towards God, while other interpretations put forth dreams and wicked incantations to parallel God and as well exalt things of mankind in repugnance to scripture given by God.

    KJV is the most stolen from version whereas the derivitave is copyrighted or patented. For example, the New International Version stole from King James Version (Authorized Version) and changed various meanings from Isaiah and Revelation to be repugnant as though Jesus would be cast into the pit of hell. NIV's terms of use also says you can't quote NIV scripture of certain size without their express written permition. Imagine that...a corporation owns a bible and says what you can and can't do with it.

    1. Re:praise Jesus; praise God by srleffler · · Score: 1
      Bah. The KJV is public domain because it is the oldest translation to English still in common use. It is based on much inferior scholarship than more modern translations and misrepresents the meaning of scripture in many places. I don't mean that as any slight on the translators: more is known about the original languages of the Bible today than was known a few hundred years ago. Progress.

      Personally, I like the New Revised Standard Version. It is very easy to understand, and great effort was made to make it true to the original texts.

  259. Ashcroft is pure unadultrated concentrated EVIL. by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
    Is John Ashcroft in contempt of the public?

    = 9J =

  260. Ketchup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A1 rather. After all, it's how steak (or fetus) is done.

  261. 2 words by WarMonkey · · Score: 0

    "flock bug"

    --
    -- I could tell right away that she was impressed with my HUGE Slashdot Karma.