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?"
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. --
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.
If you had read the whole article, you would have seen that paper records are 12 months out of date.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
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
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
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.
Infuriate left and right
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, ..."
A streaming video is worth a thousand words. Thank you, Daily Show!
Not Howard Dean; read John Dean's book. Former counsel to Richard Nixon. The book is Worse than Watergate.
I believe Juanita