This is why I leave my driver's license in the car.
If you aren't driving that particular car when pulled over, well, there is a grace period. If you are, there it is.
Granted, in theory, there are a few circumstances where this could result in them getting your ID, like if you were standing next to your car, or riding as a passenger in it.
OTOH, leaving it at home has exactly the same problem if that's where they decide to harrass you.
And if they do start harrassing you in a parking lot, you can always fail to volunteer where, exactly, your id is. Simply repeat 'I have a driver's license, but don't currently have it on me.' when they ask for ID. You don't need to mention it's in your car, right there, unless they decide to ask you to go get it if it's in your car.
Not that I'm entirely sure they can do that. I think we've already had cases that decided the police couldn't make you let them drive you home to get your license, and the difference between that and walking to your car is just a matter of degree. If your license is in your car, it is not on your person, and you don't have to produce it if it's not on your person.
And that only works if you ignore the fact it was authorizing military force.
And if you ignore the fact that he was authorized to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' , where 'appropriate' has always meant, legally, 'within the bounds of the law', vs. 'inappropriate', as in 'outside the bounds of the law'.(1) I see you dropped that word...coincidence, or malice?
The resolution authorized him to use the military in a way consistant with the military code of justice and the laws of the United States of America to do X. That's what 'appropriate' means, that's why it's there, the same way that 'necessary' is there to keep the force from being excessive.
The resolution did not authorize him to operate outside other laws. He must continue behave appropiately, i.e., in a legal manner.(2)
Oh, and you notice 'specific statutory authorization' there for '5(b) of the War Powers Resolution'?(3) Yes, that's right. When they authorize something that another laws says 'can be authorized', they write that down.
Notice the lack of them authorizing anything under FISA?
1) Actually, while appropriate behavior requires operating inside the law, it can additionally require operating inside a code of ethics or behavior. For example, various behaviors are inappropraite for lawyers to do, and they will be punished by the bar, but are not strictly 'illegal'. Likewise, it is also inappropriate to use your office at work for sex, even with your wife. It's not illegal, and it's possibly not against the rules, but it is inappropriate.
However, I am not aware of any professional ethical standards for the President, so the point is rather moot, unless he decided to make war on Afganistan by plastering naked pictures of himself all over the place, which would be rather inappropriate by normal standards. But, anyway, things cannot be illegal but appropriate.(4)
2) Of course, leaving out 'appropriate' would not allow him to break any law either. It's just a fail-safe.
2) That's the law saying the President can only use the military for a certain amount of time unless Congress: has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, has extended by law such sixty-day period, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.
3) Which is actually a fun catch-22. If he's been doing illegal things as part of the invasion in Afghanistan, then the resolution never applied to what he was doing with the troups, because illegal behavior is inappropriate...and he's been using the troups illegally in Apghanistan for almost four years. And that doesn't solve the problem of his original felonies under FISA!
You're exactly right about the framing. Here's the real one, framed like a school test:
1. When the president wiretaps suspected terrorists, should he:
a) have to go to the secret courts set up for this, within three days, and inform them of this fact, as the law requires,
b)be allowed secretly to break that law and have no one know who's he's decided to wiretap?
2. If you answered b to 1, what other laws should the president have the authority to break? (Explicitly state whether or not prejury is in there.)
3. If you listed any laws in 2, would the president have to follow a law limiting the laws he can break to those laws? Why or why not?
4. If you didn't list any laws in 2, why would he be able breaking FISA? Please explain.
5. If you answered a to 1, what should the president do when he needs to do something not allowed under law? Select all that apply.
a) Ask congress for a law.
b) Ask the american people to demand congress give him one.
c) Something else. Explain.
My answers:
1. a
5. a, b, and c. c: In extrodinary circumstances, I think it is okay for someone to openly break the law, and then throw himself onto the mercy of the jury deciding his fate.
The level of ignorance in this converstation is astonishing. It's like we've suddenly been hit with an influx of time travellers from December 2001.
Jose Padilla, you fucktard.
The Administration finally arrested him instead of getting slapped down by the Supreme Court. But they assert they have the right to do that to other Americans...and they're putting Alito on the bench so when they do end up there, they'll win.
And, FYI, when you go back, the Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2002, 2004, and 2005. I want a fifty/fifty split.
Yeah, I get confused by people saying 'We could end up in a police state.'
A police state is a state where the executive branch makes the laws, and enforces the laws (like they should), and judges guilt or innocence.
We've already had them claiming they can lock people up without going through the courts.
Now we have them arguing they do not have to follow the law. Today it's FISA they don't have to follow, tomorrow it's the law against murder. Summary executions, anyone?
If the executive do not have to demonstrate things to the court, and cannot be held in check by the legislative branch, that IS a police state, period. There's no 'maybe', there's no 'slippery slope', it is here and now. It is a state run by the police. It is a police state. That's what that means. It doesn't have to be a dictatorship, it doesn't have to be fascist, it just has to be operated solely by the executive branch of the government, with no checks for anywhere else.
And, no, the fact their power might be checked by the courts WRT to the detentions, and by Congress with impeachment, doesn't change the fact that, if what the Administration claims is true, this is ipso facto a police state.
If what they claim is not true, they are felons at the least. Pick one. Police state, or a government operated by criminals.
FISA, you dumbass, which makes spying on people without statutory authority a felony.
If you want to incorrectly argue that the authorization to invade Afganistan gave him statutory authority for whatever domestic spying he wanted, or some incorrect parsing of FISA that allows him to spy on Americans via FISA, whatever. You're just a GOP ass-polisher who doesn't know how to parse laws.
And if you want to argue that in war the president can do whatever he want, you're just a traitor to the Constitution. This War on Terror has no apparent end, and so you're arguing the president has the authority to do whatever he wants, constitution and laws be damned, from now until forever. I'd point out that the next president might not be a Republican, but, honestly, there's no good reason to assume we'd have a next president.
But if you don't know the name of the law, get out of here. If you honestly don't know what law the President is at least accused of breaking, you don't belong in this goddamn converstation.
D'oh about birds. I knew that, that's why there's debate about whether or not dinosaurs were warm blooded.
Anyway, convergent evolution will get you stuff like squid eyes and human eyes being nearly identical, which is why I mentioned them. They are very close. Humans and squid can focus their eyes, using much the same concept of lens and light hitting the back of it.
For those of you not up on evolutionary theory, cephalopods and vertebrates split a long time ago. Basically, there were water-living worms, one of them invented a hard shell and became insects, which is not relevant to this story, one of them developed armor, becoming things like clams, and then later some of them ditched the armor and eventually became squid, and one of them hide in the bottom, eventually developing hard bone in their body, figuring out how to flap it around, and became fish, and eventually all vertebrates. (Erm, and some decided to keep being worms, which they still are.)
At this point, although we're not sure, some of them might have had a light sensing patch. Although existing worms don't have them, so it's unlikely they had any sight at all.
Now, if you look around, you'll notice that insects and vertebrates all seem to have eyes today. But insect and vertebrate eyes are incredibly different.
The most advanced vertebrate and most advanced cephalopod eyes, however, are very close. They focus them in the same way, they can see color using a similiar concept of rods and cones, etc.
However, human and squid eyes have apparently random and inexplicably differences if you compare them. How the optic nerve leaves the eye, for the most obvious example. What is inside the eyeball.
Whereas if you compare human and, say, reptile eyes, they don't have random differences like that, because our evolution split way after we invented eyes.
So, no matter how complex, even if the system if irreducibily complex, the evolutionist could just say "we haven't figured it out yet"... this excuse could be used on and on with no chance for falsification.
Erm...you're backwards.
ID supporters say that 'that living things possess attribute X could not have evolved that via natural selection'.
Scientists demonstrate it could have, indeed, evolved X, based on other similiar traits and closely related things. They come up with a plausible theory as to how X could have evolved, and ID supporters quietly drop the claim that that thing must have required something else.
ID supporter pick something else, and repeat.
And you are asserting this is the scientists fault? No.
This is a textbook example of how you come up with a 'falsifible' theory that is not actually such. The theory that the existence of Animal X requires God's input is a valid falsifible scientific theory. It would be called 'Required Intelligence Design of X'. For one animal. Picking a new animal when that one is disproven is not a valid scientific operation.
It's the 'unicorn behind a tree' trick. You say there's a unicorn behind that tree, and when people go and look and see no unicorn, you assert that it must behind some other tree, like maybe that one over there...and so on.
All you have to do is find one damn unicorn, and until then you do you can just shut up about your unicorn theory like real scientists.
And the only way to falsify evolution would be to demonstrate that all those fossils were not ancestors of existing things. Evolution is merely a change in the genetic makeup over time by slow changes. Disproving that would be a neat trick. (And would completely screw up intelligent design, because God issuing version 1.1 of an animal, and slowly changing the entire species over to 1.1, is also 'evolution'.)
Perhaps you mean falsify 'natural selection', aka, survival of the fittest, but considering how often we've observed something like that, and considering how much sense it makes (Weak die. Strong live. Simple.), that also seems unlikely.
I suspect what you're really thinking that certain specific obscure evolutions that we do not know much about yet might turn out to be not reachable via natural selection. Simply because, basically...you don't want them to be.
And, incidentally, it would be trivial to disprove evolution. Find me a mammal with squid eyes. Find me a fish with hair. Find me a plant with teeth. Find me a warm blooded bird.
All of those would be useful to said thing. You will not find any of them, however, because all those thing evolved after the species split. You will find whales and bats and carnevious plants and humans with eyes. But they are all very different from beings that evolved the same thing on the other side of whatever split them apart in the past.(1)
1) Technically, there have been a few examples of weird generic code leaping from species to species, because viruses can carry them around, so humans end up with some pointless genetic code from, say, birds, that doesn't do anything. However, this as evidence for intelligence design doesn't really fly, because the idea that God would be building humans and say 'Well, I'm mainly using ape DNA for humans, but let me grab part of this DNA from a chicken and stick it into Adam's DNA in such a way that is is not actually functional.' does not seem very likely. (God's a cargo-cult programmer?)
Wll, as you didn't bother to point out any of his lies, and I was bored, I searched for any of his 'lies', and I found a list. So let's start looking at it.
1 is the claim that Clinton had nothing to do with foiling the plot on the pope's life. However, Franken is more than likely quoted out of context there, considering how they've mysteriously decided to chop up his quote, and the two attacks have mysteriously turned into 'them all' at the end of the quote. It's more than likely he was quoting a huge list of things, saying they happened under Clinton's watch, and one of this events happened with the help of an ally of ours and not us specifically. (Although as no one is asserting that Clinton ran around arresting people, I'm not exactly sure what the point was. The FBI wanted those people, and thus when the Phillipine police ran across them they turned them over. It's true the pope plot was mainly foiled by their own stupidity at blowing up their home, but if the US hadn't been paying attention they might have managed to pull off the 'blow up fifteen airplanes' plan they had later on.)
2a is about the absurdly racist flyers that said gave the wrong date for the election, and were equally likely to have been done by a misguided idiot who's a Democrat than a misguided idiot who's a Republican. However, here we have absolutely no information except that 'Franken decried the flier as an effort to prevent people (blacks) from coming out to vote'. Well, he did? Why didn't you quote him doing so, then?
2b is...a cite trying to assert the fictional oreo-throwing incident was an example of his 'lying'.
Not only would that not be a lie, as Franken didn't say that didn't happen, or has ever said anything about it at all, but it didn't happen. It is itself a lie. (And what the hell kind of stupid numbering is this? 2a and 2b aren't related! Is this like street addresses or exit ramps, where they already assigned numbers and had to fit extra ones in?)
3 is a claim that he said Ailes produced the Willie Horton ad (Although, of course, they again refrain from in any way actually quoting this.), when it fact it was produced by the 'third-party' National Security Political Action Committee. This is a very surreal example and it only works for anyone who doesn't know anything about that. (And I presume he talks about this in the book, so ignorance doesn't work here.)
Rodgers Ailies was, in fact, linked to the NSPAC. People who used to work for him started it up and produced the ad. The campaign was under investigation for years about that specific ad, and the Republicans stonewalled the investigation and let it die. It, indeed, was the original 'Swift Boats', where you have a 'third-party' run ads saying untrue things, and implying other things, that you yourself couldn't get away with, and then you run your campaign in such a way that acts like those ads are true, without ever explicitly mentioning them or stating the information in the ads. (E.g., the ads claim candidate X was a child molester, and you start talking about the 'moral questions about candidate X'.)
About this point I stopped reading. Of these four lies, exactly one quote was given, and it was chopped to pieces. One of them admittedly had nothing to do with Franken at all!
Having read some of Franken's books, I know damn well he quotes people. What's more, he likes to quote them more than once, to demonstrate they actually meant what it sounded like they meant.
Neither you, nor anyone else claiming he lies, seem to be able to pull the trick off of actually quoting his 'lies'. You'd think it would be easier, as quoting a line from a book is easier than quoting it from radio.
That is exactly why Asimov said psychohistory had to fail, and he made it do so.
Although the fact it failed due to a genetic mutation was a bit silly.
And note psychohistory couldn't predict everything, even outside genetic mutation. The First Foundation was to 'change history' by keeping a storehouse of knowledge, without any psychohistory at all, but the Second wasn't only to fix any minor problems that crop up, but to narrow the possiblities to one that were predictable.
If you want an analogy...everyone else thought they were playing roulette, but the psychohistorians figured out a way to make everyone play blackjack, and only they knew it. The fact they were counting cards and knew optimal betting patterns was trivial to the fact they were defining the game.
You can read it and get the impression Seldon predicts the exact events of the un-altered fall for thousands of years, and he likewise predicts the exact events after he changes them, but he really just predicts the long fall itself, we have no indication he can figure out stuff to any extent within it. And he rigs the new future history so he can control it.
The problem is that the people at the far end of the right are given radio shows, and the people at the far end of the left are not.
Of course, when the radio show people go so far it upsets even normal people on the right, than the right can just go 'Oh, those are extremists, we don't believe that'. Yet they go and listen to them and quote them all the time.
To see what's going on, read Al Franken's 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'. Something like 15 million people listen to him a week, and he can stand there and promote the most outragious views of the right, and they repeat them. He can lie, and they repeat it.
But when he gets too out there..well, it's not like he's officially speaking for the right. He's not actually a journalist, despite the fact that he brags (and it is apparently true) that many people get their news solely from him. It's just a talk show.
Likewise Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They get airtime. When, as is often, they go too far, well, they aren't officially speaking for anyone, except apparently God. The right wing politicans ignores them 90% of the time, condemns them 5% of the time, and appears on their show the remaining 5%. of the time
Don't get me wrong, the left has people as equally far out there. They do not, however, have radio shows. The famous-for-other-things people might get blasted when they go to far to the left, but they don't get to promote 'almost too far' concepts(1) and misinformation every day of the week to millions of people.
No, not even Michael Moore. Even if you want to place him equal in wackiness to Limbaugh, which he really isn't...he's produced something like fifteen hours of political stuff total. Limbaugh does that in a week.
1) By 'almost too far', I don't mean they should be banned. I mean, basically stuff at the point that would get a random American upset, like Rush's comment: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." If he just comes out and says that, he gets called on it...but he can come damn close, and repeat it over and over and over and over...
Almost no 'race riots' are related to race. They are related to the poor being jammed into their own tiny neighborhood with no hope of advancement, and are thus 'class riots'.
And, yes, they often are poor due to race, but that's akin to calling a riot in Hawaii an 'airplane riot' because presumably most people travelled there by airplane.
That's not to say the poeple involved in the riot will often take an 'us vs. them' stance based on race, which is easy enough to do when 90% of the people of 'the other' race you see are rich, and 90% of the people of your race you see are poor.
First of all, Sherlock Holmes was not 'some really smart guy', on account of being fictional.
Second, that's not where Occam's Razor came from. That doesn't even make sense as a source, as it's pretty much the opposite thing: Holmes saying you needed to elimate everything that isn't possible, and Occam saying you shouldn't add complexities.
Occam's Razor rarely would work in detective stories, because detective stories don't work if answer is obvious. It often doesn't even work in real life crime investigation, because people often have strange motives and do odd things for no useful reason, and obviously criminals do their best to obscure things, so trying to figure out the 'simplest' thing is pointless.
And Holmes' rule doesn't work in physics, because they're trying to figure out the possible. If you ruled out 'impossible' things, you'd never get anywhere.
Dirk Gently's law is much more useful in physics. If you are left with two possiblity, one being completely improbable, and one being impossible according to the laws of physics...well, it just might be physics that is wrong. Of course, you have to repeat the experiment a few times to make sure.
If you want a simple mental image, a good one might be shooting something that's spinning through a corkscrew facing you, and the spinning pulls the corkscrew closer as the spinning thing goes through it. (And, just like that that example, you have a slight chance of pushing the thing away.)
What's really going on is a million times weirder, of course.
Except, of course, that issue has nothing to do with Linux. It has to do with you, and the fact you should be fired.
Well, except for the fact you're lying.
Anyway, the assumption that you can do whatever you want to the hardware without telling people is not limited to effecting Linux users. It can screw up anyone who's bought your device in the past, and now buys your device, and it doesn't work exactly the same. Maybe they fixed your bug already, and your fix will screw up their fix. Or maybe they have the old, tested drivers on a disk image.
Hell, maybe they're selling your cards in their own white box computers, and are going to be doing technical support, and you've just wasted quite of lot of time of both them and their customers, and a lot of their goodwill, because these new cards have different problems that are not on the script, as opposed to your old problems, which were. And when the engineers build an 'identical' box to the customer's mysterious 'problem box', they, of course, might use an old one or a new one.
That is, in fact, the point of part numbers, and saying 'We're willing to spend huge amount of money on fixing hardware but none on changing the part number from 394-6325-2 to 394-6325-6.' is just idiotic. Part numbers are so people can order the exact same thing.
If you don't want to participate in the system, feel free to not actually have part numbers. Many things do not.
Hardware engineers know how to talk to the hardware best.
Sadly, talking to the hardware is a trivial part of a driver. Loading and unloading itself, hooking interupts, playing nicely with other drivers, allocating memory, threading, etc, are what causes drivers to crash, and hardware engineers often have no idea how to do that stuff, whereas the kernel devs do.
And as the talking to hardware part is trivial, just a matter of pushing the right bits in and out in the right places, it's really best to just write that down and turn it over to them.
Um, no. Abramoff didn't give the Democrats anything himself, as I've said repeatedly.
The skybox tickets, as I've pointed out, were his clients leasing them from Abramoff, and letting Democrats use them. That is not him giving anyone anything. This one of the things a lobbyist does...have connections and assets that his clients can use, after they pay for them, to give to politicians. (No, I don't agree with all the gifts flying toward politicians, but it is not illegal if reported correctly.)
The one thing for Democrats he actually paid for appears to be...a reinbursement problem. He did something for his client (Like, you know, he's supposed to) that they were supposed to pay for in advance, and everyone but him and they assumed they did pay for them.
If you want to demand the politicians reinburse him for that trip, by all means do so, although I think it is the damn Northern Marianas government who should pay for it.
Passing along money belong to people you work for, even in advance of them actually handing it to you, is not 'giving' anyone anything. It is doing your damn job and not holding up an airplane until the check clears, which does not make a good impression when you're trying to impress people.
One semester, at college, my financial aid got screwed up and delayed, and I couldn't afford the tuition. So I borrowed a thousand from a friend of the family, and when my check came in a few days later, I cashed it and paid them back.
Did they 'give' me any money? No. (And before you start raising issues of loaning money to politician, the trip was a loan to Northern Marianas, his client, not the people taking the trip.)
If I paid someone tens of thousands of dollars to do a job for me, and I had history of paying, would I expect them to balk if they ran into 350 dollars work of expenses, needed to solve it now without blowing weeks of planning, and didn't have access to my acount? Hell no. They should pay it themselves and straighten it out with me later.
And, for all I know, that is an ethics violation. Of course, that assumes the Congressment involved knew about, which they deny.
Is it 'Abramoff giving Democrats money'? No. It is 'Abramoff making loans to his clients and not telling anyone or straightening it out'.
Often, you can't tell them apart even with serial numbers, or, at least, not with any numbers that are exposed on the outside of the box or providing online before purchase.
You dumbass, Linux users are your customers. Customers are merely people who purchase any of your hardware. There is someone out there right now who has one of your devices and is trying to figure out if your device is supported in Linux.
He will discover it is not.
He will not buy any more of your devices, instead going with someone who did release specs to the kernel devs.
A lot of people who use Linux have purchasing power for companies. If they see a device is supported under multiple OSes, and one that isn't, and they cost the same, which do you think they will buy? Even if the company doesn't use Linux at all, the device is simply more valuable if it is supported in more OSes.
I don't understand why people would want help with a modem driver if they had a winmodem? That doesn't seem to likely to help them.
Or you mean they have both, and they are conflicting with each other?
Wait. Do you mean they think they have a modem, and don't? I can see how they might be complaining if they think they have a modem and that Linux simply doesn't see it, but I don't know what you want Linux to do about it. Possibly it could pop up a big red box that says 'No, you really do not have a modem, stop bothering me.'?
Obviously, it would be nice if the winmodem people would stop putting the word 'modem' in the name, then people would be less likely to mistakenly think they have a modem, but people have been complaining about that for years and nothing's gotten done.
The modem drivers are actually pretty good on Linux. They've got multi-port support, all sorts of tweaking possible, and in general the whole thing just works out of the box. (Of course, normal modems tend to work out of the box on any OS, so it's not some amazing accomplishment. It's only the weird multi-modems with IRQ sharing and stuff that sometimes have problems.)
This is why I call them 'phone line sound cards', to the general confusion of all.(1) They are sound cards that talk to the phone, they are pretty cute. I once saw a device you could build to plug into your parallel port and sound card that could do that.
What do you mean, you want to use it for dialup? It's a frickin sound card! How about you just hold the phone over your computer speakers? It makes just as much sense and is cheaper.
In my laptop, the sound card and the 'winmodem' are the same device, and they both operate under ALSA!
And they neither modulate nor demodulate, so are, indeed, not 'modems'. They have a DAC and ADC in them, but the (de)?modulation is done inside the computer.
1) Does anyone know why the hell all 'winmodems' aren't automatically 'voice modems'? Why can't you record and play audio to them? Would that really been so hard a feature to include?
The problem isn't 'Which hardware is supported?'. There are several quite well documented lists of what chipsets are supported, and what hardware to find them in.
The problem is that the damn hardware manufacturers change chipsets more often than their underwear, and don't bother changing anything else at all. Like, oh, the name, or the part number.
Which, I should point out, is the entire damn point of a part number.
You know, I hate government interference as much as the next guy, but selling two pieces of computer hardware as exactly the same thing, when one of them uses completely different hardware (And I don't mean 'updated', I mean provided by someone else.) should not be legal. You should be required provide some manner of identifing between the old and the new.
Basically, it's false labeling. You have the right to stop selling a product, but you don't have the right to lie to me and say this is the same thing as I bought previously, especially for things designed to interface with other things that I may be counting on to work as they did before.
And it's completely absurd that we would actually get to the point we need a law in this regard because companies want to keep using the same catalog and boxes, but also want to save two dollars.
Incidentally, the only other manufacturer I know that does this is car companies, who sometimes change things in the middle of a model year.(1) But that's usually fix problems, not to save two dollars, and cars don't need to work with other things, unless they've designed half the model year to take diesel or drive on the other side of the road. But I'd be willing to support such a requirement for them, also.
1) I have a 'stupid engine design Pontiac Sunbird 1993' instead of a 'good engine design Pontiac Sunbird 1993'. the difference being that it takes four hours of work to open the engine instead of one, because you have to take, apparently, every damn thing out from under the hood before you can do so. I also ended up with a 1982 Ford S-10 with an 83 engine, and we're not exactly sure why or how that happened, although it's possible that's a replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
If you aren't driving that particular car when pulled over, well, there is a grace period. If you are, there it is.
Granted, in theory, there are a few circumstances where this could result in them getting your ID, like if you were standing next to your car, or riding as a passenger in it.
OTOH, leaving it at home has exactly the same problem if that's where they decide to harrass you.
And if they do start harrassing you in a parking lot, you can always fail to volunteer where, exactly, your id is. Simply repeat 'I have a driver's license, but don't currently have it on me.' when they ask for ID. You don't need to mention it's in your car, right there, unless they decide to ask you to go get it if it's in your car.
Not that I'm entirely sure they can do that. I think we've already had cases that decided the police couldn't make you let them drive you home to get your license, and the difference between that and walking to your car is just a matter of degree. If your license is in your car, it is not on your person, and you don't have to produce it if it's not on your person.
And that only works if you ignore the fact it was authorizing military force.
And if you ignore the fact that he was authorized to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' , where 'appropriate' has always meant, legally, 'within the bounds of the law', vs. 'inappropriate', as in 'outside the bounds of the law'.(1) I see you dropped that word...coincidence, or malice?
The resolution authorized him to use the military in a way consistant with the military code of justice and the laws of the United States of America to do X. That's what 'appropriate' means, that's why it's there, the same way that 'necessary' is there to keep the force from being excessive.
The resolution did not authorize him to operate outside other laws. He must continue behave appropiately, i.e., in a legal manner.(2)
Oh, and you notice 'specific statutory authorization' there for '5(b) of the War Powers Resolution'?(3) Yes, that's right. When they authorize something that another laws says 'can be authorized', they write that down.
Notice the lack of them authorizing anything under FISA?
1) Actually, while appropriate behavior requires operating inside the law, it can additionally require operating inside a code of ethics or behavior. For example, various behaviors are inappropraite for lawyers to do, and they will be punished by the bar, but are not strictly 'illegal'. Likewise, it is also inappropriate to use your office at work for sex, even with your wife. It's not illegal, and it's possibly not against the rules, but it is inappropriate.
However, I am not aware of any professional ethical standards for the President, so the point is rather moot, unless he decided to make war on Afganistan by plastering naked pictures of himself all over the place, which would be rather inappropriate by normal standards. But, anyway, things cannot be illegal but appropriate.(4)
2) Of course, leaving out 'appropriate' would not allow him to break any law either. It's just a fail-safe.
2) That's the law saying the President can only use the military for a certain amount of time unless Congress: has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, has extended by law such sixty-day period, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.
3) Which is actually a fun catch-22. If he's been doing illegal things as part of the invasion in Afghanistan, then the resolution never applied to what he was doing with the troups, because illegal behavior is inappropriate...and he's been using the troups illegally in Apghanistan for almost four years. And that doesn't solve the problem of his original felonies under FISA!
1. When the president wiretaps suspected terrorists, should he:
a) have to go to the secret courts set up for this, within three days, and inform them of this fact, as the law requires,
b)be allowed secretly to break that law and have no one know who's he's decided to wiretap?
2. If you answered b to 1, what other laws should the president have the authority to break? (Explicitly state whether or not prejury is in there.)
3. If you listed any laws in 2, would the president have to follow a law limiting the laws he can break to those laws? Why or why not?
4. If you didn't list any laws in 2, why would he be able breaking FISA? Please explain.
5. If you answered a to 1, what should the president do when he needs to do something not allowed under law? Select all that apply.
a) Ask congress for a law.
b) Ask the american people to demand congress give him one.
c) Something else. Explain.
My answers:
1. a
5. a, b, and c. c: In extrodinary circumstances, I think it is okay for someone to openly break the law, and then throw himself onto the mercy of the jury deciding his fate.
Jose Padilla, you fucktard.
The Administration finally arrested him instead of getting slapped down by the Supreme Court. But they assert they have the right to do that to other Americans...and they're putting Alito on the bench so when they do end up there, they'll win.
And, FYI, when you go back, the Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2002, 2004, and 2005. I want a fifty/fifty split.
If Bush has nothing to hide, what's the problem with using the court?
A police state is a state where the executive branch makes the laws, and enforces the laws (like they should), and judges guilt or innocence.
We've already had them claiming they can lock people up without going through the courts.
Now we have them arguing they do not have to follow the law. Today it's FISA they don't have to follow, tomorrow it's the law against murder. Summary executions, anyone?
If the executive do not have to demonstrate things to the court, and cannot be held in check by the legislative branch, that IS a police state, period. There's no 'maybe', there's no 'slippery slope', it is here and now. It is a state run by the police. It is a police state. That's what that means. It doesn't have to be a dictatorship, it doesn't have to be fascist, it just has to be operated solely by the executive branch of the government, with no checks for anywhere else.
And, no, the fact their power might be checked by the courts WRT to the detentions, and by Congress with impeachment, doesn't change the fact that, if what the Administration claims is true, this is ipso facto a police state.
If what they claim is not true, they are felons at the least. Pick one. Police state, or a government operated by criminals.
If you want to incorrectly argue that the authorization to invade Afganistan gave him statutory authority for whatever domestic spying he wanted, or some incorrect parsing of FISA that allows him to spy on Americans via FISA, whatever. You're just a GOP ass-polisher who doesn't know how to parse laws.
And if you want to argue that in war the president can do whatever he want, you're just a traitor to the Constitution. This War on Terror has no apparent end, and so you're arguing the president has the authority to do whatever he wants, constitution and laws be damned, from now until forever. I'd point out that the next president might not be a Republican, but, honestly, there's no good reason to assume we'd have a next president.
But if you don't know the name of the law, get out of here. If you honestly don't know what law the President is at least accused of breaking, you don't belong in this goddamn converstation.
Anyway, convergent evolution will get you stuff like squid eyes and human eyes being nearly identical, which is why I mentioned them. They are very close. Humans and squid can focus their eyes, using much the same concept of lens and light hitting the back of it.
For those of you not up on evolutionary theory, cephalopods and vertebrates split a long time ago. Basically, there were water-living worms, one of them invented a hard shell and became insects, which is not relevant to this story, one of them developed armor, becoming things like clams, and then later some of them ditched the armor and eventually became squid, and one of them hide in the bottom, eventually developing hard bone in their body, figuring out how to flap it around, and became fish, and eventually all vertebrates. (Erm, and some decided to keep being worms, which they still are.)
At this point, although we're not sure, some of them might have had a light sensing patch. Although existing worms don't have them, so it's unlikely they had any sight at all.
Now, if you look around, you'll notice that insects and vertebrates all seem to have eyes today. But insect and vertebrate eyes are incredibly different.
The most advanced vertebrate and most advanced cephalopod eyes, however, are very close. They focus them in the same way, they can see color using a similiar concept of rods and cones, etc.
However, human and squid eyes have apparently random and inexplicably differences if you compare them. How the optic nerve leaves the eye, for the most obvious example. What is inside the eyeball.
Whereas if you compare human and, say, reptile eyes, they don't have random differences like that, because our evolution split way after we invented eyes.
Erm...you're backwards.
ID supporters say that 'that living things possess attribute X could not have evolved that via natural selection'.
Scientists demonstrate it could have, indeed, evolved X, based on other similiar traits and closely related things. They come up with a plausible theory as to how X could have evolved, and ID supporters quietly drop the claim that that thing must have required something else.
ID supporter pick something else, and repeat.
And you are asserting this is the scientists fault? No.
This is a textbook example of how you come up with a 'falsifible' theory that is not actually such. The theory that the existence of Animal X requires God's input is a valid falsifible scientific theory. It would be called 'Required Intelligence Design of X'. For one animal. Picking a new animal when that one is disproven is not a valid scientific operation.
It's the 'unicorn behind a tree' trick. You say there's a unicorn behind that tree, and when people go and look and see no unicorn, you assert that it must behind some other tree, like maybe that one over there...and so on.
All you have to do is find one damn unicorn, and until then you do you can just shut up about your unicorn theory like real scientists.
And the only way to falsify evolution would be to demonstrate that all those fossils were not ancestors of existing things. Evolution is merely a change in the genetic makeup over time by slow changes. Disproving that would be a neat trick. (And would completely screw up intelligent design, because God issuing version 1.1 of an animal, and slowly changing the entire species over to 1.1, is also 'evolution'.)
Perhaps you mean falsify 'natural selection', aka, survival of the fittest, but considering how often we've observed something like that, and considering how much sense it makes (Weak die. Strong live. Simple.), that also seems unlikely.
I suspect what you're really thinking that certain specific obscure evolutions that we do not know much about yet might turn out to be not reachable via natural selection. Simply because, basically...you don't want them to be.
And, incidentally, it would be trivial to disprove evolution. Find me a mammal with squid eyes. Find me a fish with hair. Find me a plant with teeth. Find me a warm blooded bird.
All of those would be useful to said thing. You will not find any of them, however, because all those thing evolved after the species split. You will find whales and bats and carnevious plants and humans with eyes. But they are all very different from beings that evolved the same thing on the other side of whatever split them apart in the past.(1)
1) Technically, there have been a few examples of weird generic code leaping from species to species, because viruses can carry them around, so humans end up with some pointless genetic code from, say, birds, that doesn't do anything. However, this as evidence for intelligence design doesn't really fly, because the idea that God would be building humans and say 'Well, I'm mainly using ape DNA for humans, but let me grab part of this DNA from a chicken and stick it into Adam's DNA in such a way that is is not actually functional.' does not seem very likely. (God's a cargo-cult programmer?)
1 is the claim that Clinton had nothing to do with foiling the plot on the pope's life. However, Franken is more than likely quoted out of context there, considering how they've mysteriously decided to chop up his quote, and the two attacks have mysteriously turned into 'them all' at the end of the quote. It's more than likely he was quoting a huge list of things, saying they happened under Clinton's watch, and one of this events happened with the help of an ally of ours and not us specifically. (Although as no one is asserting that Clinton ran around arresting people, I'm not exactly sure what the point was. The FBI wanted those people, and thus when the Phillipine police ran across them they turned them over. It's true the pope plot was mainly foiled by their own stupidity at blowing up their home, but if the US hadn't been paying attention they might have managed to pull off the 'blow up fifteen airplanes' plan they had later on.)
2a is about the absurdly racist flyers that said gave the wrong date for the election, and were equally likely to have been done by a misguided idiot who's a Democrat than a misguided idiot who's a Republican. However, here we have absolutely no information except that 'Franken decried the flier as an effort to prevent people (blacks) from coming out to vote'. Well, he did? Why didn't you quote him doing so, then?
2b is...a cite trying to assert the fictional oreo-throwing incident was an example of his 'lying'.
Not only would that not be a lie, as Franken didn't say that didn't happen, or has ever said anything about it at all, but it didn't happen. It is itself a lie. (And what the hell kind of stupid numbering is this? 2a and 2b aren't related! Is this like street addresses or exit ramps, where they already assigned numbers and had to fit extra ones in?)
3 is a claim that he said Ailes produced the Willie Horton ad (Although, of course, they again refrain from in any way actually quoting this.), when it fact it was produced by the 'third-party' National Security Political Action Committee. This is a very surreal example and it only works for anyone who doesn't know anything about that. (And I presume he talks about this in the book, so ignorance doesn't work here.)
Rodgers Ailies was, in fact, linked to the NSPAC. People who used to work for him started it up and produced the ad. The campaign was under investigation for years about that specific ad, and the Republicans stonewalled the investigation and let it die. It, indeed, was the original 'Swift Boats', where you have a 'third-party' run ads saying untrue things, and implying other things, that you yourself couldn't get away with, and then you run your campaign in such a way that acts like those ads are true, without ever explicitly mentioning them or stating the information in the ads. (E.g., the ads claim candidate X was a child molester, and you start talking about the 'moral questions about candidate X'.)
About this point I stopped reading. Of these four lies, exactly one quote was given, and it was chopped to pieces. One of them admittedly had nothing to do with Franken at all!
Having read some of Franken's books, I know damn well he quotes people. What's more, he likes to quote them more than once, to demonstrate they actually meant what it sounded like they meant.
Neither you, nor anyone else claiming he lies, seem to be able to pull the trick off of actually quoting his 'lies'. You'd think it would be easier, as quoting a line from a book is easier than quoting it from radio.
Although the fact it failed due to a genetic mutation was a bit silly.
And note psychohistory couldn't predict everything, even outside genetic mutation. The First Foundation was to 'change history' by keeping a storehouse of knowledge, without any psychohistory at all, but the Second wasn't only to fix any minor problems that crop up, but to narrow the possiblities to one that were predictable.
If you want an analogy...everyone else thought they were playing roulette, but the psychohistorians figured out a way to make everyone play blackjack, and only they knew it. The fact they were counting cards and knew optimal betting patterns was trivial to the fact they were defining the game.
You can read it and get the impression Seldon predicts the exact events of the un-altered fall for thousands of years, and he likewise predicts the exact events after he changes them, but he really just predicts the long fall itself, we have no indication he can figure out stuff to any extent within it. And he rigs the new future history so he can control it.
Of course, when the radio show people go so far it upsets even normal people on the right, than the right can just go 'Oh, those are extremists, we don't believe that'. Yet they go and listen to them and quote them all the time.
To see what's going on, read Al Franken's 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'. Something like 15 million people listen to him a week, and he can stand there and promote the most outragious views of the right, and they repeat them. He can lie, and they repeat it.
But when he gets too out there..well, it's not like he's officially speaking for the right. He's not actually a journalist, despite the fact that he brags (and it is apparently true) that many people get their news solely from him. It's just a talk show.
Likewise Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They get airtime. When, as is often, they go too far, well, they aren't officially speaking for anyone, except apparently God. The right wing politicans ignores them 90% of the time, condemns them 5% of the time, and appears on their show the remaining 5%. of the time
Don't get me wrong, the left has people as equally far out there. They do not, however, have radio shows. The famous-for-other-things people might get blasted when they go to far to the left, but they don't get to promote 'almost too far' concepts(1) and misinformation every day of the week to millions of people.
No, not even Michael Moore. Even if you want to place him equal in wackiness to Limbaugh, which he really isn't...he's produced something like fifteen hours of political stuff total. Limbaugh does that in a week.
1) By 'almost too far', I don't mean they should be banned. I mean, basically stuff at the point that would get a random American upset, like Rush's comment: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." If he just comes out and says that, he gets called on it...but he can come damn close, and repeat it over and over and over and over...
And, yes, they often are poor due to race, but that's akin to calling a riot in Hawaii an 'airplane riot' because presumably most people travelled there by airplane.
That's not to say the poeple involved in the riot will often take an 'us vs. them' stance based on race, which is easy enough to do when 90% of the people of 'the other' race you see are rich, and 90% of the people of your race you see are poor.
Second, that's not where Occam's Razor came from. That doesn't even make sense as a source, as it's pretty much the opposite thing: Holmes saying you needed to elimate everything that isn't possible, and Occam saying you shouldn't add complexities.
Occam's Razor rarely would work in detective stories, because detective stories don't work if answer is obvious. It often doesn't even work in real life crime investigation, because people often have strange motives and do odd things for no useful reason, and obviously criminals do their best to obscure things, so trying to figure out the 'simplest' thing is pointless.
And Holmes' rule doesn't work in physics, because they're trying to figure out the possible. If you ruled out 'impossible' things, you'd never get anywhere.
Dirk Gently's law is much more useful in physics. If you are left with two possiblity, one being completely improbable, and one being impossible according to the laws of physics...well, it just might be physics that is wrong. Of course, you have to repeat the experiment a few times to make sure.
What's really going on is a million times weirder, of course.
Well, except for the fact you're lying.
Anyway, the assumption that you can do whatever you want to the hardware without telling people is not limited to effecting Linux users. It can screw up anyone who's bought your device in the past, and now buys your device, and it doesn't work exactly the same. Maybe they fixed your bug already, and your fix will screw up their fix. Or maybe they have the old, tested drivers on a disk image.
Hell, maybe they're selling your cards in their own white box computers, and are going to be doing technical support, and you've just wasted quite of lot of time of both them and their customers, and a lot of their goodwill, because these new cards have different problems that are not on the script, as opposed to your old problems, which were. And when the engineers build an 'identical' box to the customer's mysterious 'problem box', they, of course, might use an old one or a new one.
That is, in fact, the point of part numbers, and saying 'We're willing to spend huge amount of money on fixing hardware but none on changing the part number from 394-6325-2 to 394-6325-6.' is just idiotic. Part numbers are so people can order the exact same thing.
If you don't want to participate in the system, feel free to not actually have part numbers. Many things do not.
Sadly, talking to the hardware is a trivial part of a driver. Loading and unloading itself, hooking interupts, playing nicely with other drivers, allocating memory, threading, etc, are what causes drivers to crash, and hardware engineers often have no idea how to do that stuff, whereas the kernel devs do.
And as the talking to hardware part is trivial, just a matter of pushing the right bits in and out in the right places, it's really best to just write that down and turn it over to them.
The skybox tickets, as I've pointed out, were his clients leasing them from Abramoff, and letting Democrats use them. That is not him giving anyone anything. This one of the things a lobbyist does...have connections and assets that his clients can use, after they pay for them, to give to politicians. (No, I don't agree with all the gifts flying toward politicians, but it is not illegal if reported correctly.)
The one thing for Democrats he actually paid for appears to be...a reinbursement problem. He did something for his client (Like, you know, he's supposed to) that they were supposed to pay for in advance, and everyone but him and they assumed they did pay for them.
If you want to demand the politicians reinburse him for that trip, by all means do so, although I think it is the damn Northern Marianas government who should pay for it.
Passing along money belong to people you work for, even in advance of them actually handing it to you, is not 'giving' anyone anything. It is doing your damn job and not holding up an airplane until the check clears, which does not make a good impression when you're trying to impress people.
One semester, at college, my financial aid got screwed up and delayed, and I couldn't afford the tuition. So I borrowed a thousand from a friend of the family, and when my check came in a few days later, I cashed it and paid them back.
Did they 'give' me any money? No. (And before you start raising issues of loaning money to politician, the trip was a loan to Northern Marianas, his client, not the people taking the trip.)
If I paid someone tens of thousands of dollars to do a job for me, and I had history of paying, would I expect them to balk if they ran into 350 dollars work of expenses, needed to solve it now without blowing weeks of planning, and didn't have access to my acount? Hell no. They should pay it themselves and straighten it out with me later.
And, for all I know, that is an ethics violation. Of course, that assumes the Congressment involved knew about, which they deny.
Is it 'Abramoff giving Democrats money'? No. It is 'Abramoff making loans to his clients and not telling anyone or straightening it out'.
Often, you can't tell them apart even with serial numbers, or, at least, not with any numbers that are exposed on the outside of the box or providing online before purchase.
He will discover it is not.
He will not buy any more of your devices, instead going with someone who did release specs to the kernel devs.
A lot of people who use Linux have purchasing power for companies. If they see a device is supported under multiple OSes, and one that isn't, and they cost the same, which do you think they will buy? Even if the company doesn't use Linux at all, the device is simply more valuable if it is supported in more OSes.
I can't imagine anyone who still have the damn stupid sounds turned on.
They work fine for the actual communication, but can't do any sort of scanning or sniffing.
I don't know who's in charge of the spec, or how extendable it is, but that would be a really nice addition.
Or you mean they have both, and they are conflicting with each other?
Wait. Do you mean they think they have a modem, and don't? I can see how they might be complaining if they think they have a modem and that Linux simply doesn't see it, but I don't know what you want Linux to do about it. Possibly it could pop up a big red box that says 'No, you really do not have a modem, stop bothering me.'?
Obviously, it would be nice if the winmodem people would stop putting the word 'modem' in the name, then people would be less likely to mistakenly think they have a modem, but people have been complaining about that for years and nothing's gotten done.
The modem drivers are actually pretty good on Linux. They've got multi-port support, all sorts of tweaking possible, and in general the whole thing just works out of the box. (Of course, normal modems tend to work out of the box on any OS, so it's not some amazing accomplishment. It's only the weird multi-modems with IRQ sharing and stuff that sometimes have problems.)
What do you mean, you want to use it for dialup? It's a frickin sound card! How about you just hold the phone over your computer speakers? It makes just as much sense and is cheaper.
In my laptop, the sound card and the 'winmodem' are the same device, and they both operate under ALSA!
And they neither modulate nor demodulate, so are, indeed, not 'modems'. They have a DAC and ADC in them, but the (de)?modulation is done inside the computer.
1) Does anyone know why the hell all 'winmodems' aren't automatically 'voice modems'? Why can't you record and play audio to them? Would that really been so hard a feature to include?
The problem is that the damn hardware manufacturers change chipsets more often than their underwear, and don't bother changing anything else at all. Like, oh, the name, or the part number.
Which, I should point out, is the entire damn point of a part number.
You know, I hate government interference as much as the next guy, but selling two pieces of computer hardware as exactly the same thing, when one of them uses completely different hardware (And I don't mean 'updated', I mean provided by someone else.) should not be legal. You should be required provide some manner of identifing between the old and the new.
Basically, it's false labeling. You have the right to stop selling a product, but you don't have the right to lie to me and say this is the same thing as I bought previously, especially for things designed to interface with other things that I may be counting on to work as they did before.
And it's completely absurd that we would actually get to the point we need a law in this regard because companies want to keep using the same catalog and boxes, but also want to save two dollars.
Incidentally, the only other manufacturer I know that does this is car companies, who sometimes change things in the middle of a model year.(1) But that's usually fix problems, not to save two dollars, and cars don't need to work with other things, unless they've designed half the model year to take diesel or drive on the other side of the road. But I'd be willing to support such a requirement for them, also.
1) I have a 'stupid engine design Pontiac Sunbird 1993' instead of a 'good engine design Pontiac Sunbird 1993'. the difference being that it takes four hours of work to open the engine instead of one, because you have to take, apparently, every damn thing out from under the hood before you can do so. I also ended up with a 1982 Ford S-10 with an 83 engine, and we're not exactly sure why or how that happened, although it's possible that's a replacement.