Again, you're giving the voters too much credit. They don't pay as close attention to political calculation as you are. They just think she is what she says she is, for the most part.
Feminists love her, west coast and east cost liberals love her. And that's it. And you can't win an election on that alone.
Hillary will win votes with her position on the war. You'll notice all the D candidates are anti-war, and all the money is spent convincing people that Hillary is bad because of her moderate position on the war. Being anti-war is only popular right now because of the heavy politicizing of it, all the D candidates are campaigning on their anti-war stuff, but Hillary has the presidential election in her sights, which requires that she take a more reasonable position on the war to get some of the moderate vote. She will certainly need it.
The war may be at a turning point, however. I was reading http://www.michaelyon-online.com and I was surprised all the good news that's not being reported in the mass media.
If Gore had campaigned on a platform of "keep doing what my predecessor did, except I'm faithful to my wife", he very well could have had an undisputable win in 2000.
You give people too much credit. Everyone who knew anything at all knew who the vice president was, and what his true agenda was, which is not very many people. Most people tuned in for one or two debates, or heard people talking about how al gore is a robot and george bush is a monkey, over the water cooler. I remember one defining moment when, during one of the final debates, Al Gore directed a question directly at Bush during his answer period, which was not in the rulebook, and Bush accused gore of not playing by the rules. It seems superficial stuff like that goes much further than actual policy agenda. And I include oval office BJ's in there too (superficial stuff).
Cassinni, New Horizons, pretty much everything the space tourists won't do. Yeah, scaled built basically an "airplane" and the true innovation is his reentry wing, everything else is just off the shelf components. SpaceX is doing a lot better job of going further, by making the cost to orbit cheaper. That's not even in virgin galactic's game plan.
Dude, you post way to much on the boards. I post maybe once a week, but you are always there. You're a god damn karma whore. Read the fuckin' article next time.
I did my own comparison of the Zune with the Ipod last Christmas, when those two items were pretty much what everyone was buying, and I decided the Zune was better. Bigger screen, less cost.... that about sums it up for me, although I have the Ipod video, I never use it. Seems the only advantage it has is styling, although that's a light point IMO.
Oh does somebody have a violin to play? This is such a touching message you have, about your society caring about you. You make it sound like my society takes poor people out back and shoots them.
You are so thick. If you're not watching out for your own interests, nobody else will. If that's how you do business, you've been getting screwed. This is basic economic theory. Go educate yourself.
The constitution has nothing to do with this, dude. The constitution protects against unlawful searches. Why is it you liberals always point at the constitution and say "see?", is it because the courts have been in the liberals pocket for so long?
Times a changin', pal. The search was lawful because the patriot act is law!
Just because you don't smoke in the privacy of your own home doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Just because you're a pothead doesn't mean you need to buy into all this tin hat conspiracy BS. The law will protect you from unlawful searches, meaning that you're not invincible to unlawful searches, but that you won't be convicted.
Am I getting through?
No, half of your "just because" points were invalid, like the mod chip, that is illegal for so many reasons. You can put a mod chip in a ham radio and broadcast on police frequencies, should that be legal too?
The laws may not be catered to you, but they are catered to society. The reason the govt doesn't want you smoking pot all day is because it turns you into a welfare baby. Maybe not you personally, but others it certainly does and will. You're not allowed to have sex with children either, it may seem fine to you and the kid you're screwing, but society does not agree. Such a shame, isn't it?
It means the police in the area you live in are more lenient than the police in some areas I've lived in. But that's irrelevant because...
And what place is that? Anything but a school zone and you're fine going Haven't you ever heard of traffic cameras?
Oh yes, I vacationed in London last March. I rented a car and drove around, and I was nervous about that, but they don't give you a ticket unless you're going very fast, 10mph is not enough. I should know, because I was driving faster than the speed limit, along with the rest of the cars.
Flagging you for agressive behavior and shooting or arresting you for agressive behavior are two different things. Can't you tell the difference? The flagging involves human intervention!
Anyways, like I said, just because you like to smoke pot doesn't mean you have to swing to the far left. I hope you're voting green or libertarian, and not democrat, because the dems won't legalize pot, nor gay marriage. Common misconception. I used to be in your shoes, when I was like 15-16, smoking pot all the time, down with the government and all that. Sooner or later you grow up, you have to deal with vandals and thieves in your own neighborhood, and you realize that nobody really cares if you smoke pot in the privacy of your own home, legal or not.
We've been using fingerprints, which aren't 100% accurate. It doesn't matter what the people checking the IDs thought, they would look at the name, enter it into their register, and the camera would detect that the person isn't who they say they are, regardless of what the picture on the card looked like.
The information may not always be correct. It's subject to the same limitations as credit reports and stuff like that, but if someone is using your identity to ring up a bunch of fraudulent charges, the police will come after you. It's the same system that has been in place for decades.
And hackers? Hackers? That is the best argument you have? Hackers broke into the FBI identity database not long ago. Hell did NOT break loose, just a bunch of jokers looking people up. They all got caught too.
I see you have your slashdot liberal ideologue dictionary out. Red Herring, Straw Man, Ad Hominem.... it's none of the above. The camera doesn't have to "read minds" or "diving their intentions", and that you would say something absurd like that truly highlights your ignorance. All the camera would have to do is match the face to a name, as they were checking in for the flight. The hijackers were using false IDs.
Further, it could also do pattern recognition to thwart future terrorist activity. These men all came from the same place, and formed into little groups and flew to different destinations. Camera recognizes this automatically, using face recognition, and the FAA security guy asks them "do you men know each other? Where are you going and why?" It would simply give the security guys, who ask stuff like that anyways, some information to begin with.
You don't even know what you're talking about. What you think came from Jefferson actually came from Franklin. You have molded a face around your own ideology. The truth is, open mindedness would have it that you change your attitude toward law enforcement as times change. 250 years ago, George Orwell didn't exist, and neither did electronic financial records.
See this is what I'm talking about. Your ideology is so far out of touch with reality, you see the indictment of a bunch of corrupt officials and sleazy businessmen as a bad thing. You are hopelessly out of touch with reality. Times change, law enforcement needs to change with it.
The patriot act hasn't been abused. It has been used to do what it was intended to do, not to harass political dissidents or any of that. It occasionally is useful at catching criminals and that's "abuse"?
I don't have evidence to support the beating down our door statement, but I am making a qualitative comparison, between terrorist threats and the threat from our own government, the big brother scenario. The terrorists are real. We have never dealt with anything close to big brother. A little fear is justified, I don't want cameras in my bedroom, thank you very much.
I would also like a national ID card, I think it's pretty funny, I used to work in food service industry when I was younger, someone hands you an Alaska drivers license or some other far off place, you just assume it's legitimate, so long as it's printed on plastic. National ID card is important. They can be used for ill, but give me an example? The best example I've gotten is the political dissident, similar to the Watergate scandal. Just another thing I don't really care about. You want to talk about using terrorism as a scare tactic for political gain, this "big brother" is so overwhelmingly out of control as a scare tactic. No technological advancements for law enforcement because of a book written 50 years ago that predicted DOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!! ?????
Picket zone? As in protesters? Maybe the violent ones.
"What kind of data aggregation will take place?"
Hopefully, lots. Why not?
"How many databases will this tie in with?"
All. Why not?
"Which organizations will have access to this data?"
Law enforcement, national security, foreign intelligence. Why not?
"What systems will be used to cull license plate numbers/face recognition/and other such patterns?"
Free market solutions. The best man has to offer. Why not?
"How many people will be employed to watch these cameras?"
As many as are necessary and practical.
"What are the metrics for results that they see as being acceptable results?"
I think this system aught to catch on, and start to be deployed in other cities. The best metrics I think are comparing effectiveness to other cities. Also, the London system has been effective, as evidenced by the recent terrorist activity and the ability to catch those criminals. The larger rollout was obviously a good decision, in hindsight. This is common sense to me.
This video technology has become very cheap. It hasn't been possible to do something like this on a grand scale up until very recently. This was bound to happen, and this is the next generation of crime/war fighting. Can you imagine if every major metropolitan area had a plane circling at 50,000 feet with a telescopic camera on it. A call to 911 comes in, "my purse has been stolen", seconds later there is an eye looking down at the thief.
Then the shit hits the fan, dude. The shit hits the fan. That's why something like that is not likely to happen. Who wants to be the next Nixon?
And if it captures "white political dissidents" (you) jacking off in public, YOU GO TO JAIL! Simple as that. The lesson here is YOU DON'T JACK OFF IN PUBLIC!
Wrong. Cameras could have seen them entering the airport, purchasing the ticket, boarding the plane. Real time CCTV law enforcement may be a ways off, but you are totally not giving this a chance. Reminds me of the missile defense thing, I kept hearing arguments like "This is physically impossible" which was complete rubbish.
This is ridiculous. You mean like ripping the tags off of mattresses? Oh I do that all the time. Hell everybody's robbed a little old lady at some time in their life, right?
The only crime I think I've ever committed were traffic violations. I always drive close to 10mph over and any cop who feels like giving me a hard time can pull me over and give me a ticket for 9mph over or whatever I'm going at the time. But they don't. Isn't that worth something? These people policing you are just that, people.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, you're giving the voters too much credit. They don't pay as close attention to political calculation as you are. They just think she is what she says she is, for the most part.
Hillary will win votes with her position on the war. You'll notice all the D candidates are anti-war, and all the money is spent convincing people that Hillary is bad because of her moderate position on the war. Being anti-war is only popular right now because of the heavy politicizing of it, all the D candidates are campaigning on their anti-war stuff, but Hillary has the presidential election in her sights, which requires that she take a more reasonable position on the war to get some of the moderate vote. She will certainly need it.
The war may be at a turning point, however. I was reading http://www.michaelyon-online.com and I was surprised all the good news that's not being reported in the mass media.
You give people too much credit. Everyone who knew anything at all knew who the vice president was, and what his true agenda was, which is not very many people. Most people tuned in for one or two debates, or heard people talking about how al gore is a robot and george bush is a monkey, over the water cooler. I remember one defining moment when, during one of the final debates, Al Gore directed a question directly at Bush during his answer period, which was not in the rulebook, and Bush accused gore of not playing by the rules. It seems superficial stuff like that goes much further than actual policy agenda. And I include oval office BJ's in there too (superficial stuff).
Is this sentence code for "I listen to NPR so listen to what I'm saying" ?
Did you know that tulip bulbs were considered a form of currency in Norway during the 1600s?
Ah, the things you learn drinking Snapple.
Cassinni, New Horizons, pretty much everything the space tourists won't do. Yeah, scaled built basically an "airplane" and the true innovation is his reentry wing, everything else is just off the shelf components. SpaceX is doing a lot better job of going further, by making the cost to orbit cheaper. That's not even in virgin galactic's game plan.
Uh, space tourism is pretty much all they got. Count on NASA, or maybe ESA.
Dude, you post way to much on the boards. I post maybe once a week, but you are always there. You're a god damn karma whore. Read the fuckin' article next time.
When I saw the headline, I thought "OH NO! Not John Carmack! What will I do without my armadillo updates!"
Then I found out it was just Scaled. Whew.
Ladies and gentlemen, the other 99%
No, my wife loves it :)
I did my own comparison of the Zune with the Ipod last Christmas, when those two items were pretty much what everyone was buying, and I decided the Zune was better. Bigger screen, less cost.... that about sums it up for me, although I have the Ipod video, I never use it. Seems the only advantage it has is styling, although that's a light point IMO.
Oh does somebody have a violin to play? This is such a touching message you have, about your society caring about you. You make it sound like my society takes poor people out back and shoots them.
You are so thick. If you're not watching out for your own interests, nobody else will. If that's how you do business, you've been getting screwed. This is basic economic theory. Go educate yourself.
The constitution has nothing to do with this, dude. The constitution protects against unlawful searches. Why is it you liberals always point at the constitution and say "see?", is it because the courts have been in the liberals pocket for so long?
Times a changin', pal. The search was lawful because the patriot act is law!
Just because you're a pothead doesn't mean you need to buy into all this tin hat conspiracy BS. The law will protect you from unlawful searches, meaning that you're not invincible to unlawful searches, but that you won't be convicted.
No, half of your "just because" points were invalid, like the mod chip, that is illegal for so many reasons. You can put a mod chip in a ham radio and broadcast on police frequencies, should that be legal too?
The laws may not be catered to you, but they are catered to society. The reason the govt doesn't want you smoking pot all day is because it turns you into a welfare baby. Maybe not you personally, but others it certainly does and will. You're not allowed to have sex with children either, it may seem fine to you and the kid you're screwing, but society does not agree. Such a shame, isn't it?
And what place is that? Anything but a school zone and you're fine going
Haven't you ever heard of traffic cameras?
Oh yes, I vacationed in London last March. I rented a car and drove around, and I was nervous about that, but they don't give you a ticket unless you're going very fast, 10mph is not enough. I should know, because I was driving faster than the speed limit, along with the rest of the cars.
Flagging you for agressive behavior and shooting or arresting you for agressive behavior are two different things. Can't you tell the difference? The flagging involves human intervention!
Anyways, like I said, just because you like to smoke pot doesn't mean you have to swing to the far left. I hope you're voting green or libertarian, and not democrat, because the dems won't legalize pot, nor gay marriage. Common misconception. I used to be in your shoes, when I was like 15-16, smoking pot all the time, down with the government and all that. Sooner or later you grow up, you have to deal with vandals and thieves in your own neighborhood, and you realize that nobody really cares if you smoke pot in the privacy of your own home, legal or not.
We've been using fingerprints, which aren't 100% accurate. It doesn't matter what the people checking the IDs thought, they would look at the name, enter it into their register, and the camera would detect that the person isn't who they say they are, regardless of what the picture on the card looked like.
The information may not always be correct. It's subject to the same limitations as credit reports and stuff like that, but if someone is using your identity to ring up a bunch of fraudulent charges, the police will come after you. It's the same system that has been in place for decades.
And hackers? Hackers? That is the best argument you have? Hackers broke into the FBI identity database not long ago. Hell did NOT break loose, just a bunch of jokers looking people up. They all got caught too.
I see you have your slashdot liberal ideologue dictionary out. Red Herring, Straw Man, Ad Hominem.... it's none of the above. The camera doesn't have to "read minds" or "diving their intentions", and that you would say something absurd like that truly highlights your ignorance. All the camera would have to do is match the face to a name, as they were checking in for the flight. The hijackers were using false IDs.
Further, it could also do pattern recognition to thwart future terrorist activity. These men all came from the same place, and formed into little groups and flew to different destinations. Camera recognizes this automatically, using face recognition, and the FAA security guy asks them "do you men know each other? Where are you going and why?" It would simply give the security guys, who ask stuff like that anyways, some information to begin with.
You don't even know what you're talking about. What you think came from Jefferson actually came from Franklin. You have molded a face around your own ideology. The truth is, open mindedness would have it that you change your attitude toward law enforcement as times change. 250 years ago, George Orwell didn't exist, and neither did electronic financial records.
See this is what I'm talking about. Your ideology is so far out of touch with reality, you see the indictment of a bunch of corrupt officials and sleazy businessmen as a bad thing. You are hopelessly out of touch with reality. Times change, law enforcement needs to change with it.
The patriot act hasn't been abused. It has been used to do what it was intended to do, not to harass political dissidents or any of that. It occasionally is useful at catching criminals and that's "abuse"?
I don't have evidence to support the beating down our door statement, but I am making a qualitative comparison, between terrorist threats and the threat from our own government, the big brother scenario. The terrorists are real. We have never dealt with anything close to big brother. A little fear is justified, I don't want cameras in my bedroom, thank you very much.
I would also like a national ID card, I think it's pretty funny, I used to work in food service industry when I was younger, someone hands you an Alaska drivers license or some other far off place, you just assume it's legitimate, so long as it's printed on plastic. National ID card is important. They can be used for ill, but give me an example? The best example I've gotten is the political dissident, similar to the Watergate scandal. Just another thing I don't really care about. You want to talk about using terrorism as a scare tactic for political gain, this "big brother" is so overwhelmingly out of control as a scare tactic. No technological advancements for law enforcement because of a book written 50 years ago that predicted DOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!! ?????
"Will this be used to maintain picket zones?"
Picket zone? As in protesters? Maybe the violent ones.
"What kind of data aggregation will take place?"
Hopefully, lots. Why not?
"How many databases will this tie in with?"
All. Why not?
"Which organizations will have access to this data?"
Law enforcement, national security, foreign intelligence. Why not?
"What systems will be used to cull license plate numbers/face recognition/and other such patterns?"
Free market solutions. The best man has to offer. Why not?
"How many people will be employed to watch these cameras?"
As many as are necessary and practical.
"What are the metrics for results that they see as being acceptable results?"
I think this system aught to catch on, and start to be deployed in other cities. The best metrics I think are comparing effectiveness to other cities. Also, the London system has been effective, as evidenced by the recent terrorist activity and the ability to catch those criminals. The larger rollout was obviously a good decision, in hindsight. This is common sense to me.
This video technology has become very cheap. It hasn't been possible to do something like this on a grand scale up until very recently. This was bound to happen, and this is the next generation of crime/war fighting. Can you imagine if every major metropolitan area had a plane circling at 50,000 feet with a telescopic camera on it. A call to 911 comes in, "my purse has been stolen", seconds later there is an eye looking down at the thief.
Then the shit hits the fan, dude. The shit hits the fan. That's why something like that is not likely to happen. Who wants to be the next Nixon? And if it captures "white political dissidents" (you) jacking off in public, YOU GO TO JAIL! Simple as that. The lesson here is YOU DON'T JACK OFF IN PUBLIC!
"cameras don't stop terrorists."
Wrong. Cameras could have seen them entering the airport, purchasing the ticket, boarding the plane. Real time CCTV law enforcement may be a ways off, but you are totally not giving this a chance. Reminds me of the missile defense thing, I kept hearing arguments like "This is physically impossible" which was complete rubbish.
So much for analytical thinking.
This is ridiculous. You mean like ripping the tags off of mattresses? Oh I do that all the time. Hell everybody's robbed a little old lady at some time in their life, right?
The only crime I think I've ever committed were traffic violations. I always drive close to 10mph over and any cop who feels like giving me a hard time can pull me over and give me a ticket for 9mph over or whatever I'm going at the time. But they don't. Isn't that worth something? These people policing you are just that, people.
Get over this Orwellian nightmare, would you?