I used to work in this building about 8 years ago. There was an ergonomic furniture company, and I did their IT as a part time job during college break. Inside it is basically just a large warehouse, with concrete floors and a leaky roof.
The place was a posterchild of those California "This location contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer." From what I remember when they were developing the IC with all the various chemicals that entails they would just dump the extra chemicals in back(there is a parking lot there now).
When I was there the owners of the company had a half-hearted attempt to get the property designated as a landmark, as others have suggested. But I assume that it all fell through given the current circumstances.
Your above reasoining on uses of various items are entirely irrelevant.
But tell me, what convenient use does a gun have? Apart from as a weapon?
It does not matter what a gun is used for. The purchasing, ownership, and use of my gun is irrelevant unless I violate the law It is not any of your business nor the governments business what I do with any guns or any other item I purchase in my life.
The United States is a free country and I do not have to justify any of my actions to anybody except a judge or jury of my peers during a trial. And others have no say what so ever in my life.
And people are wondering what could possibly be wrong with Detroit schools....
Even tommarrow they just announced that instead of the traditional half-day off before Thanksgiving they are having a full day and I'm not even sure why.
If the burocracy is eleminated then the children will have a better chance of graduating and heading to college then droping or bearly graduating and going straight into the workforce.
You are entirely correct the teachers do pass anybody. Oh the irony!
So you advocate the death penalty for people who can't find their government-issued ID? Fascist.
I think you fail to understand that this is a University... now it is a government run university but it does have posted rules.
Most universities have ID's issued to students for a variety of reasons. I went to a private one, and only students were allowed in the library after 9pm... much like other posters have cited Powell library being closed to the public after 10pm.
I wouldn't say that the library is private property, but the university can make whatever rules it wants for the buildings on its property.
The technically superior standard almost never wins in the US.
Tehcnicaly superiority is not always what the market demands. These formats win because they meet th e needs of the consumer better than the others on the market place for one reason or another.
Oh, and market places for your list are much larger than just the United States. Why is suddenly the US the deciding factor in what the market wants ? Maybe you are just making a comment about how infulential the Unted States is in purchasing power.
If you fence off all the land and the sea, then anyone who isn't a land owner is now a slave, as the only food they can procure is food provided by landowners.
How are the land owners going to provide that food ? Creating scenarios that have never existed does not bring us closer to finding the good in this discussion.
By not garaunteeing a right to eat, you are saying that it is okay to imprison people and starve them to death. If the owning class supplants the state, is the common man any better off?
There is no owning class, everybody is a property owner, as mentioned by another poster. And no it is not ok to imprison people and starve them to death. Certainly any person could try such things, but they would have to deal with the other individuals defense of themselves... and if they were a weilding a gun I think that this attempt would not be very effective. With the establishment of society we imprison those who attempt to remove anothers right to life(again, furtherance of existance, NOT a right to protection, food, etc).
What gives any man to fence off what was once communal and declare it his own. Does that man not then need to initiate force to keep others off his property?
Locke discusses this in length. When man puts the product of his effort into the land it becomes his to own. This definition of property ownership is how most western societies operate. This is also why many of the colonists over the centuries had no problem colonizing land inhabited by nomadic tribes(american indians etc). They never bothered to stick around and put work into the land, they just moved with the herds.
Property is a communally derived right, and should be subject to the decisions of the community, because it enforces contracts on third parties.
Your argument assumes that all property is intrisicly owned by the community. I'm curious as to why you feel any property is intrisicly owned.
You simply stated exactly what Mr. Hayden said in an interview with reporters a couple of weeks back - that the government only needs warrants for unreasonable searches. Sad that someone who is supposed to head up one of the most powerful and important intelligence organizations in the world doesn't even know the 4th amendment.
I stated the above because that is what is written in the Constitution. And yes that is exactly what Mr. Hayden said as well at no point did stray from the text of the Constitution. Both of those links you pasted got it wrong as well, talk to any criminal lawyer and they will tell you the difference between reasonable and unreasonable search and seizure.
When corrected on the issue, that it also requires PROBABLE CAUSE, Hayden actually argued back that it the only standard for obtaining warrants was for unreasonable searches.
The conditions for probable cause only apply if the search and seisure is "unreasonable." Reasonable suspicion does not require a warrant, therefore in the case you are speaking of no 'probable cause' is necessary. We can look at it as as series of conditionals:
if ( reasonable suspicion )
search else
if ( probable cause )
issue warrant
else
everybody goes home
If the first conditional evaluates to true we don't need to bother with warrants. For example, lets say you are swerving in the road. An officer can stop you and search you on reasonable suspicion that you are a danger to others while drunk(and driving). No warrant needed.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Notice that word unreasonable. Lets try reading it again, and see how the definition changes without the word unreasonable and that silly dependent 'and' clause.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against XXXXXXXXXX searches and seizures, shall not be violated, XXX no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Interesting, changes the meaning to what I hear a lot of people say on the street. I wonder why they used that dependent and clause ?
In other words, the government only needs warrants for unreasonable searches and seizures. And unreasonable can either mean 'beyond normal limits' or 'not showing good judgement'. Also note that 'not showing good judgement' does not mean 'not good judgement' it means the judgement may not be immidiately apparent.
In either case, if the government desires something from a person. And the reasons are not immediately apparent it must get a warrent. Flash back to the topic of the article...
So what do we know ? Some guy says there is a secret room in a building that hundreds of other people have been in. There is no information in this article that a random person who has been in this building and with a little knowledge of networking technology could not have written.
Lets just conjecture for the moment that this equipment *is* there. Is there anything that leads us to beleive the government is using it for any kind of searching that is unreasonable ?
That comes from the fourth amendment, from a little-known part of the US Constitution called the "Bill of Rights". The current administration should try giving it a read before wiping their asses with it every morning.
1) The parent poster didn't have to qualify his claim: even if you only wiretap international calls without warrants, that's still wiretapping without warrants.
People who are not U.S. Citizens and do not live inside U.S. borders are not entitled to the government protections(Bill of Rights) that citizens are. There is probably some room for debate when mixing the two, i.e. a non-citizen in U.S. borders or a U.S. citizen outside U.S. borders.
Foreigners have no claim to a warrent for wiretaps.
The fallacy of your argument is clear in your initial statement:
I think I know why we're stalled on this one. I think it might be a good idea if our fascist dictator in charge actually believed in global warming.
If in fact global warming evidence is so overwhelmingly documented and factual why do you demand others use of belief as the foundation your position ?
Facts speak for or against a given theory, but belief functions without facts.
OK, so when this story last hit slashdot I was at work with other computer types and we tested this out. We had a large Lexmark color laser printer, so we printed out a webpage in color. We then took the paper over to our rework station(for reworking PCB's) and looked at it with the optical equipment there(microscope of some magnitude). Sure enough, there was the blue dots, faint but there. Then we photocopied the paper on a black and white photocopier and were unable to find the dots again. My guess is that they were too faint for that particular copier. So why is everyone so upset ? The stupid people who counterfit money will give away the printer model they used, not a big deal.
some would argue that the goal of record companies shouldn't be to make money, but to produce good music. some would argue that the goal of any company should be just like it is in all their mission statements... to strive for excellence in their chosen field.
Some people also have no grasp for how economics works. As the parent said: The only obligations companies have is to their share holders. Record companies are in the business of producing music for the consumer. In exchange for this music the consumer pays the record company. The record company will persue the business path where quality of music and maximization of profit intersect. If companies do not persue a business model that will allow them to continue producing music then everyone loses. The consumer loses because now they have no music, and the business loses because now everyone is out of a job.
Among these is making it a criminal offense for people to refuse disclosing their encryption keys when the police want to access someone's files.
I'm not familiar with British law, but I do know American law is based on the same doctorines as the British(from a historical perspective at least).
In the U.S. the court can order you to provide encryption keys and if you do not you will be held in contempt of the court. This usually means the judge puts you in jail until you decide to provide the keys. To me(IANAL) it seems like the above just formalises the practice. Via the wikipedia reference it appears as though the U.S. did this in 1981.
Being held in contempt of the court is a very normal tool for judges to use with uncooperative court subjects, cryptographic keys aren't special or different.
They're convinced because people do it. Ringtones, applications, and stupid games for mobile phones is a billion+ dollar a year industry.
For 30 second ringtones with crappy quality, T-mobile gets to charge $1.25+ each and people buy into it!
*stands up* Yeah that's me, I admit it I paid $2.00 for a stupid ringtone. Mostly because it's hilarious when my phone starts playing ACDC's Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap and I explain that it's my girlfriends ringtone.
Oh gee the greens are protesting ? *yawn* Not new or interesting, wake me up when the green party grows up.
"we aren't getting what we want so lets get naked!"
really people, if the green party people want to be listened to then they need to actually do something that commands the respect and attention of the public. And getting naked is not it.
"The constitution can be changed by initiatives passed by voters. Initiatives can be proposed by the governor, legislature, or by popular petition, giving California one of the most flexible legal systems in the world. The constitution makes the California legislature bicameral, with a Senate and an Assembly."
Also, the governor and many other elected officials endorsed the measure. While in my original statement the use of the word "decided" was wrong, my point is still valid: the government is not working for all of the people first, as it should be.
I'm not sure what this actually means: "all of the people first".
In California we have democracy. Which means majority rules and government does whatever that majority says. Whether the decision is bad or good.
Nope, the governemnt has decided it is more important to shoot for the moon than to fix current problems that affect everyone.
Wrong. California is a direct democracy. It's not 'the government' that voted for the measure it was the people directly. So vote/blame the californias(DISCLAIMER: I am one of them, but voted agains the measure).
Slashdot Mirror
I used to work in this building about 8 years ago. There was an ergonomic furniture company, and I did their IT as a part time job during college break. Inside it is basically just a large warehouse, with concrete floors and a leaky roof.
The place was a posterchild of those California "This location contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer." From what I remember when they were developing the IC with all the various chemicals that entails they would just dump the extra chemicals in back(there is a parking lot there now).
When I was there the owners of the company had a half-hearted attempt to get the property designated as a landmark, as others have suggested. But I assume that it all fell through given the current circumstances.
Your above reasoining on uses of various items are entirely irrelevant.
But tell me, what convenient use does a gun have? Apart from as a weapon?
It does not matter what a gun is used for. The purchasing, ownership, and use of my gun is irrelevant unless I violate the law
It is not any of your business nor the governments business what I do with any guns or any other item I purchase in my life.
The United States is a free country and I do not have to justify any of my actions to anybody except a judge or jury of my peers during a trial. And others have no say what so ever in my life.
And people are wondering what could possibly be wrong with Detroit schools....
Even tommarrow they just announced that instead of the traditional half-day off before Thanksgiving they are having a full day and I'm not even sure why.
If the burocracy is eleminated then the children will have a better chance of graduating and heading to college then droping or bearly graduating and going straight into the workforce.
You are entirely correct the teachers do pass anybody. Oh the irony!
So you advocate the death penalty for people who can't find their government-issued ID? Fascist.
I think you fail to understand that this is a University... now it is a government run university but it does have posted rules.
Most universities have ID's issued to students for a variety of reasons. I went to a private one, and only students were allowed in the library after 9pm... much like other posters have cited Powell library being closed to the public after 10pm.
I wouldn't say that the library is private property, but the university can make whatever rules it wants for the buildings on its property.
(cue the French jokes)
I'll start!
It isn't a real war until the French surrender!
The technically superior standard almost never wins in the US.
Tehcnicaly superiority is not always what the market demands. These formats win because they meet th e needs of the consumer better than the others on the market place for one reason or another.
Oh, and market places for your list are much larger than just the United States. Why is suddenly the US the deciding factor in what the market wants ? Maybe you are just making a comment about how infulential the Unted States is in purchasing power.
Oh definitely, I forgot about all my socialism classes in school where they told me competition in the marketplace was *bad* for the consumer.
If you fence off all the land and the sea, then anyone who isn't a land owner is now a slave, as the only food they can procure is food provided by landowners.
How are the land owners going to provide that food ? Creating scenarios that have never existed does not bring us closer to finding the good in this discussion.
By not garaunteeing a right to eat, you are saying that it is okay to imprison people and starve them to death. If the owning class supplants the state, is the common man any better off?
There is no owning class, everybody is a property owner, as mentioned by another poster. And no it is not ok to imprison people and starve them to death. Certainly any person could try such things, but they would have to deal with the other individuals defense of themselves... and if they were a weilding a gun I think that this attempt would not be very effective.
With the establishment of society we imprison those who attempt to remove anothers right to life(again, furtherance of existance, NOT a right to protection, food, etc).
What gives any man to fence off what was once communal and declare it his own. Does that man not then need to initiate force to keep others off his property?
Locke discusses this in length. When man puts the product of his effort into the land it becomes his to own. This definition of property ownership is how most western societies operate. This is also why many of the colonists over the centuries had no problem colonizing land inhabited by nomadic tribes(american indians etc). They never bothered to stick around and put work into the land, they just moved with the herds.
Property is a communally derived right, and should be subject to the decisions of the community, because it enforces contracts on third parties.
Your argument assumes that all property is intrisicly owned by the community. I'm curious as to why you feel any property is intrisicly owned.
I think you misunderstood. The burden of proof lies upon the one making the claims.
Do you have any facts or evidence to back up your outrageous(and trollish) claims ?
Hmmmmm.... Canada. Isn't that south of Iron Forge ?
You simply stated exactly what Mr. Hayden said in an interview with reporters a couple of weeks back - that the government only needs warrants for unreasonable searches. Sad that someone who is supposed to head up one of the most powerful and important intelligence organizations in the world doesn't even know the 4th amendment.
I stated the above because that is what is written in the Constitution. And yes that is exactly what Mr. Hayden said as well at no point did stray from the text of the Constitution. Both of those links you pasted got it wrong as well, talk to any criminal lawyer and they will tell you the difference between reasonable and unreasonable search and seizure.
When corrected on the issue, that it also requires PROBABLE CAUSE, Hayden actually argued back that it the only standard for obtaining warrants was for unreasonable searches.
The conditions for probable cause only apply if the search and seisure is "unreasonable."
Reasonable suspicion does not require a warrant, therefore in the case you are speaking of no 'probable cause' is necessary. We can look at it as as series of conditionals:
if ( reasonable suspicion )
search
else
if ( probable cause )
issue warrant
else
everybody goes home
If the first conditional evaluates to true we don't need to bother with warrants. For example, lets say you are swerving in the road. An officer can stop you and search you on reasonable suspicion that you are a danger to others while drunk(and driving). No warrant needed.
See the wikipedia entry on search conditionals.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Notice that word unreasonable. Lets try reading it again, and see how the definition changes without the word unreasonable and that silly dependent 'and' clause.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against XXXXXXXXXX searches and seizures, shall not be violated, XXX no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Interesting, changes the meaning to what I hear a lot of people say on the street. I wonder why they used that dependent and clause ?
In other words, the government only needs warrants for unreasonable
searches and seizures. And unreasonable can either mean 'beyond normal limits' or 'not showing good judgement'. Also note that 'not showing good judgement' does not mean 'not good judgement' it means the judgement may not be immidiately apparent.
In either case, if the government desires something from a person. And the reasons are not immediately apparent it must get a warrent. Flash back to the topic of the article...
So what do we know ? Some guy says there is a secret room in a building that hundreds of other people have been in. There is no information in this article that a random person who has been in this building and with a little knowledge of networking technology could not have written.
Lets just conjecture for the moment that this equipment *is* there. Is there anything that leads us to beleive the government is using it for any kind of searching that is unreasonable ?
That comes from the fourth amendment, from a little-known part of the US Constitution called the "Bill of Rights". The current administration should try giving it a read before wiping their asses with it every morning.
*blahyawn*
cynicism is not a good basis for an assertion.
For shame, AT&T... Blatantly violating the US constitution we can overlook
I am curious,could you point me to which sentence or statement from the U.S. Constitution has been violated ?
Kthxbye.
1) The parent poster didn't have to qualify his claim: even if you only wiretap international calls without warrants, that's still wiretapping without warrants.
People who are not U.S. Citizens and do not live inside U.S. borders are not entitled to the government protections(Bill of Rights) that citizens are. There is probably some room for debate when mixing the two, i.e. a non-citizen in U.S. borders or a U.S. citizen outside U.S. borders.
Foreigners have no claim to a warrent for wiretaps.
The fallacy of your argument is clear in your initial statement:
I think I know why we're stalled on this one. I think it might be a good idea if our fascist dictator in charge actually believed in global warming.
If in fact global warming evidence is so overwhelmingly documented and factual why do you demand others use of belief as the foundation your position ?
Facts speak for or against a given theory, but belief functions without facts.
Everything in moderation, even moderation.
I am not sure of the intent of the poster, but I constantly say this to my friends and associates to see if they actually figure out what's going on.
The joke of course is that they are *not* moderates and advocate absolutism: absolutely applying moderation to everything.
But really asking for intellectual continuity in thought seems to be too much for most people I interact with.
OK, so when this story last hit slashdot I was at work with other computer types and we tested this out. We had a large Lexmark color laser printer, so we printed out a webpage in color.
We then took the paper over to our rework station(for reworking PCB's) and looked at it with the optical equipment there(microscope of some magnitude). Sure enough, there was the blue dots, faint but there.
Then we photocopied the paper on a black and white photocopier and were unable to find the dots again. My guess is that they were too faint for that particular copier.
So why is everyone so upset ? The stupid people who counterfit money will give away the printer model they used, not a big deal.
some would argue that the goal of record companies shouldn't be to make money, but to produce good music.
some would argue that the goal of any company should be just like it is in all their mission statements... to strive for excellence in their chosen field.
Some people also have no grasp for how economics works. As the parent said:
The only obligations companies have is to their share holders. Record companies are in the business of producing music for the consumer. In exchange for this music the consumer pays the record company. The record company will persue the business path where quality of music and maximization of profit intersect. If companies do not persue a business model that will allow them to continue producing music then everyone loses.
The consumer loses because now they have no music, and the business loses because now everyone is out of a job.
Among these is making it a criminal offense for people to refuse disclosing their encryption keys when the police want to access someone's files.
I'm not familiar with British law, but I do know American law is based on the same doctorines as the British(from a historical perspective at least).
In the U.S. the court can order you to provide encryption keys and if you do not you will be held in contempt of the court. This usually means the judge puts you in jail until you decide to provide the keys. To me(IANAL) it seems like the above just formalises the practice. Via the wikipedia reference it appears as though the U.S. did this in 1981.
Being held in contempt of the court is a very normal tool for judges to use with uncooperative court subjects, cryptographic keys aren't special or different.
They're convinced because people do it. Ringtones, applications, and stupid games for mobile phones is a billion+ dollar a year industry.
For 30 second ringtones with crappy quality, T-mobile gets to charge $1.25+ each and people buy into it!
*stands up*
Yeah that's me, I admit it I paid $2.00 for a stupid ringtone. Mostly because it's hilarious when my phone starts playing ACDC's Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap and I explain that it's my girlfriends ringtone.
Oh gee the greens are protesting ? *yawn*
Not new or interesting, wake me up when the green party grows up.
"we aren't getting what we want so lets get naked!"
really people, if the green party people want to be listened to then they need to actually do something that commands the respect and attention of the public. And getting naked is not it.
I wonder how much longer that can sustain it self with unemployment numbers in the double digits.
yes, the people directly voted for the measure, but who put the measure on the ballot?
I believe this measure was put on by the people. This in fact is how most of the 'measures' are put on the ballots each year.
Wikipedia says on the California government:
"The constitution can be changed by initiatives passed by voters. Initiatives can be proposed by the governor, legislature, or by popular petition, giving California one of the most flexible legal systems in the world. The constitution makes the California legislature bicameral, with a Senate and an Assembly."
Also, the governor and many other elected officials endorsed the measure. While in my original statement the use of the word "decided" was wrong, my point is still valid: the government is not working for all of the people first, as it should be.
I'm not sure what this actually means: "all of the people first".
In California we have democracy. Which means majority rules and government does whatever that majority says. Whether the decision is bad or good.
Nope, the governemnt has decided it is more important to shoot for the moon than to fix current problems that affect everyone.
Wrong. California is a direct democracy. It's not 'the government' that voted for the measure it was the people directly. So vote/blame the californias(DISCLAIMER: I am one of them, but voted agains the measure).