The Constitutional Law is clear that wuch wiretapping is not allowed unless the police can get a warrant issued by a judge.
Its not so clear. In the early days of wiretapping, no warrant was required for anyone; as phone calls were not thought to be "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Don't get me wrong, I like that warrants are needed, but the issue has not always been so clear cut.
Linux is still nowhere near the point where a non-techie will consider adopting it.
Exactly. Linux today is mostly used by techies (or people with ready access to techies). Verizon and MATC have little incentive to spend the money to support Linux users, most will figure it out on their own. But, without that support, Linux will not be suitable for people who depend on the step-by-step hand-holding they are used to. Its a Catch-22.
Of course, we actually live in a Republic, not a Democracy. A Republic is stated to be a kind of "representative" democracy...
A republic is not necessarily a representative democracy, but is any government which is not a monarchy. Representative democracy is often the form a republican government takes, but is far from required. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia were all republics.
...but with the electoral college not being really under the control of the people, you might as well just call it an Oligarchy.
The Electoral College is under control of the states, which, in turn, are under control of the people. Its far from a true Oligarchy, as the electors have little power or independence. If there is ever a rash of faithless electors, you can bet that we'll be changing our constitution pretty quickly to take discretion away from the electors, or removing the institution entirely.
UAVs are a lot cheaper, and a lot more expendable.
Exactly. UAVs will require a complete reevaluation of how we fight an air war. Much like tanks, machine guns, manned aircraft, and ICBMs before them, UAVs won't fulfill their promise until our military doctrine catches up.
No shit, but to what degree was this priced in already?
I think the market had already priced in about 80% of this news. Unless there is other, unforeseen fallout from this announcement, we're pretty close to where the stock should be. For the last year it has been a question of "when", not "if". Actually, this may be the the jump-start the stock needs; big money has been reluctant to invest in Apple until the uncertainty of Job's condition is cleared up. He should have done this six months ago.
do you seriously think anything has fundamentally changed in Apple's business?
Stock price doesn't have anything to do with the actual fundamentals of a company, only how those fundamentals are perceived. Like it or not, Job's absence may have an effect on stock price, even if the company is run exactly the same as it would have, were he still at the helm. Perception is reality; at least in the market.
Merely having a conflict of interests is not unethical.
But when that conflict of interest results in government policy which favors those interests, at the expense of competitors, that's potentially unethical. Of such things, corruption scandals are made.
The statement that consciousness precedes matter is a philosophical statement. It precludes scientific debate because philosophical reasoning is of a different kind than scientific reasoning.
But even in philosophic, not scientific, debate, it is not acceptable to simply make an assertion without some justification. I'm hardly a philosopher, but most of the books I have read on the topic are filled with arguments and reasoning behind the conclusions the philosopher has reached. The statement, "consciousness precedes matter" is hardly self-evident, so requires something to back it up.
...assuming a person with whom you disagree is automatically wrong does not magically make he/she wrong, or anymore detached from reality than you are.
Unless you can point to any evidence, or even a credible sounding theory, which would back up the claim, I can pretty confidently dismiss it. I'm not assuming anything, other than that an unqualified assertion, of such a controversial nature, should be backed up by something.
..consciousness precedes matter. Just throwing matter together won't magically instill consciousness.
..understanding how the world actually works precedes posting a comment on/. Just throwing comments up on/. won't magically instill understanding of how the world actually works.
Actually, I was walking down to the river to catch fish, and digging potatoes. And chopping wood for heat. And boiling drinking water. Sometimes I didn't see the infrastructure at all for several weeks at a time.
You saw infrastructure all the time. Unless you were catching fish with a hand-made spear, walking to the river in shoes and clothes made from self-tanned leather, chopping wood with a flint ax, and boiling water in a clay pot, you were benefiting from the industrial society which made those products.
Remember, up to a certain point ALL our ancestors survived living like this; otherwise we wouldn't be here:)
And they had their own, more primitive, infrastructure which they all depended upon. Instead of factories, farms, superhighways, medicine, and electricity; they had blacksmiths, hunters, horses, and subsistence farming. Its an infrastructure which doesn't exist any more. If our modern infrastructure disappeared, we would be a lot worse off than those in the 15th century.
No way ten million would keep him from skipping out.
We will be able to test your hypothesis. I, for one, think that he won't skip bail. Obviously, the judge in the case agrees with me. You think he will skip.
His bail should have been far higher than the amount he stole.
Why? Excessive bail is unjust; unless, of course, you just want to see the man in jail without a trial. I hope you are never falsely accused of a crime, can't afford the excessive bail, and have to spend months in county jail awaiting trial.
If you want to talk about the injustice of the American bail system, look to the poor--not the rich--who are the most hurt by the current system. Innocent men rot away in jails all across the country because they cannot make bail. Their lives are ruined. Their jobs are lost. Their houses are foreclosed upon. Their roomates become rapists and murderers. They become the victim of the systemic violence of the corrections system. All without a trial or conviction.
Madoff is the least of my concerns with the bail system. Higher bail for him, and other high-profile rich defendants, will eventually trickle down, meaning higher bail for all defendants.
But in America, no rich powerful man goes to jail unless a richer, more powerful man puts him there. "Rule of law" is meaningless when laws can be bought.
I whole-heartedly agree. But, in this case, Madoff made a lot of rich people very, very angry. I don't think even OJ's dream team could get him off on this one.
Bernie Madoff stole fifty billion dollars and got out on ten million bail, if I get caught stealing fifty thousand dollars will I get out on ten dollars bail? And why am I the only one asking that question?
Bail is not intended to be punitive. It is only to assure that the defendant appears at trial. The only reason it usually scales upward with the severity of the crime, is because the incentive for not appearing at trial increases with the severity of the potential punishment. In this case, the judge decided that $10 million was enough to assure Madoff's appearance.
If you stole fifty thousand dollars, in a non-violent crime, you may be released on a signature bond (depending on the state and circumstances of the case). You may not have to put up any money at all. It all depends whether or not you can convince the judge that you will show up for the trial.
Its not a punishment. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
In times of war, the POTUS is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. In times of peace, an ambassador to other nations. And at all times, a check/balance on the power of the other two branches. Those are the only roles the POTUS should be playing.
It is naive to think that the President plays only those roles. You are correct that those are the only ones spelled out in the Constitution; and we can debate whether his role should be expanded. But, it is undeniable that the President is so much more.
The President, and his office, is a symbol of the US as a whole. As the only nationally elected office holder, he is in the unique position to represent all Americans. The President has become a national father-figure, beginning with FDR, and his fireside chats. He is the one we look to in times of crisis, like natural disasters and financial meltdowns. Like it or not (and I don't), the President is the United States government to most people.
No, the bowling alley was donated. Most of the expensive or historic furnishings of the White House are given by foreign dignitaries or wealthy Americans.
How will the president be better served by this table than a 100 dollar office table commonly found in meeting rooms?
Having a top end table, and all the other luxurious items on Air Force One, allows the plane to be used as a mobile meeting room for heads of state. AF1, as it is currently appointed, is fit for any world leader, from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, to the Pope, to the British PM. The President never has to waste a moment's thought on finding an appropriate place to meet; he's always riding in it. Air Force One projects our political and economic power around the globe, much as an aircraft carrier projects our military power.
It seems like you are saying that wars always have an economic cause, not that rich nations never fight each other. If you want to argue that economics is a primary cause for virtually all wars, I'll whole-heartedly agree.
Yes, WWII took place during the great depression. But the USA and Japan were still relatively rich nations at the time. Economics was obviously a major cause of that war. But, my point is, economic problems can drive rich nations, as well as poor nations, to war.
I would like you to name at least 5 wars between two wealthy nations.
1. USA vs Japan (WWII) 2. Germany vs France (Franco-Prussian War) 3. USA vs UK (War of 1812) 4. France vs UK (Napoleonic Wars) 5. France vs UK (Seven Years War)
I guess I didn't stay strictly in the 200 year time-frame, but there you go. I probably could have named five just between UK and France. Seriously, they must hate each other.
So, more topically, what do you know about the present day chain of command? (The only one that matters, really, as your comment about the present day CoC seems to have been informed by a twenty-year-old gaffe.)
Well its really hard to say how our succession plans differ from those in 1981. The last substantive legislation passed on this matter was the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. That sets out the basic continuity plan: President--Vice President--Speaker of the House-- President Pro Tem of the Senate--Cabinet Officers... After 9/11, congress looked into the continuity-of-government issue, set up the Continuity of Government Commission, but nothing really was done regarding Presidential succession. They seemed more worried about the case where the majority of the House of Representatives is wiped out--they have to hold a special election (no appointments, even to temporarily fill the seats until elections can be held). Which is problematic if the budget is about to run out.
Most of the real work done on the issue has been done by the executive branch itself. I know Clinton and G. W. Bush both have people working, almost exclusively, on continuity of government issues. Unfortunately for us, most of their work is classified. So, while I can say that there is probably a better plan in place, I have no idea what it is.
There is also the issue that the 1947 Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. There is debate about whether the Constitution allows congressmen into the line of Presidential succession. So, even if something horrible happens and the Speaker of the House assumes the role of the President, it could be challenged. I don't want to even think about that mess.
Because of the secrecy surrounding current work on Presidential succession plans, I really don't know the details of what would happen today, versus what happened in 1981. I have to imagine there is a better plan in place, what with Cheney spending half his time in an "undisclosed location". Technologically, we have come a long way since 1981. Now, there is almost no chance that the Vice President would be unreachable at any time. So, it would be hard to have a repeat.
However, this seems to tie into my "You can't have a solid CoC that's populated by nutters" comment, even if the guy doesn't seem like that much of a nutter.
I think that each of the men involved, during the time Reagan was shot, had the best interests of the country at heart. I don't think any of them were crazy or power-hungry. Its easy for us to look back at their actions and find fault. But they had no idea what they were dealing with. It could have been a Russian assassination attempt; an attempt to decapitate our chain of command. Someone had to act. The flaw in the system was not that these men acted how they did, but that they had no legal authority to do so.
You've mentioned an uncertain chain of command, but have not even attempted to prove that there is no documentation that defines it.
Here's a story about it: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/23/60II/main287292.shtml. But let me make it simple for you: the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Advisor, got together just after Reagan was shot. The Vice President was, more or less, unreachable while on a plane. So, those two Secretaries and the National Security Advisor, took control of the executive branch. Did they have the authority? Even they disagreed. But those three were giving orders to the military.
Let me make it clear. Even those three knew that they probably didn't have the power they were claiming. The problem was, no one else did either. So they took it. If the top cabinet officers and the National Security Advisor had no clear idea what the plan was in those circumstances, I don't think anyone else did either.
Slashdot Mirror
The Constitutional Law is clear that wuch wiretapping is not allowed unless the police can get a warrant issued by a judge.
Its not so clear. In the early days of wiretapping, no warrant was required for anyone; as phone calls were not thought to be "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Don't get me wrong, I like that warrants are needed, but the issue has not always been so clear cut.
Linux is still nowhere near the point where a non-techie will consider adopting it.
Exactly. Linux today is mostly used by techies (or people with ready access to techies). Verizon and MATC have little incentive to spend the money to support Linux users, most will figure it out on their own. But, without that support, Linux will not be suitable for people who depend on the step-by-step hand-holding they are used to. Its a Catch-22.
Of course, we actually live in a Republic, not a Democracy. A Republic is stated to be a kind of "representative" democracy...
A republic is not necessarily a representative democracy, but is any government which is not a monarchy. Representative democracy is often the form a republican government takes, but is far from required. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia were all republics.
...but with the electoral college not being really under the control of the people, you might as well just call it an Oligarchy.
The Electoral College is under control of the states, which, in turn, are under control of the people. Its far from a true Oligarchy, as the electors have little power or independence. If there is ever a rash of faithless electors, you can bet that we'll be changing our constitution pretty quickly to take discretion away from the electors, or removing the institution entirely.
UAVs are a lot cheaper, and a lot more expendable.
Exactly. UAVs will require a complete reevaluation of how we fight an air war. Much like tanks, machine guns, manned aircraft, and ICBMs before them, UAVs won't fulfill their promise until our military doctrine catches up.
No shit, but to what degree was this priced in already?
I think the market had already priced in about 80% of this news. Unless there is other, unforeseen fallout from this announcement, we're pretty close to where the stock should be. For the last year it has been a question of "when", not "if". Actually, this may be the the jump-start the stock needs; big money has been reluctant to invest in Apple until the uncertainty of Job's condition is cleared up. He should have done this six months ago.
do you seriously think anything has fundamentally changed in Apple's business?
Stock price doesn't have anything to do with the actual fundamentals of a company, only how those fundamentals are perceived. Like it or not, Job's absence may have an effect on stock price, even if the company is run exactly the same as it would have, were he still at the helm. Perception is reality; at least in the market.
On a different note, this is a sad day for those owning AAPL shares - expect them to plunge even further than they have over the past year.
Well, if you didn't see this coming a mile off, you probably shouldn't be in the market at all.
the market says "sell sell sell!"
Makes me glad I'm long Apple put options. Ahh, schadenfreude.
The "C" in politics stands for "Corruption".
Fixed that for you
But, in Chicago, its a capital "C".
Merely having a conflict of interests is not unethical.
But when that conflict of interest results in government policy which favors those interests, at the expense of competitors, that's potentially unethical. Of such things, corruption scandals are made.
Though I'm sure the troll was just trying to be funny in saying that the computer needed a verizon CD and MS Word(uh, OO.o anybody?) to do schoolwork.
Sadly, that's a real news story. Its funny, but all too true. I'm from Wisconsin, and I died a little inside when I read this story on another site.
The statement that consciousness precedes matter is a philosophical statement. It precludes scientific debate because philosophical reasoning is of a different kind than scientific reasoning.
But even in philosophic, not scientific, debate, it is not acceptable to simply make an assertion without some justification. I'm hardly a philosopher, but most of the books I have read on the topic are filled with arguments and reasoning behind the conclusions the philosopher has reached. The statement, "consciousness precedes matter" is hardly self-evident, so requires something to back it up.
...assuming a person with whom you disagree is automatically wrong does not magically make he/she wrong, or anymore detached from reality than you are.
Unless you can point to any evidence, or even a credible sounding theory, which would back up the claim, I can pretty confidently dismiss it. I'm not assuming anything, other than that an unqualified assertion, of such a controversial nature, should be backed up by something.
..consciousness precedes matter. Just throwing matter together won't magically instill consciousness.
..understanding how the world actually works precedes posting a comment on /. Just throwing comments up on /. won't magically instill understanding of how the world actually works.
Actually, I was walking down to the river to catch fish, and digging potatoes. And chopping wood for heat. And boiling drinking water. Sometimes I didn't see the infrastructure at all for several weeks at a time.
You saw infrastructure all the time. Unless you were catching fish with a hand-made spear, walking to the river in shoes and clothes made from self-tanned leather, chopping wood with a flint ax, and boiling water in a clay pot, you were benefiting from the industrial society which made those products.
Remember, up to a certain point ALL our ancestors survived living like this; otherwise we wouldn't be here :)
And they had their own, more primitive, infrastructure which they all depended upon. Instead of factories, farms, superhighways, medicine, and electricity; they had blacksmiths, hunters, horses, and subsistence farming. Its an infrastructure which doesn't exist any more. If our modern infrastructure disappeared, we would be a lot worse off than those in the 15th century.
No way ten million would keep him from skipping out.
We will be able to test your hypothesis. I, for one, think that he won't skip bail. Obviously, the judge in the case agrees with me. You think he will skip.
His bail should have been far higher than the amount he stole.
Why? Excessive bail is unjust; unless, of course, you just want to see the man in jail without a trial. I hope you are never falsely accused of a crime, can't afford the excessive bail, and have to spend months in county jail awaiting trial.
If you want to talk about the injustice of the American bail system, look to the poor--not the rich--who are the most hurt by the current system. Innocent men rot away in jails all across the country because they cannot make bail. Their lives are ruined. Their jobs are lost. Their houses are foreclosed upon. Their roomates become rapists and murderers. They become the victim of the systemic violence of the corrections system. All without a trial or conviction.
Madoff is the least of my concerns with the bail system. Higher bail for him, and other high-profile rich defendants, will eventually trickle down, meaning higher bail for all defendants.
But in America, no rich powerful man goes to jail unless a richer, more powerful man puts him there. "Rule of law" is meaningless when laws can be bought.
I whole-heartedly agree. But, in this case, Madoff made a lot of rich people very, very angry. I don't think even OJ's dream team could get him off on this one.
Bernie Madoff stole fifty billion dollars and got out on ten million bail, if I get caught stealing fifty thousand dollars will I get out on ten dollars bail? And why am I the only one asking that question?
Bail is not intended to be punitive. It is only to assure that the defendant appears at trial. The only reason it usually scales upward with the severity of the crime, is because the incentive for not appearing at trial increases with the severity of the potential punishment. In this case, the judge decided that $10 million was enough to assure Madoff's appearance.
If you stole fifty thousand dollars, in a non-violent crime, you may be released on a signature bond (depending on the state and circumstances of the case). You may not have to put up any money at all. It all depends whether or not you can convince the judge that you will show up for the trial.
Its not a punishment. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
In times of war, the POTUS is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. In times of peace, an ambassador to other nations. And at all times, a check/balance on the power of the other two branches. Those are the only roles the POTUS should be playing.
It is naive to think that the President plays only those roles. You are correct that those are the only ones spelled out in the Constitution; and we can debate whether his role should be expanded. But, it is undeniable that the President is so much more.
The President, and his office, is a symbol of the US as a whole. As the only nationally elected office holder, he is in the unique position to represent all Americans. The President has become a national father-figure, beginning with FDR, and his fireside chats. He is the one we look to in times of crisis, like natural disasters and financial meltdowns. Like it or not (and I don't), the President is the United States government to most people.
They were paid for by the POTUS, right?
No, the bowling alley was donated. Most of the expensive or historic furnishings of the White House are given by foreign dignitaries or wealthy Americans.
How will the president be better served by this table than a 100 dollar office table commonly found in meeting rooms?
Having a top end table, and all the other luxurious items on Air Force One, allows the plane to be used as a mobile meeting room for heads of state. AF1, as it is currently appointed, is fit for any world leader, from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, to the Pope, to the British PM. The President never has to waste a moment's thought on finding an appropriate place to meet; he's always riding in it. Air Force One projects our political and economic power around the globe, much as an aircraft carrier projects our military power.
It seems like you are saying that wars always have an economic cause, not that rich nations never fight each other. If you want to argue that economics is a primary cause for virtually all wars, I'll whole-heartedly agree.
Yes, WWII took place during the great depression. But the USA and Japan were still relatively rich nations at the time. Economics was obviously a major cause of that war. But, my point is, economic problems can drive rich nations, as well as poor nations, to war.
I would like you to name at least 5 wars between two wealthy nations.
1. USA vs Japan (WWII)
2. Germany vs France (Franco-Prussian War)
3. USA vs UK (War of 1812)
4. France vs UK (Napoleonic Wars)
5. France vs UK (Seven Years War)
I guess I didn't stay strictly in the 200 year time-frame, but there you go. I probably could have named five just between UK and France. Seriously, they must hate each other.
So, more topically, what do you know about the present day chain of command? (The only one that matters, really, as your comment about the present day CoC seems to have been informed by a twenty-year-old gaffe.)
Well its really hard to say how our succession plans differ from those in 1981. The last substantive legislation passed on this matter was the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. That sets out the basic continuity plan: President--Vice President--Speaker of the House-- President Pro Tem of the Senate--Cabinet Officers... After 9/11, congress looked into the continuity-of-government issue, set up the Continuity of Government Commission, but nothing really was done regarding Presidential succession. They seemed more worried about the case where the majority of the House of Representatives is wiped out--they have to hold a special election (no appointments, even to temporarily fill the seats until elections can be held). Which is problematic if the budget is about to run out.
Most of the real work done on the issue has been done by the executive branch itself. I know Clinton and G. W. Bush both have people working, almost exclusively, on continuity of government issues. Unfortunately for us, most of their work is classified. So, while I can say that there is probably a better plan in place, I have no idea what it is.
There is also the issue that the 1947 Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. There is debate about whether the Constitution allows congressmen into the line of Presidential succession. So, even if something horrible happens and the Speaker of the House assumes the role of the President, it could be challenged. I don't want to even think about that mess.
Because of the secrecy surrounding current work on Presidential succession plans, I really don't know the details of what would happen today, versus what happened in 1981. I have to imagine there is a better plan in place, what with Cheney spending half his time in an "undisclosed location". Technologically, we have come a long way since 1981. Now, there is almost no chance that the Vice President would be unreachable at any time. So, it would be hard to have a repeat.
However, this seems to tie into my "You can't have a solid CoC that's populated by nutters" comment, even if the guy doesn't seem like that much of a nutter.
I think that each of the men involved, during the time Reagan was shot, had the best interests of the country at heart. I don't think any of them were crazy or power-hungry. Its easy for us to look back at their actions and find fault. But they had no idea what they were dealing with. It could have been a Russian assassination attempt; an attempt to decapitate our chain of command. Someone had to act. The flaw in the system was not that these men acted how they did, but that they had no legal authority to do so.
You've mentioned an uncertain chain of command, but have not even attempted to prove that there is no documentation that defines it.
Here's a story about it: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/23/60II/main287292.shtml. But let me make it simple for you: the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Advisor, got together just after Reagan was shot. The Vice President was, more or less, unreachable while on a plane. So, those two Secretaries and the National Security Advisor, took control of the executive branch. Did they have the authority? Even they disagreed. But those three were giving orders to the military.
Let me make it clear. Even those three knew that they probably didn't have the power they were claiming. The problem was, no one else did either. So they took it. If the top cabinet officers and the National Security Advisor had no clear idea what the plan was in those circumstances, I don't think anyone else did either.
You have no credible position. Please stop spouting your disinformation.
So, who was in command in 1981 when Reagan was shot? Really, I'd like to know.