Thanks for the pseudo-compliment, but what on earth are you talking about? Maybe I've been living with my head in the ground, but what analogy are you talking about? Where'd the Jews come from?
In other words, instead of saying "oh yes, this looks okay, wait, NO!" and dismissing everything I had to say (as you did so elegantly and succinctly), explain to me why my thought process is incorrect.
4th Amendment:
"... against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Because everyone is getting listened to all the time--amirite?
9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Justice William O. Douglas: "The 9th Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." (1973)
10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
From United States v. Darby:
"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers."
My argument here is that the 10th Amendment, even though it is my favorite, was not meant to do anything but enumerate what had only been implied previously: Constitutional powers are limited to what is in the constitution.
I am of the school of thought that there are two levels of powers in the United States government: Constitutional and Reasonable and Proper. I would ask that you find a Constitutional ban on phone tapping. I really don't get how anyone can be naive enough to believe that any conversation or exchange of data which takes place over a communications infrastructure, not owned by that individual, is not already tapped. It's like going into a crowded marketplace and having a loud conversation with a friend, and then getting mad at the owner of the marketplace when he listens to what you have to say; you're using the phone company's lines--I would argue that as soon as you do that, you are giving up any right to privacy.
I do ask again: who cares if someone is listening? Is there a fear that the CIA is going to haul your arse off to prison if you say something Anti-Bush?
If I do recall, the "right to privacy" was only found in 1965, when the always controversial Griswold v. Connecticut (the case where abortion rights were really outlined) -also- outlined this constitutional "right to privacy," or more specifically in that case, "the right to marital privacy."
Why do I bring this up? Your quote insinuates that right to privacy is an "essential liberty." But is it?
This "liberty" was only found in the last 40 years (as I stated earlier). I do believe if the Founding Fathers really -did- consider individual privacy an essential liberty, they would have put it in the Bill of Rights. Strangely, the Bill of Rights are absent any mention of privacy.
This leads us again to how it was found in 1965. In fact, Justice William Douglas (who wrote the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut) stated that it does not in fact exist in the Bill of Rights, but rather in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other Constitutional Protections.
In short, "privacy" isn't an "essential liberty," and I wish all of you who are crying foul would grow up just a bit: so -what- if the Government is listening in to your phone calls? Why must you worry! If you're doing anything BUT breaking the law, they won't give a rat's arse.
I concur that the discussion, in general, is good--however, knee-jerk reactions (which are typical of each side, regardless of topic) do more harm than good. Sadly, we see these reactions every day, and from my experience, it's mostly from spin we get from any news source, whether it be a major network or a blog. It's unfortunate that a knee-jerk conservative reaction was put on the front page of slashdot, as it does nothing but play up stereotypes on both sides.
It's come to the point where I no longer pay attention to headlines--only articles that cite their sources--as Journalism has become nothing more than a synonym for "Editorialism." Hell, I'll listen to Rush Limbaugh more than CNN, MSNBC or the AP for the soul fact that he cites his sources with more than the typical "reliable sources," or "sources close to the topic." At times I feel like the only one in the world who questions major stories because more often than not, there is no meat to them--that is to say, the lesson of the oft-cited "[citation needed]" Xkcd comic (more often than not, cited by Liberals [but such is the nature of the blogosphere] ) does not seem to apply to those in the mainstream media.
So, freedom is speech is the government telling radio stations what must be played?
I'd only buy into the "fairness doctrine" if ABC, CBS, PMS-NBC, and CNN all were required to have "neutral" spin as well, which we all know won't happen because one cannot be biased to the left--only to the right.
On another note, IIRC, the fairness doctrine was put in place to prevent socialists from running the airwaves. Its funny how if you give the government an inch, it will want a mile--the fairness doctrine is nothing more than a blatant attack on the First Amendment (and, thankfully, the Fairness Doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with this slashdot post).
I've posted this as a reply above: there's nothing in the PDF that honestly pertains to "censorship."
I implore you to read the document: there's nothing there pertaining to censorship. The only censorship that could take place is the CHA determining what sites are allowed to carry official house content--and if they're at all honest about it, at all vaguely intelligent about it, they'll know they can't go to an obviously liberal site.
As far as I can tell, this correspondence is nothing more than a simple discussion of which external sites (such as youtube) would be allowed to host embeddable video content for the use of members of congress. The guidelines seem to be strict, but that is simply what this document is--a call that the guidelines used to determine which sites are allowed to host content be no different than those already in place for official House publications. I'm sure the reasoning behind this is that they don't want political or endorsement ads running with those same publications--that would look bad to -anyone-.
I implore you to read the document: there's nothing there pertaining to censorship. The only censorship that could take place is the CHA determining what sites are allowed to carry official house content--and if they're at all honest about it, at all vaguely intelligent about it, they'll know they can't go to an obviously liberal site.
As far as I can tell, this correspondence is nothing more than a simple discussion of which external sites (such as youtube) would be allowed to host embeddable video content for the use of members of congress. The guidelines seem to be strict, but that is simply what this document is--a call that the guidelines used to determine which sites are allowed to host content be no different than those already in place for official House publications. I'm sure the reasoning behind this is that they don't want political or endorsement ads running with those same publications--that would look bad to -anyone-.
The long-term effects of wind power have never been measured (to the best of my knowledge). We've used Nuclear power before, and we've taken huge steps in reducing the impact its waste has on the environment. If France, of all nations, can have a huge majority of its power supplied by nuclear reactors, why can't the U.S. follow suit?
I've been saying the same thing for a long time. I'm pretty sure Mr. Newton got his laws right--IIRC, if we pull energy from the wind, doesn't that mean the wind has less energy? What are the long-term impacts upon the climate?
No. Wait. Its not oil. It MUST be good for the environment.
General Lord, I am currently a Computer Science student attending a U.S. university, and I am curious as to what skills you would like to see in potential recruits for the USAF Cyber Command. What areas of expertise are preferred over others?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the pseudo-compliment, but what on earth are you talking about? Maybe I've been living with my head in the ground, but what analogy are you talking about? Where'd the Jews come from?
In other words, instead of saying "oh yes, this looks okay, wait, NO!" and dismissing everything I had to say (as you did so elegantly and succinctly), explain to me why my thought process is incorrect.
4th Amendment: "... against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Because everyone is getting listened to all the time--amirite?
9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Justice William O. Douglas: "The 9th Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." (1973)
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
From United States v. Darby: "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers."
My argument here is that the 10th Amendment, even though it is my favorite, was not meant to do anything but enumerate what had only been implied previously: Constitutional powers are limited to what is in the constitution.
I am of the school of thought that there are two levels of powers in the United States government: Constitutional and Reasonable and Proper. I would ask that you find a Constitutional ban on phone tapping. I really don't get how anyone can be naive enough to believe that any conversation or exchange of data which takes place over a communications infrastructure, not owned by that individual, is not already tapped. It's like going into a crowded marketplace and having a loud conversation with a friend, and then getting mad at the owner of the marketplace when he listens to what you have to say; you're using the phone company's lines--I would argue that as soon as you do that, you are giving up any right to privacy.
I do ask again: who cares if someone is listening? Is there a fear that the CIA is going to haul your arse off to prison if you say something Anti-Bush?
If I do recall, the "right to privacy" was only found in 1965, when the always controversial Griswold v. Connecticut (the case where abortion rights were really outlined) -also- outlined this constitutional "right to privacy," or more specifically in that case, "the right to marital privacy."
Why do I bring this up? Your quote insinuates that right to privacy is an "essential liberty." But is it?
This "liberty" was only found in the last 40 years (as I stated earlier). I do believe if the Founding Fathers really -did- consider individual privacy an essential liberty, they would have put it in the Bill of Rights. Strangely, the Bill of Rights are absent any mention of privacy.
This leads us again to how it was found in 1965. In fact, Justice William Douglas (who wrote the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut) stated that it does not in fact exist in the Bill of Rights, but rather in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other Constitutional Protections.
In short, "privacy" isn't an "essential liberty," and I wish all of you who are crying foul would grow up just a bit: so -what- if the Government is listening in to your phone calls? Why must you worry! If you're doing anything BUT breaking the law, they won't give a rat's arse.
I concur that the discussion, in general, is good--however, knee-jerk reactions (which are typical of each side, regardless of topic) do more harm than good. Sadly, we see these reactions every day, and from my experience, it's mostly from spin we get from any news source, whether it be a major network or a blog. It's unfortunate that a knee-jerk conservative reaction was put on the front page of slashdot, as it does nothing but play up stereotypes on both sides.
It's come to the point where I no longer pay attention to headlines--only articles that cite their sources--as Journalism has become nothing more than a synonym for "Editorialism." Hell, I'll listen to Rush Limbaugh more than CNN, MSNBC or the AP for the soul fact that he cites his sources with more than the typical "reliable sources," or "sources close to the topic." At times I feel like the only one in the world who questions major stories because more often than not, there is no meat to them--that is to say, the lesson of the oft-cited "[citation needed]" Xkcd comic (more often than not, cited by Liberals [but such is the nature of the blogosphere] ) does not seem to apply to those in the mainstream media.
So, freedom is speech is the government telling radio stations what must be played?
I'd only buy into the "fairness doctrine" if ABC, CBS, PMS-NBC, and CNN all were required to have "neutral" spin as well, which we all know won't happen because one cannot be biased to the left--only to the right.
On another note, IIRC, the fairness doctrine was put in place to prevent socialists from running the airwaves. Its funny how if you give the government an inch, it will want a mile--the fairness doctrine is nothing more than a blatant attack on the First Amendment (and, thankfully, the Fairness Doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with this slashdot post).
I've posted this as a reply above: there's nothing in the PDF that honestly pertains to "censorship."
I implore you to read the document: there's nothing there pertaining to censorship. The only censorship that could take place is the CHA determining what sites are allowed to carry official house content--and if they're at all honest about it, at all vaguely intelligent about it, they'll know they can't go to an obviously liberal site.
As far as I can tell, this correspondence is nothing more than a simple discussion of which external sites (such as youtube) would be allowed to host embeddable video content for the use of members of congress. The guidelines seem to be strict, but that is simply what this document is--a call that the guidelines used to determine which sites are allowed to host content be no different than those already in place for official House publications. I'm sure the reasoning behind this is that they don't want political or endorsement ads running with those same publications--that would look bad to -anyone-.
BTW: McCain '08, Slashdot.
I implore you to read the document: there's nothing there pertaining to censorship. The only censorship that could take place is the CHA determining what sites are allowed to carry official house content--and if they're at all honest about it, at all vaguely intelligent about it, they'll know they can't go to an obviously liberal site.
As far as I can tell, this correspondence is nothing more than a simple discussion of which external sites (such as youtube) would be allowed to host embeddable video content for the use of members of congress. The guidelines seem to be strict, but that is simply what this document is--a call that the guidelines used to determine which sites are allowed to host content be no different than those already in place for official House publications. I'm sure the reasoning behind this is that they don't want political or endorsement ads running with those same publications--that would look bad to -anyone-.
BTW: McCain '08, Slashdot.
The long-term effects of wind power have never been measured (to the best of my knowledge). We've used Nuclear power before, and we've taken huge steps in reducing the impact its waste has on the environment. If France, of all nations, can have a huge majority of its power supplied by nuclear reactors, why can't the U.S. follow suit?
I've been saying the same thing for a long time. I'm pretty sure Mr. Newton got his laws right--IIRC, if we pull energy from the wind, doesn't that mean the wind has less energy? What are the long-term impacts upon the climate? No. Wait. Its not oil. It MUST be good for the environment.
This doesn't make sense--I always thought Macs were impervious to the simple things that "plague" my Windows PC.
General Lord, I am currently a Computer Science student attending a U.S. university, and I am curious as to what skills you would like to see in potential recruits for the USAF Cyber Command. What areas of expertise are preferred over others?