It's not about sympathy for this slimeball; it's about whether this is an overreach that gives security authorities an interest in: a couple transferring money from one account to another, or a sole-proprietorship transferring money between personal to business accounts,...
Just a minor point. This law isn't concerned with account transfers. Only cash deposits and withdrawals.
They tried vouchers in DC and it has been an unmitigated success which is now trying to be shut down because the unions are scared spit-less that it will spread to other states.
Really? You don't think it might have something to do with the massive cheating scandal? I don't think "unmitigated" means what you think it means.
It seems to me that the FBI somehow keeps itself above this crap.
If you really think they don't do it at least as often, think again. Just because you haven't read about it in the news (yet), doesn't mean it's not happening every day.
Why is this modded 'insightful'? I know it's uncool to actually read TFA, but if you had, you would have seen where it said,"Through the program, more than 100 unpaid student volunteer assignments will be available to support DHS’ cyber mission at local DHS field offices in over 60 locations across the country".
I wish I have mod points for you. This is absolutely true, and mostly overlooked when this topic comes up.
For example, back in 1981, the state of Washington paid 90% of the cost of a college eduction. Today? 30%. And now we have people who graduated from college with tax-payer subsidized educations telling today's youth, "I worked my way through college, so why can't you?" It's ridiculous.
Reading through some of the comments in this thread, I'm coming to the conclusion that a lot of people forgot to take their Thorazine today; I'm not talking about this post in particular, there are others way worse. But there sentiment, based on the same misunderstanding is the same. I'm sure I'm going to get flamed to death for this, but on the off chance that somebody actually finds this informative and helps them think about and discuss the topic in a more informed manner, here goes:
There is no "secret evidence", not the way you're using it. Using this case as an example, what happens is that information is developed (in this case, by the NSA) using sources and methods that the government does not want exposed to the public. So the NSA passes along a lead to the FBI, saying in essence, "You may find it instructive to look at this person's phone records during this time-frame". The FBI then makes requests to do just that, using standard procedures that can safely be talked about in open court, like using court orders and/or subpoenas. In other words, **they reconstruct the information in such a way as to protect the method used initially to identify the suspect/defendant.** The suspect/defendant still sees all of the evidence that is being used against him. So claiming that there is "secret evidence" is uninformed. The only thing secret is initial method used.
For the record, I am in no way trying to justify or defend anything that has come out in the wake of Snowden's disclosure about NSA's domestic surveillance programs. I'm not addressing it one way or the other. I'm strictly referring to the issue of "secret evidence" which seems to have gotten everybody's knickers in a twist.
Disclaimer: I work for a federal law enforcement agency.
All it would take is a service pack. Let users decide if they want Metro or not. Let users decide if they want the start menu taking over their entire screen. I can't see how this would be complicated. The biggest hurdle is getting a marketing department to admit they made a mistake. The only time I can remember that ever happening was with New Coke. Coca-Cola sucked it up, gave the consumers what they wanted, and saved their brand. The ball is in Microsoft's court.
New Coke wasn't a mistake. It was all part of a very deliberate, and successful, strategy to change the formula for "Classic" Coke, by switching sugar for high fructose corn syrup. The "Classic" coke people drink today is not the Coke of 30 years ago.
2. Cheaper. Real soldiers tend to cost more - because we pay for their training, long term support, etc.
Not true. We do pay for their training: almost without exception, the guys who work for companies like Blackwater/Xe and Triple Canopy are veterans of elite military units. So their business model is essentially this:
1. Let the US government spend the time and money training special operations personnel and (just as important) getting them experience in real-world operations.
2. Entice them to leave the military (if they already hadn't on their own) with the promise of lots of money and less "bullshit" (rules),
3. Sell their services back to the military at ridiculously high rates.
4. Profit.
If companies like Blackwater/Xe had to train their own personnel from scratch, their business models would fall apart. They're another example of "the free market" relying on the government to provide them the resources that they exploit to enrich themselves. And the vast majority of them seethe about "government waste, fraud, and abuse" the whole time they do it.
I have first-hand experience with PMC's; I used to work for a competitor of Blackwater's.
In fact, if the Obama (or any other) administrtion were to try to do this, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they saw a bunch of "cyber operators" quit the NSA, Air Force, etc., and sign up.
It's almost like they didn't learn anything from Blackwater. Either that, or they just seriously don't give a shit about the repercussions of hiring people you can't control.
Going back to see when the deficit started coming, it's rather obvious that the Bush tax cuts can't be afforded. Still, noone is talking about letting them expire.
That's not exactly true. Obama and the Dems tried to let at least some of them expire, but that was blocked by the Tea Party faction.
This is in marked contrast to the 2000 election. In that case Bush lost the popular vote, but was catapulted to the Presidency on the basis of a controversial Electoral College vote.
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that he was catapulted to the Presidency on the basis of a controversial Supreme Court decision.
With all due respect, you should get your facts straight; it tends to make you look less silly. The rest of your post has already been picked apart for being "fact-challenged", but this particular blatant error hasn't been addressed:
In addition, the "containment" was being performed at the hest of the US Military, who'd every so often have to blow up an Anti-aircraft gun that locked onto them in the No-Fly zones (where Saddam was "contained" from gassing his domestic enemies). Each and every one of those incidents was adequate reason to throw out the armistice and resume hostilities against Iraq, since they were all violations of the negotiated agreements.
In fact, the No-Fly Zones were set up unilaterally by the US, UK, and France. There were not the result of any UN negotiation related to the cease-fire. In fact, the UN SecGen of the time described the NFZ's as illegal. That being the case, any violations of said NFZ's were not, in fact, legal justification for an invasion.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about sympathy for this slimeball; it's about whether this is an overreach that gives security authorities an interest in: a couple transferring money from one account to another, or a sole-proprietorship transferring money between personal to business accounts, ...
Just a minor point. This law isn't concerned with account transfers. Only cash deposits and withdrawals.
They tried vouchers in DC and it has been an unmitigated success which is now trying to be shut down because the unions are scared spit-less that it will spread to other states.
Really? You don't think it might have something to do with the massive cheating scandal? I don't think "unmitigated" means what you think it means.
It seems to me that the FBI somehow keeps itself above this crap.
If you really think they don't do it at least as often, think again. Just because you haven't read about it in the news (yet), doesn't mean it's not happening every day.
Why is this modded 'insightful'? I know it's uncool to actually read TFA, but if you had, you would have seen where it said,"Through the program, more than 100 unpaid student volunteer assignments will be available to support DHS’ cyber mission at local DHS field offices in over 60 locations across the country".
He loved Big Brother.
I wish I have mod points for you. This is absolutely true, and mostly overlooked when this topic comes up.
For example, back in 1981, the state of Washington paid 90% of the cost of a college eduction. Today? 30%. And now we have people who graduated from college with tax-payer subsidized educations telling today's youth, "I worked my way through college, so why can't you?" It's ridiculous.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021250505_westneat23xml.html
Reading through some of the comments in this thread, I'm coming to the conclusion that a lot of people forgot to take their Thorazine today; I'm not talking about this post in particular, there are others way worse. But there sentiment, based on the same misunderstanding is the same. I'm sure I'm going to get flamed to death for this, but on the off chance that somebody actually finds this informative and helps them think about and discuss the topic in a more informed manner, here goes: There is no "secret evidence", not the way you're using it. Using this case as an example, what happens is that information is developed (in this case, by the NSA) using sources and methods that the government does not want exposed to the public. So the NSA passes along a lead to the FBI, saying in essence, "You may find it instructive to look at this person's phone records during this time-frame". The FBI then makes requests to do just that, using standard procedures that can safely be talked about in open court, like using court orders and/or subpoenas. In other words, **they reconstruct the information in such a way as to protect the method used initially to identify the suspect/defendant.** The suspect/defendant still sees all of the evidence that is being used against him. So claiming that there is "secret evidence" is uninformed. The only thing secret is initial method used. For the record, I am in no way trying to justify or defend anything that has come out in the wake of Snowden's disclosure about NSA's domestic surveillance programs. I'm not addressing it one way or the other. I'm strictly referring to the issue of "secret evidence" which seems to have gotten everybody's knickers in a twist. Disclaimer: I work for a federal law enforcement agency.
All it would take is a service pack. Let users decide if they want Metro or not. Let users decide if they want the start menu taking over their entire screen. I can't see how this would be complicated. The biggest hurdle is getting a marketing department to admit they made a mistake. The only time I can remember that ever happening was with New Coke. Coca-Cola sucked it up, gave the consumers what they wanted, and saved their brand. The ball is in Microsoft's court.
New Coke wasn't a mistake. It was all part of a very deliberate, and successful, strategy to change the formula for "Classic" Coke, by switching sugar for high fructose corn syrup. The "Classic" coke people drink today is not the Coke of 30 years ago.
... this does give him more time to play SimCity.
Absolutely. For another perspective, look here.
Just to clarify: we pay for the training of the mercenaries hired by the likes of Blackwater/Xe, etc.
2. Cheaper. Real soldiers tend to cost more - because we pay for their training, long term support, etc.
Not true. We do pay for their training: almost without exception, the guys who work for companies like Blackwater/Xe and Triple Canopy are veterans of elite military units. So their business model is essentially this: 1. Let the US government spend the time and money training special operations personnel and (just as important) getting them experience in real-world operations. 2. Entice them to leave the military (if they already hadn't on their own) with the promise of lots of money and less "bullshit" (rules), 3. Sell their services back to the military at ridiculously high rates. 4. Profit. If companies like Blackwater/Xe had to train their own personnel from scratch, their business models would fall apart. They're another example of "the free market" relying on the government to provide them the resources that they exploit to enrich themselves. And the vast majority of them seethe about "government waste, fraud, and abuse" the whole time they do it. I have first-hand experience with PMC's; I used to work for a competitor of Blackwater's. In fact, if the Obama (or any other) administrtion were to try to do this, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they saw a bunch of "cyber operators" quit the NSA, Air Force, etc., and sign up.
It's almost like they didn't learn anything from Blackwater. Either that, or they just seriously don't give a shit about the repercussions of hiring people you can't control.
Going back to see when the deficit started coming, it's rather obvious that the Bush tax cuts can't be afforded. Still, noone is talking about letting them expire.
That's not exactly true. Obama and the Dems tried to let at least some of them expire, but that was blocked by the Tea Party faction.
And America takes another decent-sized step toward becoming a straight-up corporatacracy.
This is in marked contrast to the 2000 election. In that case Bush lost the popular vote, but was catapulted to the Presidency on the basis of a controversial Electoral College vote.
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that he was catapulted to the Presidency on the basis of a controversial Supreme Court decision.
In fact, the No-Fly Zones were set up unilaterally by the US, UK, and France. There were not the result of any UN negotiation related to the cease-fire. In fact, the UN SecGen of the time described the NFZ's as illegal. That being the case, any violations of said NFZ's were not, in fact, legal justification for an invasion.