Obviously something went wrong with the way I posted it. I think I know what went wrong (I used spaces instead of %20).
It works fine. Thanks. It's a pretty creepy read, actually. But, it feels like a normal discovery subpoena. Except, I think the lawyer that filed it probably should have thought better than to be so heavy handed with Google. I wonder if he could be sanctioned for lying in the interview. I read his quote, and he said, flat out, that this was not an attempt to overturn the 1st amendment, but, actually, in his document, in fact, it is. Somehow I thought lawyers, as officers of the court, are supposed to tell the truth.
Of course, DaTruthSquad is really Moscowitz, I'm sure of it from reading his most recent posts. So ironically, the township is probably right and the guy probably committed perjury and is using his anonymity to cover it up. So, our shitty choice is protecting a guy that lied in court, which is pretty bad, in order to protect anonymous postings, and I think the guy that lies in court gets to walk... It's like the 5th amendment... you can't put someone in a position to incriminate themselves.
Traitor? You're the one who supported and voted for the man who uses the Constitution of the US as toilet paper
Oh please. Yes, the PATRIOT ACT sucks donkey dick, but the Democrats have been in Congress for a year now, and I've not seen them approve one bill to get rid of it. Same with FISA warrants. So, stop you Democratic dick sucking and look at reality. Your boys don't give a shit either.
Now, aside from that, in general, Bush has extended the amount of rights to the American people. He has:
a) reduced taxes. Therefor, people have more economic power. b) reduced regulations. Therefor, people have more real power. Any law the government does not enforce, is more power for the people. Period. c) would have privatized social security, giving people even MORE power. d) interpreted the 2nd amendment as a right to keep and bear arms, stuffed the bench with judges who feel the same, and, best of all, allowed the so-called assault weapons ban to expire. e) proposed a national sales tax or flat tax to replace current tax code. This, incidentally, would require the government to collect less personal information.
Conversely, Democrats would:
a) increase taxes b) put in additional rules to "save the planet" c) put in additional rules to "save women, minorities, etc" d) have introduced legislation to add more auditors to the IRS e) have introduced legislation to give the government access to all of your medical records.
So, in one corner, you have Bush occasionally reading your email. In the other corner,
And, finally, if you have been reading Slashdot at all, you might have noticed THAT THE GUYS THAT ARE SUING DATRUTHDUDE IN NEW JERSEY A R E D E M O C R A T S. That's right, your boys are suing so that every fricking city in the USA has the power to overturn free speech. Way to go.
And then, to top off that gargantuan fuck-up, you're here defending your pathetic decision making with threats of lethal violence. I only want to beat some sense into those people who are responsible for the ruin of my civil rights, my privacy, and my liberties
Let's see, you are basically making the argument that you have the right to be people up for your supposed loss of liberties. As I pointed out above, under Bush, you've actually gotten more real power. Let's see, the PATRIOT and FISA are a wash, because, the Democrats are still supporting those laws. And, Bush supports your right to keep your money, your right to keep and bear arms, your right to your own private property, while the Democrats want to take your money, your guns, and your land. Yet, somehow, you feel like you have more civil rights. So, you want to beat people up for giving you more, and you claim that isn't violent? I think it is only logical that you would be shot in return. You are just like Chavez and Castro and all those other thugs that came before you. At the end of the day, you want all these powers for yourself, so you can enslave everyone else. Please, you go right ahead and try and punch a few people, but if you socialist bastards really ever do take control of this country, I promise I won't be coming back at you with just fists. I'd use nukes, if I could get them!
I say we imprison these people under strict Islamic law. If they are caught stealing from the camp, then off with their hands. If they don't pray at the right time, stone them.
You probably voted for Bush. Twice. You'd better hope I don't meet you some day as my fists get a little uncontrollable when I hear people proudly claim they did that. You have no idea how people like you piss me off. Short-bus riding window-lickers, all of you.
I not only voted for Bush, but gave him money twice. Bring your uncontrollable fists, you thug, and I'll bring my rifle. I really could care less if I piss you off, and you will not threaten me or anyone else, you traitor.
As another respondant mentioned, the subpoena asks for a lot more than Google's affirmation that the blogger is/isn't the former mayor. It specifically requests the blogger's
Um, why does that link not work? Is this a legitimate document? For that matter, why did, if he is engaged in free speech, the DaTruthSquad take down all of his original posts?
David Weeks, an attorney representing Manalapan, says the foundation is twisting a routine legal request in a local lawsuit into a First Amendment case. "We're not asking to interfere with anyone's right to speak," Weeks said. Instead, Manalapan's attorneys are simply asking Google to establish whether Moskovitz was telling the truth when he denied he was the blogger in court papers related to the land deal lawsuit. "I don't know one way or the other if it's him," Weeks said. "It could be him."
So, some facts:
a) The guy getting sued is being sued because he didn't file EPA paperwork on a land deal. In NJ, that's pretty dumb, so he could be guilty of malpractice. b) The guy getting sued is actually the former mayor of the same county that is suing him. c) Yes, NJ is crooked.
However, with that said, if DaTruthSquad is the former mayor, and he is posting on about stuff, he could be violating various other things, compromising a sealed case, who knows, and therefor, the government -does- have an interest in knowing if it is him.
Note that the point is, Google isn't getting sued to see -who- DaTruthSquad is. Google is getting sued to reveal if the guy is the former mayor. Not to say that everyone is angelic, but, in all probability, DaTruthSquad is probably a crook himself.
As Bob Dylan wrote: "In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."
maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"
You read the B of R the wrong way. The government can't go after you because the Constitution doesn't give it the power to search digital works. The BoR only is examples of your rights, not a sole enumeration of them.
didn't really backpedal, I just thought that when we were talking about privacy we were talking about individual privacy, as you're the first person who has ever introduced me to the absurd concept of privacy within a business with a straight face.
That's probably because you aren't very open minded.
An individual's personal life doesn't include other people's money, right off the bat.
Um, last time I checked, individuals are extremely intertwined, and have other peoples money, either owing, or more.
It's pretty hard to do something that could hurt others in private - let's look at the things you listed.
If so, that's only because the kind of society that the left wing has given us essentially robs the individual of any real power.
Piracy - How much damage can you do by pirating things if nobody knows about it? You have to sell pirated content to make money with piracy.
How much damage could I do to other people if I dump motor oil on my own land?
Drug use - Prohibition 2.0, drug use itself doesn't hurt anyone
That's patently not true. Take a walk down the streets of any major city and have a look at the people sleeping on the gretes. Everyone else around the user has to pick up the pieces from lowered productivity. Now, if we did not have welfare, I'd say, have at it, go ahead, but don't expect me to pick up the pieces when you starve to death. And, I would argue that drug use is a huge part of the growing wealth gap.
If drugs are legalized, anyone can make their own drugs cheaply (perhaps even buy them at the pharmacy without a prescription), the drug trade dies and drug use becomes, at worst, akin to alcoholism
It depends on the drugs. I could see legalizing pot, becuase, even though productivity takes a hit, that, you have to get tested for that hit suggests that its not so bad. Just, people that smoke a lot of pot shouldn't be bitter about ultimately being left behind. Cocaine, pot, oxycodone, and all of the other stuff, though, I can't see being available over the counter. However, I'd rather have it rationed and legal, so long as private companies could get involved. Hell, I'd love to have a legal business selling cocaine to people! It's easy money. However, what I will agree with you on, I hope, is that the present approach to throwing everyone in jail is a crock. 30 years of the war on drugs has been a total failure.
Insurance fraud - Medical insurance usually includes a number of health checks, no? Again pretty hard to do in private.
The medical establishment, from provider to carrier, all condone a larger amount of prescription drug abuse. I mean, look at how many boys are getting slammed into ritalin for being "hyper" or suffering from ADD.
A business on the other hand, is merely a set of transactions in money and service between people. A business is not a sentient being, and therefore I see no reason for it to have any more privacy than a machine.
No, a business is the property of people, just as much as a house or a car is. Businesses are the most human of group activity, besides war. It's not, as you say, a "machine", and you most likely only feel that way because you haven't actually engaged in it or emotionally invested in it. Besides, if machines did become intelligent, wouldn't they have rights? I mean, if there are some animals that have rights, wouldn't machines ultimately have rights at some point?
It's more like "personal privacy good, privacy in business and government bad"
Like I said, that's a political decision. You assume that businesses and governments are bad, but private political organizations are good. I should point though, that the EFF (like most political organizations) is absolutely aweful when it comes to the openness of its own operations. The EFF is actually more secretive than Exxon Mobil. Exxon Mobil must provide annual statements and quarterly statements that can be used to give some idea what they do. They describe exactly the goods they deliver, and at what price, and statements they about all of their communications are regulated by various government agencies. On the other hand, organizations such as EFF do not give you -a thing- about where there money comes from, what's the political affiliation of its donors, board of directors, and so forth.
"Privacy" in business and government is what allows corruption. It's the opposite of transparency. It's that simple
First off, that's not what you said before. You said : "I can't see why there should be any limit on privacy whatsoever", and then added that there should be "infinite privacy rights." Now you backpedal to a more political stance, which is individuals good, corporations bad.
Sadly, even your backpedalled argument is shallow. If you assume that privacy implies criminal behavior, than, doesn't it imply that privacy in one's personal effects also implies criminal behavior? I mean, how many individuals hide behind privacy to steal digital content, commit minor insurance fraud, use illegal drugs, potential terrorist sympthaties, and so forth? And, your own privacy idea is appalling.
I put nonprofit organizations into a different category as big corporations. I suppose you could call the EFF a political organization in the sense that they aim to affect policies, but they don't side with or against any party. So I do put them in a different category than partisan political organizations.
No, the EFF is political, and its partisan, and it exists to make some kind of money for its members. So, its just another money making con job, just like every other one.
I'm not going to try to talk you out of your IED-building militia of right-wing nutjobs, but you do realize you're no better than any terrorist organization, no saner than any of its members, and that the Patriot act and similar laws that you seem to like so much will only work against you? It's quite funny.
And, what makes you assume that I'm in favor of all of this so-called anti-terrorist legislation? I'm really not, and neither are a lot of right wingers. Sure, there's idiots on the right that seem to think that those laws are only meant to go after muslims. All I say to them, and really, the same thing to the left as well, is, if you don't want a government that can abuse its power, then do not give it power to abuse. Sure, they might not mind Bush chasing down a bunch of muzzies, but, the question to really ask, is what would Hitlery do?
It goes back to my original point.... the most dangerous political force in this country today is partisanship itself. Both Republicans, conservatives, Democrats, liberals, etc, are all guilty of the same thing. We think, geez, if our guy gets in, and we give him or her all this power, they will make things right for us. Sure, you can mock us righties as if we looking for a fuhrer to follow, but you lefties are always look for a Ghandi, and I do believe it was John Lennon that said, the only person that can save you is you. But, look at what the candidates promise today... the same old game, give us power, give us money, and we'll prevent someone else from taking your power. So, really, what we have here is a suckers game, a big protection racket where every election we give someone 10% of our rights in order to save a perceived 50%, and now, we've been through so many of these things, we've got no rights left. Seriously, as much as you liberals hate Bush, did you really celebrate Clinton all that much?
You before said that people banding together is a great thing for expressing power, but you are totally wrong. Humans are like grasshoppers. They become like locusts, caught up in whatever cause it is, oblivious to the destruction that they do. Sure, its intoxicating, you feel a part of a million feet stomping in unison on the way to victory, its easier to not think and just crush and not worry and feel good about things. But its still stupid and animalistic, and if you want to be a man, do this: look at all of these money laundering false heros in the face, and tell them to go pound sand. If you want to save your rights, and your power, do not give them to anyone at all.
You don't need to start a Revolution to gain your freedom. You just need to live free.
Should privacy in business matters be the same as in personal matters?
For that matter, doesn't the President of the USA have a right to privacy? What about any elected leader?
As I said, the right to privacy is not absolute, and where the line is drawn, is a political matter. You've said that businesses do not have the same right to privacy as the personal, and I assume the EFF feels, the same way, and that makes them squarely a political organization.
There's nothing wrong with that... its just don't get all into thinking that organizations like that are all "different" just because they agree with you. You have, that's too bad.
Good luck with your militia, the guys in Waco didn't make out so well
Nah, but, imagine if they had just made IEDs instead.
I've been trying to hold off calling you a right-wing nutjob, but what am I supposed to say now? The answer to those three is "infinite." I was going to say "as much as is possible without hurting others" but I can't think of any way that privacy, free speech or fair use could be harmful. Sure there's hate speech, but as Slashdot user Chandon Seldon once said:
Well, then, in that case, you aren't thinking. If there is infinite privacy, then, certainly the shareholders of the phone company that you are suing are having -their- privacy rights violated. Phone companies belong to people and those people have privacy rights too. Therefor, what the EFF is really doing, is violating someone's privacy. Like I said, its politics. You just don't want to see it.
free speech or fair use could be harmful. Sure there's hate speech, but as Slashdot user Chandon Seldon once said:
If there is infinite free speech, then, I could say whatever I wanted. If I was a billionaire, then, I could, in fact, put into the media whatever I wanted to about whatever candidate that I wanted. Bottom line is, that, again, there is always a boundary line between the free speech of people, and where that line is drawn is political.
And infinite fair use is the same as saying there is no such thing as a copyright.
Well first of all, I'm not an American, I'm just along for the ride as you guys drunk-drive the technology industry around with the Internet backbone in the trunk. And if I was, sure I could write a congressman, but at the same time what's wrong with forming a group or supporting a group that supports your cause? People in groups make a bigger impact. Does the EFF threaten you? Are your ideals, political or otherwise, incompatible with the EFF's goals?
You could write a congressman, whether you are in the USA or not.
You're right, I am a right winger, but, since we right wingers were way ahead of the left in exploiting the internet, we're a bit farther along in seeing its consequences. The idea, that you don't get, is that the internet is balkanizing the world. Everyone is getting feedbacked looped into signing up for varying groups and clubs. These groups are becoming the prime source of information, self reinforcing - really, religious theocracies in their own right. When you support one of these groups, all you are really doing is enriching the would-be-dictators that run them. I'm sorry you can't see it, but when my group decides to take the next step, and form a militia, then, perhaps you will. I already know plenty of righties that are thinking about revolution.
Privacy, free speech, fair use = political causes. Gotcha.
How much privacy, how much free speech, how much fair use... are ALL political causes. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Nonprofit organization = large corporation. I'm following.
Yeah, that's right.
Other poitical agendas? Such as? And is there any hint, in the article or from the history of the EFF's cases, that they're looking for damages?
They are looking for money. What more do you need. Just another bunch of people, looking for money. Tell me, what is it that the EFF does the precludes you from lobbying your congressman yourself?
Are you serious? How the hell did you get +3 Insightful for that mighty steaming pile of shit!?
Dude, THINK. For the love of God, or whatever you believe in. Separate, if you can, in your head, these desirable political causes that you find interest in, from the reality that the EFF is a business just like any of these other businesses that they would "save" us from. Dude, you could take Jerry Falwell (were he still alive), and the head of the EFF, and switch their jobs, and they would be doing the exact same thing:
a) look at xyz about to take 123 away from you. they are so evil! b) we're on the ball to protect that. we're the friendly little guy competing against this v a s t conspiracy, but despite that, we've scored some impressive victories. c) so, give us money!
I would like to know if the EFF is lobbying any political groups (especially since it would be a despicable waste of donation money, although I doubt they could afford it since they run on donations) but the EFF is basically just pro-privacy, pro-fair-use and anti-censorship:
OF course they lobby. Do you suppose that EFF has never written a letter to congress, written to a senator, or gasp, even called a congress men? That's lobbying dude...
But the reality is, that the EFF has other political agendas despite its high minded goals. Look at how much they are expending to oppose the immunity of telcos for, gasp, listening to the government. If the telcos stopped spying, that's should be enough for them. But they aren't. They are looking for damages. You know why? Because they want the money.
It's all about money, and you are just too ladeedahdahdah your stupid causes to see it.
Just on general principal, Bush should not give into these people. It's a bunch of leftists looking to drag down a political rival, and one wonders, who exactly does the EFF lobby?
Dude, I listen to the BBC News hour almost -daily- in the USA. They are very liberal.
It seems we always hear about kids and teachers being investigated by the FBI for wearing 'bush sucks' t shirts or other silly things. that just does not happen here
Well, there's no need to investigate everyone in Britian, because you've got everyone on camera. And then, there's this:
manned by professionals who were not beholden to the bottom line of the power company.
Also, you need to understand that power company nuclear people are pretty independently minded. Today, the vast majority of nuclear people in the key roles are in fact ex-Navy. I've worked with these people, and they are maniacal when it comes to following whatever lenghty process it takes to operate and upgrade a power plant safely. If you think you've got issues with procedures in normal software development, you should see the standards that nuclear software maintainers go through. It's insane. These people are enormously bright and they test and retest and test even more the stuff they build, and they are too ornery and honestly, have too much integrity to care about the bottom line of the company at the expense of efficiency or safety.
That is not he kind of thing that gives me warm feelings about the safety of nuclear power as done in the US where any company is free to design and sell its own unique nuclear power plant. This results in many different designs run by many different power companies and constructed by many iffy contractors. I would modify my opposition to nuclear power if we had a smart national program that developed a single highly safe reactor design to be constructed and manned by professionals who were not beholden to the bottom line of the power company.
Actually, your opposition to nuclear power has some misconceptions. Yes, companies are allowed to design their own nuclear reactors, it is true, and honestly, given that the big things government has designed can go equally wrong (NASA space probes, a few dams, etc), that's ok. But what the government does do is have the NRC approve every design of a nuclear power plant. So, for example, GE has a new nuclear power plant design that is far ahead of what we have now, and they are going through the NRC approval process to get it approved. This takes a -long- time, and is a big reason why we do not have new nuclear plants. (nobody cares for the old designs!)
Stick to criticizing America, you have all that right. As for Europe, they don't have a bill of rights like we do and very few written "freedoms". There is no expectation of religious freedom or privacy based on laws
The sad thing is, that America is a country whose constitution was founded on the idea that you have all the freedoms not specifically reserved for the government. So... to say that the Bill of Rights guarantees us our freedoms is a mistake. We would have a right to keep and bear arms, a right to privacy, a right to choose, and all of those other rights, simply because the government is only allowed to make treaties, raise taxes, regulate businesses between states and other countries, and to make the occasional war.
You know, since George Bush took office, we Americans have been hearing about how we're screwing up our civil rights, wrecking the western world and so forth, how copyrights are evil, and so on. Yeah, the PATRIOT ACT is aweful and Homeland Security may as well be another name for Gestapo, but, one would have thought that in light of all of this criticism, that, European styled nations would have gone and done something smarter, but, it seems like, instead of that, they've gone and tried to outdo American mistakes.
Consider:
the USA has some stepped up security, but in the UK, they've gone completely bonkers. If the island nation doesn't sink under the weight of all of its cameras, the utter assault on civil liberties, in so many ways, will just drive freedom loving Brits insane.
the USA is criticized for not supporting free speech enough, but in Europe, anything construed as anti-politically correct is muzzled in one way or another. In the UK, the BBC is trying to promote the virtues of Islam while at the same time promoting anti-Christian material. In Germany, whack jobs like Scientologists are actually -banned-. In France, riot police are fanning out, again, into the Paris suburbs, dressed more like soldiers, and they are trying to keep yet another outburst in check. France has been rocked by massive strikes.
Now, even the Canadians, of all people, probably the best example of European liberalism, are now succumbing to an even grimmer version of the DMCA. What's next for Canada? Geez, one would think that while the world's environmentalists are condemning Bush's proposal to drill in Alaska, that the Canadians wouldn't go and do something aweful and utterly trash a much larger area of land looking for oil sands or diamonds. But oh, they did.
Fortunately, the European styled nations, having signed Kyoto, have reduced their greenhouse gasses more than the USA, except, well, the USA seems to achieved more greenhouse gas reduction as of late due to the surge in fuel prices, a rapid rollout of energy efficient lighting, among other things.
Heck, maybe after Bush is done with the USA, he can become President of the European Union, and straighten all you guys out! Look at all he's done for the USA!
There, you have a claim by a Major Robert Garland to have flown the F-22 at Mach 2 in level flight.
If you google around, you'll find Air Force guys saying that this plane will do Mach 2.5, and, more than a few people have pointed out that the F-22 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the SR-71... thus, all things being equal, this ought to be one fast bird.
.Property rights spring from a person's ability to occupy, transform by their labor, or put to use the property. As you have no ability to occupy or use the space an infinite height above that bit of earth you DO own you don't have any natural claim to it. That's the most pro-property rights view of what property *is* fundamentally and how it originates (look up "original appropriation" or the homestead principle, read Locke or Rand, or Rothbard, that's the view MOST sympathetic to yours). You don't have an infinite vertical claim by any view of property rights I've ever heard of. If anything the airlines by their actual use of that space far beyond your ability to do so yourself have a better claim to ownership as the original appropriators of it.
Well, well well, here we have the open admission that in fact, property rights is a compromise. It follows then, there this a grey area where the federal government could put to use your money better than you, and thus, there's plenty of room to put Amtrak subsidies on the table.
Where you tripped yourself up was the with this test of property rights as a definition of what you could do with it. That argument is a rough tack to take, because ultimately, somebody out there could always do something more effectively with what you own.
The F-22 can not 'cruise' at Mach 2. That would be even more buck rogers than the aircraft is already.
Actually, the big poop is that, in fact, it probably can. I've read that the engines on that thing are so powerful that with afterburner the aircraft would be capable of Mach 3 but the airframe simply isn't strong enough to take it, so the flight control software intentionally limits the speed so the plane doesn't break up. It's a very aerodynamic design coupled to a fantastically powerful engine, and the result is that the F-22 is quite a burner. One has to wonder if there might be a covert block with a stronger airframe for reconaissance.
Part of the problem is that we don't have an accurate accounting of how much oil is left in the easy-to-get-to locations. The middle eastern sources are depleting, but they refuse to acknowledge how much./i>
Well, there's some good anecdotal evidence that says that Gawar, the largest field in Saudi Arabia, is way past its peak. First off, the Saudis have announced that they did an oil find, where, geologically speaking, is a bad place to look for oil - so, they must be in less good of shape than let. Secondly, they are pumping a lot of water in Gawar to keep it producing, meaning that, the natural pressure in the field has been exhausted. Secondly, they send mixed messages about production increases.
All in all, Saudi Arabia might well be nearing its peak. Now, of course, I find it highly unlikely that someone like Dick Cheney would be plugged into a secret energy conference in 2000. It's probably even more unlikely that he would have spent the previous year as a head of the largest oil infrastructure company, and even less likely that he would have spent the last decade before he was VP arguing that the USA needed to get a lot more energy because the Saudi Arabia was going to fail. Of course, that's not to say that the USA invaded Iraq because Iraq, at the moment, has the largest untapped resources of light sweet crude, but, that's just me....
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously something went wrong with the way I posted it. I think I know what went wrong (I used spaces instead of %20).
It works fine. Thanks. It's a pretty creepy read, actually. But, it feels like a normal discovery subpoena. Except, I think the lawyer that filed it probably should have thought better than to be so heavy handed with Google. I wonder if he could be sanctioned for lying in the interview. I read his quote, and he said, flat out, that this was not an attempt to overturn the 1st amendment, but, actually, in his document, in fact, it is. Somehow I thought lawyers, as officers of the court, are supposed to tell the truth.
Of course, DaTruthSquad is really Moscowitz, I'm sure of it from reading his most recent posts. So ironically, the township is probably right and the guy probably committed perjury and is using his anonymity to cover it up. So, our shitty choice is protecting a guy that lied in court, which is pretty bad, in order to protect anonymous postings, and I think the guy that lies in court gets to walk... It's like the 5th amendment... you can't put someone in a position to incriminate themselves.
Traitor? You're the one who supported and voted for the man who uses the Constitution of the US as toilet paper
Oh please. Yes, the PATRIOT ACT sucks donkey dick, but the Democrats have been in Congress for a year now, and I've not seen them approve one bill to get rid of it. Same with FISA warrants. So, stop you Democratic dick sucking and look at reality. Your boys don't give a shit either.
Now, aside from that, in general, Bush has extended the amount of rights to the American people. He has:
a) reduced taxes. Therefor, people have more economic power.
b) reduced regulations. Therefor, people have more real power. Any law the government does not enforce, is more power for the people. Period.
c) would have privatized social security, giving people even MORE power.
d) interpreted the 2nd amendment as a right to keep and bear arms, stuffed the bench with judges who feel the same, and, best of all, allowed the so-called assault weapons ban to expire.
e) proposed a national sales tax or flat tax to replace current tax code. This, incidentally, would require the government to collect less personal information.
Conversely, Democrats would:
a) increase taxes
b) put in additional rules to "save the planet"
c) put in additional rules to "save women, minorities, etc"
d) have introduced legislation to add more auditors to the IRS
e) have introduced legislation to give the government access to all of your medical records.
So, in one corner, you have Bush occasionally reading your email. In the other corner,
And, finally, if you have been reading Slashdot at all, you might have noticed THAT THE GUYS THAT ARE SUING DATRUTHDUDE IN NEW JERSEY A R E D E M O C R A T S. That's right, your boys are suing so that every fricking city in the USA has the power to overturn free speech. Way to go.
And then, to top off that gargantuan fuck-up, you're here defending your pathetic decision making with threats of lethal violence. I only want to beat some sense into those people who are responsible for the ruin of my civil rights, my privacy, and my liberties
Let's see, you are basically making the argument that you have the right to be people up for your supposed loss of liberties. As I pointed out above, under Bush, you've actually gotten more real power. Let's see, the PATRIOT and FISA are a wash, because, the Democrats are still supporting those laws. And, Bush supports your right to keep your money, your right to keep and bear arms, your right to your own private property, while the Democrats want to take your money, your guns, and your land. Yet, somehow, you feel like you have more civil rights. So, you want to beat people up for giving you more, and you claim that isn't violent? I think it is only logical that you would be shot in return. You are just like Chavez and Castro and all those other thugs that came before you. At the end of the day, you want all these powers for yourself, so you can enslave everyone else. Please, you go right ahead and try and punch a few people, but if you socialist bastards really ever do take control of this country, I promise I won't be coming back at you with just fists. I'd use nukes, if I could get them!
BETTER DEAD THAN SOCIALIST.
I say we imprison these people under strict Islamic law. If they are caught stealing from the camp, then off with their hands. If they don't pray at the right time, stone them.
You probably voted for Bush. Twice. You'd better hope I don't meet you some day as my fists get a little uncontrollable when I hear people proudly claim they did that. You have no idea how people like you piss me off. Short-bus riding window-lickers, all of you.
I not only voted for Bush, but gave him money twice. Bring your uncontrollable fists, you thug, and I'll bring my rifle. I really could care less if I piss you off, and you will not threaten me or anyone else, you traitor.
As another respondant mentioned, the subpoena asks for a lot more than Google's affirmation that the blogger is/isn't the former mayor. It specifically requests the blogger's
Um, why does that link not work? Is this a legitimate document? For that matter, why did, if he is engaged in free speech, the DaTruthSquad take down all of his original posts?
EFF Twists Truth?
David Weeks, an attorney representing Manalapan, says the foundation is twisting a routine legal request in a local lawsuit into a First Amendment case.
"We're not asking to interfere with anyone's right to speak," Weeks said.
Instead, Manalapan's attorneys are simply asking Google to establish whether Moskovitz was telling the truth when he denied he was the blogger in court papers related to the land deal lawsuit.
"I don't know one way or the other if it's him," Weeks said. "It could be him."
So, some facts:
a) The guy getting sued is being sued because he didn't file EPA paperwork on a land deal. In NJ, that's pretty dumb, so he could be guilty of malpractice.
b) The guy getting sued is actually the former mayor of the same county that is suing him.
c) Yes, NJ is crooked.
However, with that said, if DaTruthSquad is the former mayor, and he is posting on about stuff, he could be violating various other things, compromising a sealed case, who knows, and therefor, the government -does- have an interest in knowing if it is him.
Note that the point is, Google isn't getting sued to see -who- DaTruthSquad is. Google is getting sued to reveal if the guy is the former mayor. Not to say that everyone is angelic, but, in all probability, DaTruthSquad is probably a crook himself.
As Bob Dylan wrote: "In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."
maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"
You read the B of R the wrong way. The government can't go after you because the Constitution doesn't give it the power to search digital works. The BoR only is examples of your rights, not a sole enumeration of them.
didn't really backpedal, I just thought that when we were talking about privacy we were talking about individual privacy, as you're the first person who has ever introduced me to the absurd concept of privacy within a business with a straight face.
That's probably because you aren't very open minded.
An individual's personal life doesn't include other people's money, right off the bat.
Um, last time I checked, individuals are extremely intertwined, and have other peoples money, either owing, or more.
It's pretty hard to do something that could hurt others in private - let's look at the things you listed.
If so, that's only because the kind of society that the left wing has given us essentially robs the individual of any real power.
Piracy - How much damage can you do by pirating things if nobody knows about it? You have to sell pirated content to make money with piracy.
How much damage could I do to other people if I dump motor oil on my own land?
Drug use - Prohibition 2.0, drug use itself doesn't hurt anyone
That's patently not true. Take a walk down the streets of any major city and have a look at the people sleeping on the gretes. Everyone else around the user has to pick up the pieces from lowered productivity. Now, if we did not have welfare, I'd say, have at it, go ahead, but don't expect me to pick up the pieces when you starve to death. And, I would argue that drug use is a huge part of the growing wealth gap.
If drugs are legalized, anyone can make their own drugs cheaply (perhaps even buy them at the pharmacy without a prescription), the drug trade dies and drug use becomes, at worst, akin to alcoholism
It depends on the drugs. I could see legalizing pot, becuase, even though productivity takes a hit, that, you have to get tested for that hit suggests that its not so bad. Just, people that smoke a lot of pot shouldn't be bitter about ultimately being left behind. Cocaine, pot, oxycodone, and all of the other stuff, though, I can't see being available over the counter. However, I'd rather have it rationed and legal, so long as private companies could get involved. Hell, I'd love to have a legal business selling cocaine to people! It's easy money. However, what I will agree with you on, I hope, is that the present approach to throwing everyone in jail is a crock. 30 years of the war on drugs has been a total failure.
Insurance fraud - Medical insurance usually includes a number of health checks, no? Again pretty hard to do in private.
The medical establishment, from provider to carrier, all condone a larger amount of prescription drug abuse. I mean, look at how many boys are getting slammed into ritalin for being "hyper" or suffering from ADD.
A business on the other hand, is merely a set of transactions in money and service between people. A business is not a sentient being, and therefore I see no reason for it to have any more privacy than a machine.
No, a business is the property of people, just as much as a house or a car is. Businesses are the most human of group activity, besides war. It's not, as you say, a "machine", and you most likely only feel that way because you haven't actually engaged in it or emotionally invested in it. Besides, if machines did become intelligent, wouldn't they have rights? I mean, if there are some animals that have rights, wouldn't machines ultimately have rights at some point?
It's more like "personal privacy good, privacy in business and government bad"
Like I said, that's a political decision. You assume that businesses and governments are bad, but private political organizations are good. I should point though, that the EFF (like most political organizations) is absolutely aweful when it comes to the openness of its own operations. The EFF is actually more secretive than Exxon Mobil. Exxon Mobil must provide annual statements and quarterly statements that can be used to give some idea what they do. They describe exactly the goods they deliver, and at what price, and statements they about all of their communications are regulated by various government agencies. On the other hand, organizations such as EFF do not give you -a thing- about where there money comes from, what's the political affiliation of its donors, board of directors, and so forth.
"Privacy" in business and government is what allows corruption. It's the opposite of transparency. It's that simple
First off, that's not what you said before. You said : "I can't see why there should be any limit on privacy whatsoever", and then added that there should be "infinite privacy rights." Now you backpedal to a more political stance, which is individuals good, corporations bad.
Sadly, even your backpedalled argument is shallow. If you assume that privacy implies criminal behavior, than, doesn't it imply that privacy in one's personal effects also implies criminal behavior? I mean, how many individuals hide behind privacy to steal digital content, commit minor insurance fraud, use illegal drugs, potential terrorist sympthaties, and so forth? And, your own privacy idea is appalling.
You're flip-flopping like a fish out of water. There's medication you can get to deal with that.
No, not at all. The best thing is to get rid of all the organizations. But, if you have to line up, pick one that is prepared to escalate all the way.
By the way, you are the one that's bending over for a religious dogma.
"your privacy good"
"someone else's privacy, bad"
You are sort of a fraud, you know.
I put nonprofit organizations into a different category as big corporations. I suppose you could call the EFF a political organization in the sense that they aim to affect policies, but they don't side with or against any party. So I do put them in a different category than partisan political organizations.
No, the EFF is political, and its partisan, and it exists to make some kind of money for its members. So, its just another money making con job, just like every other one.
I'm not going to try to talk you out of your IED-building militia of right-wing nutjobs, but you do realize you're no better than any terrorist organization, no saner than any of its members, and that the Patriot act and similar laws that you seem to like so much will only work against you? It's quite funny.
And, what makes you assume that I'm in favor of all of this so-called anti-terrorist legislation? I'm really not, and neither are a lot of right wingers. Sure, there's idiots on the right that seem to think that those laws are only meant to go after muslims. All I say to them, and really, the same thing to the left as well, is, if you don't want a government that can abuse its power, then do not give it power to abuse. Sure, they might not mind Bush chasing down a bunch of muzzies, but, the question to really ask, is what would Hitlery do?
It goes back to my original point.... the most dangerous political force in this country today is partisanship itself. Both Republicans, conservatives, Democrats, liberals, etc, are all guilty of the same thing. We think, geez, if our guy gets in, and we give him or her all this power, they will make things right for us. Sure, you can mock us righties as if we looking for a fuhrer to follow, but you lefties are always look for a Ghandi, and I do believe it was John Lennon that said, the only person that can save you is you. But, look at what the candidates promise today... the same old game, give us power, give us money, and we'll prevent someone else from taking your power. So, really, what we have here is a suckers game, a big protection racket where every election we give someone 10% of our rights in order to save a perceived 50%, and now, we've been through so many of these things, we've got no rights left. Seriously, as much as you liberals hate Bush, did you really celebrate Clinton all that much?
You before said that people banding together is a great thing for expressing power, but you are totally wrong. Humans are like grasshoppers. They become like locusts, caught up in whatever cause it is, oblivious to the destruction that they do. Sure, its intoxicating, you feel a part of a million feet stomping in unison on the way to victory, its easier to not think and just crush and not worry and feel good about things. But its still stupid and animalistic, and if you want to be a man, do this: look at all of these money laundering false heros in the face, and tell them to go pound sand. If you want to save your rights, and your power, do not give them to anyone at all.
You don't need to start a Revolution to gain your freedom. You just need to live free.
Should privacy in business matters be the same as in personal matters?
For that matter, doesn't the President of the USA have a right to privacy? What about any elected leader?
As I said, the right to privacy is not absolute, and where the line is drawn, is a political matter. You've said that businesses do not have the same right to privacy as the personal, and I assume the EFF feels, the same way, and that makes them squarely a political organization.
There's nothing wrong with that... its just don't get all into thinking that organizations like that are all "different" just because they agree with you. You have, that's too bad.
Good luck with your militia, the guys in Waco didn't make out so well
Nah, but, imagine if they had just made IEDs instead.
I've been trying to hold off calling you a right-wing nutjob, but what am I supposed to say now? The answer to those three is "infinite." I was going to say "as much as is possible without hurting others" but I can't think of any way that privacy, free speech or fair use could be harmful. Sure there's hate speech, but as Slashdot user Chandon Seldon once said:
Well, then, in that case, you aren't thinking. If there is infinite privacy, then, certainly the shareholders of the phone company that you are suing are having -their- privacy rights violated. Phone companies belong to people and those people have privacy rights too. Therefor, what the EFF is really doing, is violating someone's privacy. Like I said, its politics. You just don't want to see it.
free speech or fair use could be harmful. Sure there's hate speech, but as Slashdot user Chandon Seldon once said:
If there is infinite free speech, then, I could say whatever I wanted. If I was a billionaire, then, I could, in fact, put into the media whatever I wanted to about whatever candidate that I wanted. Bottom line is, that, again, there is always a boundary line between the free speech of people, and where that line is drawn is political.
And infinite fair use is the same as saying there is no such thing as a copyright.
Well first of all, I'm not an American, I'm just along for the ride as you guys drunk-drive the technology industry around with the Internet backbone in the trunk. And if I was, sure I could write a congressman, but at the same time what's wrong with forming a group or supporting a group that supports your cause? People in groups make a bigger impact. Does the EFF threaten you? Are your ideals, political or otherwise, incompatible with the EFF's goals?
You could write a congressman, whether you are in the USA or not.
You're right, I am a right winger, but, since we right wingers were way ahead of the left in exploiting the internet, we're a bit farther along in seeing its consequences. The idea, that you don't get, is that the internet is balkanizing the world. Everyone is getting feedbacked looped into signing up for varying groups and clubs. These groups are becoming the prime source of information, self reinforcing - really, religious theocracies in their own right. When you support one of these groups, all you are really doing is enriching the would-be-dictators that run them. I'm sorry you can't see it, but when my group decides to take the next step, and form a militia, then, perhaps you will. I already know plenty of righties that are thinking about revolution.
Privacy, free speech, fair use = political causes. Gotcha.
How much privacy, how much free speech, how much fair use... are ALL political causes. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Nonprofit organization = large corporation. I'm following.
Yeah, that's right.
Other poitical agendas? Such as? And is there any hint, in the article or from the history of the EFF's cases, that they're looking for damages?
They are looking for money. What more do you need. Just another bunch of people, looking for money. Tell me, what is it that the EFF does the precludes you from lobbying your congressman yourself?
Are you serious? How the hell did you get +3 Insightful for that mighty steaming pile of shit!?
Dude, THINK. For the love of God, or whatever you believe in. Separate, if you can, in your head, these desirable political causes that you find interest in, from the reality that the EFF is a business just like any of these other businesses that they would "save" us from. Dude, you could take Jerry Falwell (were he still alive), and the head of the EFF, and switch their jobs, and they would be doing the exact same thing:
a) look at xyz about to take 123 away from you. they are so evil!
b) we're on the ball to protect that. we're the friendly little guy competing against this v a s t conspiracy, but despite that, we've scored some impressive victories.
c) so, give us money!
I would like to know if the EFF is lobbying any political groups (especially since it would be a despicable waste of donation money, although I doubt they could afford it since they run on donations) but the EFF is basically just pro-privacy, pro-fair-use and anti-censorship:
OF course they lobby. Do you suppose that EFF has never written a letter to congress, written to a senator, or gasp, even called a congress men? That's lobbying dude...
But the reality is, that the EFF has other political agendas despite its high minded goals. Look at how much they are expending to oppose the immunity of telcos for, gasp, listening to the government. If the telcos stopped spying, that's should be enough for them. But they aren't. They are looking for damages. You know why? Because they want the money.
It's all about money, and you are just too ladeedahdahdah your stupid causes to see it.
bore me to tears..
Just on general principal, Bush should not give into these people. It's a bunch of leftists looking to drag down a political rival, and one wonders, who exactly does the EFF lobby?
The BBC is not anti-christian either,
Even the BBC says otherwise!
Dude, I listen to the BBC News hour almost -daily- in the USA. They are very liberal.
It seems we always hear about kids and teachers being investigated by the FBI for wearing 'bush sucks' t shirts or other silly things. that just does not happen here
Well, there's no need to investigate everyone in Britian, because you've got everyone on camera. And then, there's this:
Anti-terrorism laws
manned by professionals who were not beholden to the bottom line of the power company.
Also, you need to understand that power company nuclear people are pretty independently minded. Today, the vast majority of nuclear people in the key roles are in fact ex-Navy. I've worked with these people, and they are maniacal when it comes to following whatever lenghty process it takes to operate and upgrade a power plant safely. If you think you've got issues with procedures in normal software development, you should see the standards that nuclear software maintainers go through. It's insane. These people are enormously bright and they test and retest and test even more the stuff they build, and they are too ornery and honestly, have too much integrity to care about the bottom line of the company at the expense of efficiency or safety.
That is not he kind of thing that gives me warm feelings about the safety of nuclear power as done in the US where any company is free to design and sell its own unique nuclear power plant. This results in many different designs run by many different power companies and constructed by many iffy contractors. I would modify my opposition to nuclear power if we had a smart national program that developed a single highly safe reactor design to be constructed and manned by professionals who were not beholden to the bottom line of the power company.
Actually, your opposition to nuclear power has some misconceptions. Yes, companies are allowed to design their own nuclear reactors, it is true, and honestly, given that the big things government has designed can go equally wrong (NASA space probes, a few dams, etc), that's ok. But what the government does do is have the NRC approve every design of a nuclear power plant. So, for example, GE has a new nuclear power plant design that is far ahead of what we have now, and they are going through the NRC approval process to get it approved. This takes a -long- time, and is a big reason why we do not have new nuclear plants. (nobody cares for the old designs!)
Stick to criticizing America, you have all that right. As for Europe, they don't have a bill of rights like we do and very few written "freedoms". There is no expectation of religious freedom or privacy based on laws
The sad thing is, that America is a country whose constitution was founded on the idea that you have all the freedoms not specifically reserved for the government. So... to say that the Bill of Rights guarantees us our freedoms is a mistake. We would have a right to keep and bear arms, a right to privacy, a right to choose, and all of those other rights, simply because the government is only allowed to make treaties, raise taxes, regulate businesses between states and other countries, and to make the occasional war.
You know, since George Bush took office, we Americans have been hearing about how we're screwing up our civil rights, wrecking the western world and so forth, how copyrights are evil, and so on. Yeah, the PATRIOT ACT is aweful and Homeland Security may as well be another name for Gestapo, but, one would have thought that in light of all of this criticism, that, European styled nations would have gone and done something smarter, but, it seems like, instead of that, they've gone and tried to outdo American mistakes.
Consider:
the USA has some stepped up security, but in the UK, they've gone completely bonkers. If the island nation doesn't sink under the weight of all of its cameras, the utter assault on civil liberties, in so many ways, will just drive freedom loving Brits insane.
the USA is criticized for not supporting free speech enough, but in Europe, anything construed as anti-politically correct is muzzled in one way or another. In the UK, the BBC is trying to promote the virtues of Islam while at the same time promoting anti-Christian material. In Germany, whack jobs like Scientologists are actually -banned-. In France, riot police are fanning out, again, into the Paris suburbs, dressed more like soldiers, and they are trying to keep yet another outburst in check. France has been rocked by massive strikes.
Now, even the Canadians, of all people, probably the best example of European liberalism, are now succumbing to an even grimmer version of the DMCA. What's next for Canada? Geez, one would think that while the world's environmentalists are condemning Bush's proposal to drill in Alaska, that the Canadians wouldn't go and do something aweful and utterly trash a much larger area of land looking for oil sands or diamonds. But oh, they did.
Fortunately, the European styled nations, having signed Kyoto, have reduced their greenhouse gasses more than the USA, except, well, the USA seems to achieved more greenhouse gas reduction as of late due to the surge in fuel prices, a rapid rollout of energy efficient lighting, among other things.
Heck, maybe after Bush is done with the USA, he can become President of the European Union, and straighten all you guys out! Look at all he's done for the USA!
I've been to the F-22 web site, its really nice. But you should check out this:
http://www.airplanes.com/forums/military-aircraft/1411-mach-2-0-supercruise-60-000ft-altitude.html
There, you have a claim by a Major Robert Garland to have flown the F-22 at Mach 2 in level flight.
If you google around, you'll find Air Force guys saying that this plane will do Mach 2.5, and, more than a few people have pointed out that the F-22 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the SR-71... thus, all things being equal, this ought to be one fast bird.
.Property rights spring from a person's ability to occupy, transform by their labor, or put to use the property. As you have no ability to occupy or use the space an infinite height above that bit of earth you DO own you don't have any natural claim to it. That's the most pro-property rights view of what property *is* fundamentally and how it originates (look up "original appropriation" or the homestead principle, read Locke or Rand, or Rothbard, that's the view MOST sympathetic to yours). You don't have an infinite vertical claim by any view of property rights I've ever heard of. If anything the airlines by their actual use of that space far beyond your ability to do so yourself have a better claim to ownership as the original appropriators of it.
Well, well well, here we have the open admission that in fact, property rights is a compromise. It follows then, there this a grey area where the federal government could put to use your money better than you, and thus, there's plenty of room to put Amtrak subsidies on the table.
Where you tripped yourself up was the with this test of property rights as a definition of what you could do with it. That argument is a rough tack to take, because ultimately, somebody out there could always do something more effectively with what you own.
The F-22 can not 'cruise' at Mach 2. That would be even more buck rogers than the aircraft is already.
Actually, the big poop is that, in fact, it probably can. I've read that the engines on that thing are so powerful that with afterburner the aircraft would be capable of Mach 3 but the airframe simply isn't strong enough to take it, so the flight control software intentionally limits the speed so the plane doesn't break up. It's a very aerodynamic design coupled to a fantastically powerful engine, and the result is that the F-22 is quite a burner. One has to wonder if there might be a covert block with a stronger airframe for reconaissance.
Part of the problem is that we don't have an accurate accounting of how much oil is left in the easy-to-get-to locations. The middle eastern sources are depleting, but they refuse to acknowledge how much./i>
Well, there's some good anecdotal evidence that says that Gawar, the largest field in Saudi Arabia, is way past its peak. First off, the Saudis have announced that they did an oil find, where, geologically speaking, is a bad place to look for oil - so, they must be in less good of shape than let. Secondly, they are pumping a lot of water in Gawar to keep it producing, meaning that, the natural pressure in the field has been exhausted. Secondly, they send mixed messages about production increases.
All in all, Saudi Arabia might well be nearing its peak. Now, of course, I find it highly unlikely that someone like Dick Cheney would be plugged into a secret energy conference in 2000. It's probably even more unlikely that he would have spent the previous year as a head of the largest oil infrastructure company, and even less likely that he would have spent the last decade before he was VP arguing that the USA needed to get a lot more energy because the Saudi Arabia was going to fail. Of course, that's not to say that the USA invaded Iraq because Iraq, at the moment, has the largest untapped resources of light sweet crude, but, that's just me....