But in either case, you are using the provider's network (be it roads or fiber) and if you want to use it you have to play by their rules.
But you see, in this country, we like to think of ourselves as living under the rule of law. In this case, the rule of law is expressed through the Terms of Service, a binding contract between the ISP and the customer. I haven't seen the TOS, but I expect it doesn't say "Violators will be liable to sudden seizure of equipment by the FBI". It probably says "You'll lose the service and we will attempt to recoup our losses".
Actually, the TOS (PDF) says very little. To their credit, they do mention that
"In addition, federal and state laws prohibit the possession, use, or attempted use of any equipment to receive any Buckeye services except as expressly provided by the Subscription Agreement."
Until today, I wouldn't have thought that meant the FBI might come knocking, but...
Re:OT so mod me down, but I don't care
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the poster:
if there is no judicial review, pray tell what the hearing currently going on in Manhattan is?
What is going on in Manhattan? I have seen articles today relating to Hamdi (petitions filed in Virginia) and the Guantanamo Bay (petitions filed in DC). Both of these have involved administration claims that the courts have no power to conduct the very hearings being held. But I have seen nothing of a Manhattan proceeding, so I cannot speak to that. Give me a link and I'll give you my understanding.
Re:OT so mod me down, but I don't care
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
The United States will hold "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla indefinitely, and the Bush administration says the executive branch alone can decide when a person qualifies as an enemy combatant.
Yes, an attorney has filed a petition. But the administration has claimed that the petition is invalid, because the President has the unrestrained right to make this determination. All that your article does is make clear that -- thank whatever Providence has blessed this nation so far -- the courts still understand the rule of law. But the position of the Justice Department makes quite clear that the administration -- the executive -- does not.
I find it amazing -- no, disingenuous -- that one can claim my interpetation is wrong, when the source offered as refutation begins by confirming it. It's the same misdirection play attempted by this administration.
Re:OT so mod me down, but I don't care
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Blockquoth the poster:
They haven't been arresting people without cause. They had a damn good reason to.
That's not the issue. The American ideal has never, ever been "I'm from the government... trust me." Our entire system of law and politics is based upon checks and balances -- which includes external review. Everyone loves to drag in World War II here. Let's do that. Congress oversaw the war effort. Indeed, Harry Truman's claim to fame was his thorough, even-handed, and unstoppable investigation of war inefficiency. The Supreme Court remained in the loop too -- hence the Ex Parte Quirin that is so beloved of the administration's defenders. This President, however, holds no respect for the courts, for the Congress, or for anyone who might possibly restrain him.
If the government has such darn good evidence --and I don't a prior assume it doesn't -- then let it present it in court. Let it make its case the way that all administrations have had to make their case. Let's return to a nation organized around the rule of law.
If we don't get these guys, this WILL be Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Don't people understand that?
If the price of "freedom" is secret police, warrantless searches, and indefinite detention based on the whim of a single individual without restraint, then what's the difference?
Re:OT so mod me down, but I don't care
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the poster:
Mr. al-Muhajir is entitled to a judicial review of the claim that he is a combatant
Oh, really? To put it mildly, that seems not to be in accord with the facts: Blockquoth the Boston Globe (2002 Jun 25):
In an unusual telephone conference call with three appellate judges, Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement reiterated the administration's assertion that the president alone has the power to make a determination - not subject to judicial review - that someone is an enemy combatant and that such people should not have access to lawyers.
[emphasis added]
I think it's quite clear the President and his henchmen feel that the system of American justice is, at best, a hindrance. Elevating a bit of Vient Nam logic, Bush, Aschcroft and cronies appear to feel that "In order to save democracy, it was necessary to destroy it".
(a) Because the typical parent lacks the time, energy, will, and training to successfully educate his/her child;
I disagree with all of these with the exception of will.
Really? The typical person, half of a two-income household working, together, three or four jobs to meet the expense of housing, commuting, food... this parent has the time and energy to plot out and execute a full, enriching, and meaningful curriculum for every one of his/her children? I suppose he/she has access to the latest research on learning patterns, too, and the training to interpret them. It goes without saying, of course, that the typical American parent holds at least college degrees in English literature, art design, music, history (world and American), rhetoric, and math up to and including integral calculus -- to say nothing of biology, chemistry, and physics. It's a good thing that the typical American parent also has, in his/her home, fullly-equipped bio, chem, and physics labs. It's probably not worth mentioning foreign language and culture, since we all know that the typical American is well-versed in one or more non-English cultures.
The typical American parent might -- might! -- be qualified to educate his/her child through, maybe, the equivalent of third grade. Of course, along the way, any mistakes, misconceptions, blind spots, or outright errors in the parent's education are likely to be replicated in the child, since there is no professional community to help keep the parent on track. Meanwhile, the potential for the child to misinterpret "education" for "pleasing authority" is magnified, since now there is just the one authority to answer to. That makes it so easy to inculcate a respect for pluralism.
Is it impossible for home schooling to work? No. Is it logically impossible for it to achieve a result superior to in-school education? No. But is it likely that the typical parent could pull off such an at-home education? Not at all. Based entirely anecdotally (and thus, I concede, not worth the phosophorous it's printed on), in my experience, home-schooling has been an unmitigated disaster for the children I have encountered.
The only repect that public schools foster is blind respect for authority.
As the son of a public school teacher, I find this insulting. I know of many people who go through the public system and emerge upstanding, civic-minded citizens. I know of many teachers and administrators who feel it their duty and privelge to teach open-mindedness, self-reliance, and critical thinking. To equate the public school system with some sort of mindless political factory is a broad overgeneralization which is careless at best and hurtful if intentional.
Bigotry, provincialism, fanaticism, authoritarianism, selfishness... these are "values" more easily -- and more often -- taught at home than in the schools.
But last time I checked that whole "freedom" doesn't really apply to everyone, we have plenty of laws that upset a good many people, but they were put in by the MAJORITY.
Indeed. Most of the time, the majority should and does set the tone. But the brilliance of the Founders was their recognition that there are some freedoms so important, so vital, that they must be protected for everyone, even the unpopular minority. And they weren't just humanitarians. They saw how protecting the minority in the most important cases would lead to increased stability and increased freedom for everyone -- minority and majority alike -- in the long run.
They were some fine thinkers, then. Pity we don't seem to have the same calibre now.
What makes this nation something worth given allegience to, is exactly the fact that every four years or so, you can change the rules. It isn't easy, but it is possible. And how wonderful that we live in a country where this debate can go on, even though 80% of the people feel one way.
I have never met an Atheist that didn't at some point in the first day I got to know them tell me that they were an Atheist and God/Allah/whatever was crap.
Bad methodology: if person A is an atheist who happens not to be one who mentions it right away, how would you know? So all you're really saying is, "Every atheist who has told me he's an atheist has told me he's an atheist". Your select effects are overwhelming your data.
One can even interpret it to mean the "god" of science if you...
... are desparately looking for some way to simultaneously (a) keep "under God"; (b) include atheists; and (c) make it look like you're not violatng the First Amendment.
Back in the days of the First Galactic Empire.... needless to say, with all this adventuring, many men became fabulously wealthy. But that was OK, because no one was really poor. At least, no one worth bothering about...:)
apologies to Douglas Adams
Re:READ THIS -Very Off Topic-
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the poster:
The whole idea of pre-cognition is fundamentally religious.
I disagree. The point was, if you could prove that precognition works, what impact would it have? Of course for precognition to work there'd have to be a particular metaphysical orientation in the Universe. But it is not a priori outside the realm of possibility that this could be a scientifically-verifiable, physically-reliable occurence.
Remember, the science ficton author doesn't have to believe his/her postulated physical laws are true, or even that they could be. The author need only explore what happens if they were true.
OT so mod me down, but I don't care
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Blockquoth the poster:
The US District Court (or might have been the Supremes) ruled on something very much like this back in the World War era.
Willfully or not, you are misunderstanding the concern here. Your nominal citizen was challenging jurisdiction. But you know what? At least he got a trial! It wasn't enough for the President to say, "Oooh, he's a danger... better lock him up." In the current wave of illegality, the President and his agents have specifically and deliberately denied -- to acknowledged American citizens -- their right of habeus corpus, their right to know the charges against them, their right to face their accusers, their right to counsel, and their right to a speedy and impartial trial by their peers. What is the justification? That the President claims that they are enemy combatants. They cannot even get a judge to review that determination... if the President says it is so, it must be so.
I am not usually a paranoid anti-establishment type, but if you wrote up the list of law enforcement expansions of the last year and showed it to anyone -- but made sure not to say it was the US -- there would be only one question: Is this Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia?
Re:My one big issue with the film (SPOILER?)
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the poster:
The system as shown in the movie works (no murders in 6 years!).
Um, no. Burgess most certainly did commit a murder, so you can't make that argument. The real -- and unanswerable -- question is, how many false positives did the system report? We can assume it reported no false negatives -- ie., everything's fine, oops, a murder -- but we don't know about false positives. Of the people in Containment, how many of them were victims of "Bob will murder Charlie" but Bob really wouldn't.
Lost in the shuffle of the movie was the significance of the true minority report: That sometimes, Agatha saw a future that didn't include a murder seen by the other two. I think one of the best moments of the movie is when Anderton asks, desperately, "Where is my minority report? Do I even have one?" (meaning, absolve me of this future crime), to which the heartbroken Agatha cries, "No."
Remember, the pre-cogs didn't pick up the intent to commit murder. They picked up the fact of murder. If you really meant to kill your boss, but he was sick the day you intended and then you got hit by a bus, you wouldn't trigger the pre-cogs.
First Contact - Time Travel... Gotta Love Time Travel.
Oh, time travel is so hackneyed, especially in the Trekverse. But more importantly, First Contactruined the Borg. Well, OK, "I, Hugh" began the degeneration, but First Contact was the final nail in the coffin.
The original Borg was/were the only truly alien aliens in Trek. Their ships were ungraceful (for a reason). They violated bilateral symmetry. Their motives were so alien as to be impossible to even recognize as motives. They were implacable, nigh-omnipotent, and -- most important of all -- not like some subset of humanity with a bad nose. Indeed, they were a reasonable (sort of) extrapolation of Net technology, an honest answer to a what-if question, the best element of sci fi.
What made them stand out was their communal decemtralized mind... a true unified consciousness, something emergent from the individual entities contained in the Borg net. What did First Contact do? It fell for the cliche "hive mind", took a weak metaphor (social insects) and expanded it, somehow, into a concept even weaker. A Borg Queen? Please! The true Borg would have no truck with a queen, a king, a president, or anything that makes one part more significant/important than another.
Let's say it again, class: The true Borg are decentralized and distributed. A "Borg Queen" is the exact antithesis of what the Borg were.
Arrgh. It bothers me every time I think about it. Grrr.
There are times you could give an officer money and not mean it as a bribe, but the thin line is so difficult to see that it was decided to avoid the whole issue.
Yet there are no times when giving him the $20 is necessary to his fulfilling his task (or, for that matter, getting the job). In the system we have, money is needed to get your name out, to fund a staff, to do research (both polling and actual issues research), etc.
Just because a thing is difficult, is not sufficient reason to not do it. Making the judgment call would be tricky but judgment is a human faculty and shouldn't be avoided just to be avoided.
Here's a slashdot example: From what we've seen over the past year or two, I think Rep. Boucher (NC?) is a great guy. I really am considering sending him a donation for his next election, because I think we need to keep intelligent, independent, tech-savvy thinkers in the House. I don't expect him to vote one way; nor do I expect him to pass bills I point out. I just want to help ensure that someone I trust to make decisions gets that opportunity.
So perhaps a solution would be that all donations be logged (but secret) with the FEC, and that all donations be made in an anonymous manner. But I just made that up and don't expect it will really survive analysis.:)
Campaign contribution is the same as if you tried to hand a cop a twenty before breaking the law.
Look, I'm all for campaign finance reform and trying to reduce the influence-peddling going on. But this statement is simply over the top. It's perfectly valid to donate money to candidates whom you believe share your values, legislative agenda, or whatever. The line not to be crossed -- and it is a thin one -- is for the legislator to take instructions from the donor. Things like the DMCA bother me because, from all appearances, they're written straight by industry lawyers.
The problem is, in each of the cases mentioned, the industry also came up with why "this" method (whatever was currently under attack) was different from all the others and would surely spell doom... and each time they were wrong.
But leave that aside. Who the hell cares if it destroys an industry? It's not the role of the state to guarantee the validity of a business model.
why do people here seem to believe that criminals and terrorists are all-logical, all-careful, and all-powerful?
Why do people seem to believe that law enforcement is "all-logical, all-careful, and all-powerful"? Why do people assume that targeted ethnic searching won't lead to higher incidence of abuse of the innocent?
I don't assume that terrorists are all-logical. I just assume that they are logical: that a search pattern significant enough to stir recognition in the average traveler, and enough to be run on national news, might -- just maybe -- also be obvious enough to be spotted by the terrorists.
It does make sense to focus limited resources where they will do the most good.
It hasn't been shown that this is where it does the most good. The case for racial profiling hasn't ever been made, much less made well. On the other hand, in a world of limited resources, it certainly doesn't make sense to throw away resources you have. If it's true that
Police and intelligence work has gone on forever, and will continue to go on.
then does it makes sense to blindly alienate the community in which that intelligence work must take place? Is it reasonable to ask the average Arab-American to risk their lives for a country that makes them pariahs based -- not on their citizenship, their record, or their contributions -- but on their genetics? How many people will come forward to a law enforcement regime that states, blatantly, "We don't trust you, because of your skin"?
The call for racial profiling is just another quick-fix, "minimize my inconvenience" tactic that goes against the grain of American liberty in the name of pursuing a chimeric safety in this so-called war. It would at best engender a false sense of security and could conceivably unerdmine the safety of the citizens of the US... even the ones blessed enough to be the "good" racial groups.
I'm all for racial, gender, sexual preference equality, but has an expectant mother or an little old grandma or teenage girl EVER hijacked a plane or commited an act of terrorism?!
Don't be an idiot. As soon as the authorities adopt an exlcusive rule -- "We won't stop grandmothers" -- they open up a huge hole in their procedures, one which will get exploited. How many people ever crashed 767 into skyscrapers after hijacking them with paper cutters? The only way such procedures as searches can be effective is if they are either (a) universal or (b) truly random and very frequent. Any pattern employed can be used against the search. Why do you think Al Queada is trying to recruit "ordinary" Americans??
From where I sit, all this whining about "They even search gradmas, for Pete's sake" seems to come from people who are all for waging war but don't want to pay even the tiny price of extra time in the airports. "Let's you and them fight, but as soon as this 'war' involves sacrifice on my part, we need to reconsider." And generally it's not really the 76-year-old grandma that they want excluded from the search -- it's the safe-seeming white middle class.
Because a group of copyright holders has given its legal blessing to the project, rather than trying to sue it into oblivion? To my eye, that really is something new in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
But you see, in this country, we like to think of ourselves as living under the rule of law. In this case, the rule of law is expressed through the Terms of Service, a binding contract between the ISP and the customer. I haven't seen the TOS, but I expect it doesn't say "Violators will be liable to sudden seizure of equipment by the FBI". It probably says "You'll lose the service and we will attempt to recoup our losses".
Actually, the TOS (PDF) says very little. To their credit, they do mention that
Until today, I wouldn't have thought that meant the FBI might come knocking, but
What is going on in Manhattan? I have seen articles today relating to Hamdi (petitions filed in Virginia) and the Guantanamo Bay (petitions filed in DC). Both of these have involved administration claims that the courts have no power to conduct the very hearings being held. But I have seen nothing of a Manhattan proceeding, so I cannot speak to that. Give me a link and I'll give you my understanding.
Yes, an attorney has filed a petition. But the administration has claimed that the petition is invalid, because the President has the unrestrained right to make this determination. All that your article does is make clear that -- thank whatever Providence has blessed this nation so far -- the courts still understand the rule of law. But the position of the Justice Department makes quite clear that the administration -- the executive -- does not.
I find it amazing -- no, disingenuous -- that one can claim my interpetation is wrong, when the source offered as refutation begins by confirming it. It's the same misdirection play attempted by this administration.
That's not the issue. The American ideal has never, ever been "I'm from the government... trust me." Our entire system of law and politics is based upon checks and balances -- which includes external review. Everyone loves to drag in World War II here. Let's do that. Congress oversaw the war effort. Indeed, Harry Truman's claim to fame was his thorough, even-handed, and unstoppable investigation of war inefficiency. The Supreme Court remained in the loop too -- hence the Ex Parte Quirin that is so beloved of the administration's defenders. This President, however, holds no respect for the courts, for the Congress, or for anyone who might possibly restrain him.
If the government has such darn good evidence --and I don't a prior assume it doesn't -- then let it present it in court. Let it make its case the way that all administrations have had to make their case. Let's return to a nation organized around the rule of law.
If the price of "freedom" is secret police, warrantless searches, and indefinite detention based on the whim of a single individual without restraint, then what's the difference?
Oh, really? To put it mildly, that seems not to be in accord with the facts: Blockquoth the Boston Globe (2002 Jun 25):
I think it's quite clear the President and his henchmen feel that the system of American justice is, at best, a hindrance. Elevating a bit of Vient Nam logic, Bush, Aschcroft and cronies appear to feel that "In order to save democracy, it was necessary to destroy it".
Really? The typical person, half of a two-income household working, together, three or four jobs to meet the expense of housing, commuting, food... this parent has the time and energy to plot out and execute a full, enriching, and meaningful curriculum for every one of his/her children? I suppose he/she has access to the latest research on learning patterns, too, and the training to interpret them. It goes without saying, of course, that the typical American parent holds at least college degrees in English literature, art design, music, history (world and American), rhetoric, and math up to and including integral calculus -- to say nothing of biology, chemistry, and physics. It's a good thing that the typical American parent also has, in his/her home, fullly-equipped bio, chem, and physics labs. It's probably not worth mentioning foreign language and culture, since we all know that the typical American is well-versed in one or more non-English cultures.
The typical American parent might -- might! -- be qualified to educate his/her child through, maybe, the equivalent of third grade. Of course, along the way, any mistakes, misconceptions, blind spots, or outright errors in the parent's education are likely to be replicated in the child, since there is no professional community to help keep the parent on track. Meanwhile, the potential for the child to misinterpret "education" for "pleasing authority" is magnified, since now there is just the one authority to answer to. That makes it so easy to inculcate a respect for pluralism.
Is it impossible for home schooling to work? No. Is it logically impossible for it to achieve a result superior to in-school education? No. But is it likely that the typical parent could pull off such an at-home education? Not at all. Based entirely anecdotally (and thus, I concede, not worth the phosophorous it's printed on), in my experience, home-schooling has been an unmitigated disaster for the children I have encountered.
As the son of a public school teacher, I find this insulting. I know of many people who go through the public system and emerge upstanding, civic-minded citizens. I know of many teachers and administrators who feel it their duty and privelge to teach open-mindedness, self-reliance, and critical thinking. To equate the public school system with some sort of mindless political factory is a broad overgeneralization which is careless at best and hurtful if intentional.
Bigotry, provincialism, fanaticism, authoritarianism, selfishness... these are "values" more easily -- and more often -- taught at home than in the schools.
Indeed. Most of the time, the majority should and does set the tone. But the brilliance of the Founders was their recognition that there are some freedoms so important, so vital, that they must be protected for everyone, even the unpopular minority. And they weren't just humanitarians. They saw how protecting the minority in the most important cases would lead to increased stability and increased freedom for everyone -- minority and majority alike -- in the long run.
They were some fine thinkers, then. Pity we don't seem to have the same calibre now.
What makes this nation something worth given allegience to, is exactly the fact that every four years or so, you can change the rules. It isn't easy, but it is possible. And how wonderful that we live in a country where this debate can go on, even though 80% of the people feel one way.
(a) Because the typical parent lacks the time, energy, will, and training to successfully educate his/her child;
(b) Because your children will live in society and should learn to move in it;
(c) Because schools help us find common values and respect for values not held in common.
Disclaimer: I am a schoolteacher (high school Physics) and you're darn-tooting that I feel my profession and I contribute to the general good.
Bad methodology: if person A is an atheist who happens not to be one who mentions it right away, how would you know? So all you're really saying is, "Every atheist who has told me he's an atheist has told me he's an atheist". Your select effects are overwhelming your data.
... are desparately looking for some way to simultaneously (a) keep "under God"; (b) include atheists; and (c) make it look like you're not violatng the First Amendment.
Nonetheless, you are.
apologies to Douglas Adams
I disagree. The point was, if you could prove that precognition works, what impact would it have? Of course for precognition to work there'd have to be a particular metaphysical orientation in the Universe. But it is not a priori outside the realm of possibility that this could be a scientifically-verifiable, physically-reliable occurence.
Remember, the science ficton author doesn't have to believe his/her postulated physical laws are true, or even that they could be. The author need only explore what happens if they were true.
Willfully or not, you are misunderstanding the concern here. Your nominal citizen was challenging jurisdiction. But you know what? At least he got a trial! It wasn't enough for the President to say, "Oooh, he's a danger... better lock him up." In the current wave of illegality, the President and his agents have specifically and deliberately denied -- to acknowledged American citizens -- their right of habeus corpus, their right to know the charges against them, their right to face their accusers, their right to counsel, and their right to a speedy and impartial trial by their peers. What is the justification? That the President claims that they are enemy combatants. They cannot even get a judge to review that determination... if the President says it is so, it must be so.
I am not usually a paranoid anti-establishment type, but if you wrote up the list of law enforcement expansions of the last year and showed it to anyone -- but made sure not to say it was the US -- there would be only one question: Is this Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia?
Um, no. Burgess most certainly did commit a murder, so you can't make that argument. The real -- and unanswerable -- question is, how many false positives did the system report? We can assume it reported no false negatives -- ie., everything's fine, oops, a murder -- but we don't know about false positives. Of the people in Containment, how many of them were victims of "Bob will murder Charlie" but Bob really wouldn't.
Lost in the shuffle of the movie was the significance of the true minority report: That sometimes, Agatha saw a future that didn't include a murder seen by the other two. I think one of the best moments of the movie is when Anderton asks, desperately, "Where is my minority report? Do I even have one?" (meaning, absolve me of this future crime), to which the heartbroken Agatha cries, "No."
Remember, the pre-cogs didn't pick up the intent to commit murder. They picked up the fact of murder. If you really meant to kill your boss, but he was sick the day you intended and then you got hit by a bus, you wouldn't trigger the pre-cogs.
Oh, time travel is so hackneyed, especially in the Trekverse. But more importantly, First Contact ruined the Borg. Well, OK, "I, Hugh" began the degeneration, but First Contact was the final nail in the coffin.
The original Borg was/were the only truly alien aliens in Trek. Their ships were ungraceful (for a reason). They violated bilateral symmetry. Their motives were so alien as to be impossible to even recognize as motives. They were implacable, nigh-omnipotent, and -- most important of all -- not like some subset of humanity with a bad nose. Indeed, they were a reasonable (sort of) extrapolation of Net technology, an honest answer to a what-if question, the best element of sci fi.
What made them stand out was their communal decemtralized mind... a true unified consciousness, something emergent from the individual entities contained in the Borg net. What did First Contact do? It fell for the cliche "hive mind", took a weak metaphor (social insects) and expanded it, somehow, into a concept even weaker. A Borg Queen? Please! The true Borg would have no truck with a queen, a king, a president, or anything that makes one part more significant/important than another.
Let's say it again, class: The true Borg are decentralized and distributed. A "Borg Queen" is the exact antithesis of what the Borg were.
Arrgh. It bothers me every time I think about it. Grrr.
Yet there are no times when giving him the $20 is necessary to his fulfilling his task (or, for that matter, getting the job). In the system we have, money is needed to get your name out, to fund a staff, to do research (both polling and actual issues research), etc.
Just because a thing is difficult, is not sufficient reason to not do it. Making the judgment call would be tricky but judgment is a human faculty and shouldn't be avoided just to be avoided.
Here's a slashdot example: From what we've seen over the past year or two, I think Rep. Boucher (NC?) is a great guy. I really am considering sending him a donation for his next election, because I think we need to keep intelligent, independent, tech-savvy thinkers in the House. I don't expect him to vote one way; nor do I expect him to pass bills I point out. I just want to help ensure that someone I trust to make decisions gets that opportunity.
So perhaps a solution would be that all donations be logged (but secret) with the FEC, and that all donations be made in an anonymous manner. But I just made that up and don't expect it will really survive analysis.
Look, I'm all for campaign finance reform and trying to reduce the influence-peddling going on. But this statement is simply over the top. It's perfectly valid to donate money to candidates whom you believe share your values, legislative agenda, or whatever. The line not to be crossed -- and it is a thin one -- is for the legislator to take instructions from the donor. Things like the DMCA bother me because, from all appearances, they're written straight by industry lawyers.
But leave that aside. Who the hell cares if it destroys an industry? It's not the role of the state to guarantee the validity of a business model.
Who are you (and who is the RIAA) to decide what I "should" do with music I own on media I own?
Why do people seem to believe that law enforcement is "all-logical, all-careful, and all-powerful"? Why do people assume that targeted ethnic searching won't lead to higher incidence of abuse of the innocent?
I don't assume that terrorists are all-logical. I just assume that they are logical: that a search pattern significant enough to stir recognition in the average traveler, and enough to be run on national news, might -- just maybe -- also be obvious enough to be spotted by the terrorists.
It hasn't been shown that this is where it does the most good. The case for racial profiling hasn't ever been made, much less made well. On the other hand, in a world of limited resources, it certainly doesn't make sense to throw away resources you have. If it's true that
then does it makes sense to blindly alienate the community in which that intelligence work must take place? Is it reasonable to ask the average Arab-American to risk their lives for a country that makes them pariahs based -- not on their citizenship, their record, or their contributions -- but on their genetics? How many people will come forward to a law enforcement regime that states, blatantly, "We don't trust you, because of your skin"?
The call for racial profiling is just another quick-fix, "minimize my inconvenience" tactic that goes against the grain of American liberty in the name of pursuing a chimeric safety in this so-called war. It would at best engender a false sense of security and could conceivably unerdmine the safety of the citizens of the US... even the ones blessed enough to be the "good" racial groups.
Don't be an idiot. As soon as the authorities adopt an exlcusive rule -- "We won't stop grandmothers" -- they open up a huge hole in their procedures, one which will get exploited. How many people ever crashed 767 into skyscrapers after hijacking them with paper cutters? The only way such procedures as searches can be effective is if they are either (a) universal or (b) truly random and very frequent. Any pattern employed can be used against the search. Why do you think Al Queada is trying to recruit "ordinary" Americans??
From where I sit, all this whining about "They even search gradmas, for Pete's sake" seems to come from people who are all for waging war but don't want to pay even the tiny price of extra time in the airports. "Let's you and them fight, but as soon as this 'war' involves sacrifice on my part, we need to reconsider." And generally it's not really the 76-year-old grandma that they want excluded from the search -- it's the safe-seeming white middle class.
Because a group of copyright holders has given its legal blessing to the project, rather than trying to sue it into oblivion? To my eye, that really is something new in the world.