So kevlar is an offensive weapon because it helps protect our soldiers from being shot? A concrete bunker is an offensive weapon then, since it helps protect our soldiers while they fire their guns. The U-2, which never carried a weapon so far as I know, was an offensive weapon because it was used to gather intelligence to make it easier to win a war?
Your reasoning is suspect, because NO SYSTEM BUILT BY MAN CAN EVER BE 100% EFFECTIVE. Therefore, no government would ever rely on it 100% to protect the country from an attack, even a last minute, desperate one. Because 1 single city, erradicated by the failure of any such defensive weapon, would immediatly cause an end to the political party in power forever. And being in power is more important for any politician than anything else.
Speaking as a US citizen and a WORLD citizen, I tend to think that the less free the enemies of the US and her allies feel to attack and not be hurt by it, the better off the planet is in the long run.
If Iran has nukes, and can reach the US with them, expect terror to go on an immediate rise, because their 2 bit dictator can talk from a position of strength to the US and stop them from ever coming in and rooting out the terrorists. North Korea doesn't do the terror thing like the rest of the Axis of Evil, so I'm not nearly as concerned about them. And the US will have to stand idly by as the terrorists destroy democracy in the world.
Remember, the one thing that a theocracy is afraid of is democracy. Democracy encourages the right to sound off and be on the other side. Theocracy cannot allow another side, because only THEY know the truth.
I think the funny thing is that even when the system becomes operational or even perfect, people who really want to hurt the US can do so by bringing in a suitcase with a nuclear bomb or even attacking from inside the coutry with internal spies.
I will agree. This technology does nothing to prevent such an attack from occuring. In fact it makes it the preferrable way to commit an attack. However, this limits the attack to a smaller scale attack than an exchange of missles. To try to do a massive attack on the US this way would require a ton of planning, operatives, money, and time. All 4 of those items gives the US plenty of more opportunity to catch and distrupt any such plans. A small attack, while damaging and horrible, would not be enough to knock the US onto its back forever. It would end up just causing the end of the middle east forever.
But, there are still enemies out there, such as China, Korea, Iran, the French, etc. that are out there trying to build both missles capable of reaching the US (or it's allies), and carrying a nuclear warhead. Now, suppose that Korea goes nuts and has say 20 ICBMs. They target 20 cities, and launch. If the system knocks down just 20% of the missles, it saves 4 American cities, and millions of lives. If it does 40%, then it saves 8. 60%, 12. Hell, if it knocks out 1 missle, it's still worth a couple of hundreds of billions of dollars. Lets say the system costs $200,000,000,000. If it saves 5,000,000 people, is it worth it? And, if this scenario ever happens and there is no defense system, we'll hear people crying as the world crumbles around them, "How come they never built anything to shoot these damn things down?"
There are so many ways to circumvent the system, it's obvious the Missle Defense Program is just another way to fund the Miltary-Industrial Complex.
Whether it works right now or not, it is never foolish to put work into a defense. Otherwise, we never would have made kevlar, because only steel could stop bullets. Did the first AA guns work perfectly? Shoot down every plane? How 'bout that radar... Really, what a waste to put money into a pie in the sky dream like that! Submarines? Come on, the first ones built all sank. Decoys and chaff for AA missles? Come on, that would NEVER work! Something new always looks foolish. But eventually with enough R&D, hard work, and effort, some of these projects bear fruit. Does it mean that we just fund everything? No. It does mean though that we always look for new ways to do things. Otherwise it's back to MAD, with an enemy that really doesn't CARE if you incinerate their people.
Actually it didn't change the statistics at all. Since this was an FCC report about US statistics, Canadian ISPs wouldn't be reported. It's just that the reporter is obviously a self centered US citizen, since he uses the generic term "American" to mean ONLY the USA.:)
Course, I usually fall into that category too. When will you darn Canucks learn that you aren't American just because you occupy more of the continent than we do?:)
Because a lot of people refuse to get a second phone line, or use their cell phone as a primary when they're online. Therefore they aren't paying for an extra phone line. So if they can get cheap internet acess for $10-15/month, they will. Or if they're newbies, they'll pop in that AOL disk.
You miss understood. The problem is not the bigger and better hardware/bandwidth. The problem is that programmers and designers become more and more sloppy as things get bigger. One of the best word processors I ever used was Appleworks, which ran in 64K (128K if you wanted to do anything serious). And that 64K included the operating system!
Now we have to have some from MicroSoft (which is rather an ironic name now that their programs have become so damn bloated. Maybe we should rename them MacroSoft) that take minutes to load on anything less than a 100% state of the art machine, and can only be used if you have a shitload of memory and hard drive space.
Same for the bandwidth. Look what Microsoft tried to do with IRC! Let's send little cartoon representations of everyone on the chat line. After all, people have 28.8K modems now, we can waste a little bandwidth. *sigh* IRC did the job just fine, and still does it. We don't NEED to add crap to it like that.
What it means though in this case is that even we will always have the problem of running out of bandwidth. It won't matter if every house in the US has a fiber 100Gig connection to the Internet, as it is designers will figure out a way to overload it to the point that it's worthless.
Computer people can eat up excess capacity faster than it can be created. How many people here said when they got their first 20Meg HD "I'll NEVER fill up THAT much space!" I know I did.
All this really means is that in the near future web designers and multimedia providers will start to upgrade the amount of bandwidth needed, and the average person will still be screwed. We all saw it with the 2400 baud modem, the 14.4, the 28.8, and the 56K. We'll see it again with DSL and Cable. Until the day comes when web designers realize that too many geegaws ruin the experience, we'll continue to have this problem.
Wow sweetie... Do you ever READ Newsweek? Or anything mainstream? These people orgasm every time John Kerry walks into a room. No, not the room they're in, but just into any room in general. Their goal since 2000 has been to make sure Bush only has 1 term. Note the loving coverage given to "Bush waited 11 minutes," and the total silence on Kerry's admitted "We sat around for 40 minutes trying to figure out what the heck to do."
I'm also not set on calling the military "heroes" simply because their job danger comes from the fact that they are actively engaged to kill others, i.e. they're in the business of kill-or-get-killed and they know it; they're not out there trying to do something peaceful to better humanity, they're just violent mercenaries for whatever state they happen to have been born into.
Do you actually KNOW any military people? That assinine statement seems to show that you have had little or no contact with the men and women that make up our Armed Forces. Yes, you take the pay and you follow orders, but their job is to protect those who would try to find the peaceful solution. Without the Armed Forces to back up those "peaceful" solutions, we would quickly be at the mercy of every Tom, Dick, and Abdullah that decided it was time for people to die. Just like cops and firemen, these brave souls take responsibility for protecting YOU. Does this mean that all actions of the military are glowing examples of peace and love? God, I hope not.
Please understand that these people have done great good in the world, protecting us from many evils. From the Barbary Pirates to Hitler, and beyond, these people take on that duty so that those left behind can work on their peaceful betterment of humanity. Even the janitor who sweeps up the scientists garbage has a role to play in these tasks to make the world a better place. Maybe a small one, true, but a place non the less. Without the Armed Forces and police acting as the janitors, you would be too busy protecting yourself from your fellow man to get much work accomplished on that peaceful project to benefit humanity. So don't call them mercenaries and sneer at them. Remember that even Switzerland, the neutral, peace loving country that it supposedly is, has an army. Unfortunately due to human (or for that matter animal) nature, the only way to preserve the peace is to have the ability to fight back.
-Condi Rice is on camera saying "There is a definite connection between Iraq and 9/11." We now know that isn't true.
A partisan congressional committee decided there was no link between Osama and Saddam. This from a culture that created the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Both had a larger enemy in the US than they did with each other. I'll bet there really was a connection.
On the other hand, an impartial judge agreed with the claims of victims of terrorism that there WAS enough evidence to link Saddam and Osama, and allowed a suit against Iraq for reparrations for the deaths of their loved ones.
Just because a congressional committee (The only creature known to man to have over 4 legs, 4 eyes, and 2 mouths, and yet have no brain) decided for political reasons there was no connection, and a Big Fat Stupid White Guy claims there was no connection, this is not enough to say "We now know that isn't true."
I suppose Moore made up the statements on camera about Saddam not having weapons pre-911.
Perhaps for a more "fair and balanced" look, he could have maybe run all the clips of John Kerry, President AND Senator Clinton, and many of the rest of the Democratic party, along with clips of UN personel, including the Sec. Gen., all claiming WHOOPS! that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of Mass Destruction program and my tons of stockpiled chemical and biological weapons.
During the speeches Bush made leading up to the war, he SPECIFICALLY said that Iraq was not an "Imminent threat," since the only way we'll ever know of an imminent threat and be able to prove it is when a mushroom cloud hangs over NY City.
True, however the implication was that ANYONE could walk into the bank and walk out IMMEDIATELY with a free gun. Not exactly reality. It's a bending of truth for propoganda purposes. Cute, funny, but hardly the truth.
Michael Moore is a lying scum. There's probably more truth in the National Inquirers "I GAVE BIRTH TO AN ALIEN BABY" stories than most of the crap that Moore produces. It is disgusting that Moore and Company have just figured yet another way to get around the campaign finance reform laws that they pushed so hard for just 4 years ago.
So how exactly did I benefit in any way from the cops "solving a crime."
Don't blame the cops for the Judge or Jury's mistake. They did their job, found, arrested, and incarcerated the criminal. It was some else that decided to let the poor misunderstood person go.
Most of the shitsack law enforcement I've come across would rather spend their time harassing kids drinking than investigating a rape.
If this is true, and it may be, I feel sorry for your town. Perhaps it is time for the administration there to do some top down cleaning, kicking people off the force, and getting in some fresh blood that isn't jaded. Unfortunately, it's easy to get jaded in a job like law enforcement, because of the situations you end up in. And, even when you do your job, you usually get shit thrown at you anyway.
I'd imagine being a cop a lot like being tech support. You only get called when something has gone wrong. If you fix it, people think it's their due, and rarely bother to thank you. If you can't, it's all your fault because you're just an incompetant asshole. I've seen system's admins and tech support people with bigger chips on their shoulders than a lot of cops.:)
have not been given monopoly power on the use of force, and guns to apply that power
Depends on the state. In my state, I have a right to protect myself and a legal means to do so. Thank God for must issue carry permit laws. In other places, I do not have this right, such as Washington DC, Chicago, NY City, or for that matter the whole state of NY, California, or any of a bunch of large areas where I am expected to rely on the police to protect me. The only problem is, I'm there, the cops aren't. This means that to the disarmed population of these areas, they have 2 choices. They can break the law themselves by carrying a concealed handgun (or other weapon) in violation of the law, and hence become criminals as soon as they use it to defend themselves, or they can allow the criminals to have the monopoly power of force over them.
Personally, I agree with my father. "Better 12 men judging than 6 men carrying."
Don't misunderstand me. I don't think all cops are angels. I ran into a problem with a jackass from Suger Grove or Sugar Notch or something like that PA myself. He kept us waiting 45 minutes while the young lady with the stomach virus puked her guts out, then lied like a champion. He didn't bother to ask if she needed medical attention, and the only thing he asked her was when he demanded her license, which, as she was not driving, he really had no right to do. BTW: After he finally let us go, she ended up in the hospital for 24 hours due to severe dehydration.
I've also had cops let me off on tickets because of my "honest" face, I've had cops go out of their way to help me in the store I worked at, I've had cops give me a ride home when I was too drunk to drive, and never give me the slightest crap. It all depends on the cop.
I just really get pissed over a knee jerk reaction of "let's hang all the cops." Usually, the majority of cops are decent people. They don't like the bad apples any more than we do. I've even seen a cop slug his partner who was going too far. And press charges on him the next day. It's worth remembering that just because you ONCE had a bad run in with a cop doesn't mean you'll have another.
BTW: I read the Phoenix Guards so long ago, I really CAN'T remember...:) But aren't they about the best books out there?
It may be an analogy, but it is still a very BAD analogy. So, first they came for the criminals, and I wasn't one so I didn't speak up... Does that mean that they're going to come for me? No. The semi quote there was created because of the injustices of places like Germany and Russia, where they came for people not based off what they had done or were doing, but based off who they were. Using that quote to back up a guy who just basically managed to dig himself a big hole is not something I can really agree with.
Just because no one speaks up for someone doesn't mean anything... There may be a REASON that no one speaks up for him.
Some of the cops are worse than the local thugs. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a cop, EVER.
Some of the black people in the US are criminals and murderers. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a black man, EVER.
Some of the Jews in the US are embezzlers. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Jew, EVER.
Some of the Arabs are terrorists. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust an Arab, EVER.
Some of the Italians are in the mob. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust an Italian, EVER.
Some of the Russians are mobsters. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Russian, EVER.
Some of the gay men are pedophiles. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a gay man, EVER.
Some of the Unions take bribes and kickbacks. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a union, EVER.
Some of the minorities in the world get their jobs strictly through affirmative action. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a minority, EVER.
Some of the Liberals/Moderates/Conservatives in America are corrupt. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Liberal/Moderate/Conservative, EVER.
Some of the Environmentalists are extreme idiots that use junk science to justify their own whims, or are hypocrits who do exactly what they don't want anyone else doing. Not all of them, but as long as there a few like this, I won't trust an Environmentalist, EVER.
Is everyone out there starting to get the point? Or must I go on longer? Statements like these are prejudicial. Including the one about cops. Prejudicial: To judge someone or something without fact.
Is there a suspicion of a crime? Was the rally properly permitted, did they behave in a civilized way? No probable cause to be requiring names. I'd probably fight that one to the Supreme Court.
And, personally, I'm sorry, but if I felt that strongly on an issue, I believe like John Hancock. I don't give a rats ass WHO knows that I believe it. If I don't feel that strongly about it, then I probably wouldn't be there in the first place.
Please note: The Declaration of Independence was NOT posted under an Anonymous Coward account. And the people that signed it at the time had a hell of a lot more to lose, and no real recourse if they lost.
Um, exactly what do you think this fellow was talking about when gave form to the following thought?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
I guess it would depend on the definition of "essential liberty." I'm sure he would agree that giving up your guns is a Really Bad Idea. He'd probably also come down on the side of it being a bad idea to stop praying in public to obtain safety from your fellow citizens. I'm guessing he was probably rolling in the grave over Prohibition.
Do I think he would be up in arms about a requirement to honestly identify yourself to law enforcement? Doubt it. This was a man who proudly signed his name to a document that, had the war gone slightly differently, would have been key evidence in his trial as a traitor. I'll bet he would be more inclined to be up in arms over the goverment imposing a tax on it's citizens, a power that he and his fellow patriots specifically PROHIBITTED the Federal government from having, just so they could hand it out in "do gooder" charity. He'd probably be a up in arms about the requirement to have a concealed carry permit to protect oneself. I'll bet he'd be pissed that the workers at an office party couldn't put up a Christmas tree without getting sued. I know he'd be upset about people losing their houses because they had the audacity to fly an American flag. Conversely he'd also be pissed at making it illegal to burn the flag.
I'll bet he wouldn't have too many problems today with airline searches, background checks, etc. that the goverment does every day. And I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give a damn about "racial profiling."
So, I agree that the personal interests of the members of the government are a problem. But their personal interest are not high, but low taxes (for corporation and rich people) and other business-friendly policies, while public services (health care, welfare, education,...), for which taxes are needed, are not really important to them personally.
Back up this statement with facts. Roads and efficient travel are definitely a pervue of the government, because individuals cannot be allowed to just decide willy nilly where their own personal road will go to get them from Maine to California. Police are the pervue of the government because it discourages mob justice. Defense of the nation is a governmental function, in fact, probably the only TRUE and PURE govermental function because it is intended to equally protect the citizens of the state from a foreign or domestic aggressor.
Health care? Why is it the government's responsibility to help you live longer? Should they also start setting your diet for you and proscribing what you can and cannot eat, drink, or otherwise consume? Drugs harm your health, should the goverment be justified in removing them from the population and punishing those who deem to know better what their personal health can withstand?
Welfare? Why is it the governments responsibility to make sure you can survive and breed? Feed yourself, or if you can't, get your friends to do it for you. Don't rob my pocket to pay for your mistakes.
Education? Is it the responsibility of the government to make you smart? If so, why don't we just require that people must attend school until they are 30 or until they achieve a minimum of a masters degree, like we did with high school?
Oh, wait... I see... It's up to the state to provide you with the MEANS of doing all these things, and they should do it for FREE, because everyone is entitled to them. If government does not make it mandatory for everyone, then they should not be in the business of making it selectively available to others.
Heinlein had an interesting question in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" when Prof asks a simple question. I can't remember it exactly, but it went something like "When is it moral for the State to perform an action that is immoral for a citizen of the state to perform?" The proper answer is "NEVER." It is not moral for the State to steal money I have worked for to provide to others. It is not moral for the state to kill to protect the citizen, but make it illegal for the citizen to kill to protect himself.
The state should get out of the Nanny business and concentrate on what is really important in government. Protecting the rights of it's citizens to live and die on their own, without interfering.
I believe in social security, gov't healthcare, welfare, and all of that. But I in *NO* way believe that they gov't should be able to demand my papers in any situation. (I also strongly support the 2nd Ammendment)
There is a difference between helping someone through a rough time, and spying on them.
If you want to collect Social Security, you have to prove to me that you have a valid social security number, possibly by showing a case worker your card. If you want to collect welfare, you have to produce some sort of ID that proves who you are so that you don't get issued 60000 checks. If you want to get government health care you'd better have your Access or Medicare card on you, so that we can prove you're not doctor shopping for narcotics. If you're carrying a sidearm concealed, best you have your carry permit on you. Your "Papers" are more than just a drivers license, and they can all be required from you at various points in your life. Allowing the state to identify you is a small price to pay for helping the greater good. A simple identity check by a police officer is not some huge spy plot by the Federal government. It merely helps the cogs of the machine move a little quicker and easier.
The Amish do just fine. Also, many people I know in larger cities do not own cars, because they cannot afford to park them. Many areas of the country have effecient enough public transportation systems that it is not necessary to have a drivers license. And for other issues, such as airline tickets, rental agreements, job application, etc, you can get something called a "passport" that will work on all these items. And no police officer can force you to produce your passport in the United States unless a judge is taking it away so you can't flee the country.
I personally lived for 7 years without a drivers license in a town with frankly piss poor public transport. I utilized a lot of cabs, and a lot of walking, and a whole hell of a lot more waiting for buses. But I survived well enough for those years, and was eventually able to get my license back because I could once again afford a car. However, if I lost my car tomorrow, I would survive and function quite well without it. I wouldn't be quite so happy in my life, but I would not be unable to function in American society.
It's only the jews they are carting off i have no need to worry or need to help people deprived of their rights.
Frankly, that comment totally trivializes the entire Holocaust. This person was not stopped or arrested for being a Jew, or gay, or black, or female, or anything else like that. He was arrested because he refused to tell a police officer who he was while he was being detained as a suspect in a case of assault.
"Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins." The man was suspected of violence, acting in a violent and aggitated manner, was aggressive with the cops, and generally being an obnoxious asshole. He was NOT peacefully and lawfully going about his daily business as a citizen of the United States.
It amazes me that the people that scoff about "the slippery slope" that judicial arguments about that are for such things as gay marriage, gay adoption, stem cell research, euthenasia, gambling, bigamy, etc. pull out that "slippery slope" argument every time the government asks for powers to help defend the citizens of the US from people that prey on them. "Since they could arrest this guy for being an asshole, they could arrest everyone else who was cooperative and not a total jackass." Looks like a slippery slope argument to me.
Sorry if that last doesn't apply to you, but I'm getting sick of people always defending the criminal class at the expense of the honest hard working law abiding MAJORITY of the US citizen population.
Before this ruling, we were not required so much as identify ourselves to the police if they had no probably cause for arrest. Now, we are.
Bullshit... Errr... Pardon me... Let me rephrase that... It appears that you are incorrect in your assumption.
Quote from FindLaw decision on the case:
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), this Court held that a police officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, stop and briefly detain for investigation an individual reasonably suspected of criminal activity. See, e.g., Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000). During the detention, the officer may ask the detainee his name and question him concerning matters relevant to the basis for the stop. See, e.g., Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972); Terry, 392 U.S. at 28, 30. Requiring a person stopped under Terry to identify himself violates neither the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures nor the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.
It's been illegal since 1968. Failure to answer basic questions as to identity would give the office probable cause to arrest the suspect. This could take place if the only cause they had for stopping the individual was for example that the description of the suspect was "white man with baseball cap," and you happened to be white and wearing a ball cap in the neighborhood.
The man refuses to give his name and now he's actually committed a crime. If the officer suspects the answer of not being truthful, he can either arrest him or demand his papers. If the man wasn't carrying his papers and the officer didn't for some reason believe the answer, he'd be perfectly justified in arresting the man, even if the answer had been, in the end, truthful.
Just as an aside, the person would not be "arrested." The proper term is "detained." An arrest takes place when the individual is actually charged. He may be detained for a reasonable amount of time while his identity is ascertained. He would never actually be "arrested" unless it was decided that he had in actuality provided false information.
Furthermore, I don't know about your state, but in PA, it is already illegal to give a false name to law enforcement. Whether it's couched as "false reports," "interfering with an investigation," you have no legal right in PA, and I would assume most states, to boldly lie to a police officer who is in performance of his duty.
Slashdot Mirror
So kevlar is an offensive weapon because it helps protect our soldiers from being shot? A concrete bunker is an offensive weapon then, since it helps protect our soldiers while they fire their guns. The U-2, which never carried a weapon so far as I know, was an offensive weapon because it was used to gather intelligence to make it easier to win a war?
Your reasoning is suspect, because NO SYSTEM BUILT BY MAN CAN EVER BE 100% EFFECTIVE. Therefore, no government would ever rely on it 100% to protect the country from an attack, even a last minute, desperate one. Because 1 single city, erradicated by the failure of any such defensive weapon, would immediatly cause an end to the political party in power forever. And being in power is more important for any politician than anything else.
Speaking as a US citizen and a WORLD citizen, I tend to think that the less free the enemies of the US and her allies feel to attack and not be hurt by it, the better off the planet is in the long run.
If Iran has nukes, and can reach the US with them, expect terror to go on an immediate rise, because their 2 bit dictator can talk from a position of strength to the US and stop them from ever coming in and rooting out the terrorists. North Korea doesn't do the terror thing like the rest of the Axis of Evil, so I'm not nearly as concerned about them. And the US will have to stand idly by as the terrorists destroy democracy in the world.
Remember, the one thing that a theocracy is afraid of is democracy. Democracy encourages the right to sound off and be on the other side. Theocracy cannot allow another side, because only THEY know the truth.
I think the funny thing is that even when the system becomes operational or even perfect, people who really want to hurt the US can do so by bringing in a suitcase with a nuclear bomb or even attacking from inside the coutry with internal spies.
I will agree. This technology does nothing to prevent such an attack from occuring. In fact it makes it the preferrable way to commit an attack. However, this limits the attack to a smaller scale attack than an exchange of missles. To try to do a massive attack on the US this way would require a ton of planning, operatives, money, and time. All 4 of those items gives the US plenty of more opportunity to catch and distrupt any such plans. A small attack, while damaging and horrible, would not be enough to knock the US onto its back forever. It would end up just causing the end of the middle east forever.
But, there are still enemies out there, such as China, Korea, Iran, the French, etc. that are out there trying to build both missles capable of reaching the US (or it's allies), and carrying a nuclear warhead. Now, suppose that Korea goes nuts and has say 20 ICBMs. They target 20 cities, and launch. If the system knocks down just 20% of the missles, it saves 4 American cities, and millions of lives. If it does 40%, then it saves 8. 60%, 12. Hell, if it knocks out 1 missle, it's still worth a couple of hundreds of billions of dollars. Lets say the system costs $200,000,000,000. If it saves 5,000,000 people, is it worth it? And, if this scenario ever happens and there is no defense system, we'll hear people crying as the world crumbles around them, "How come they never built anything to shoot these damn things down?"
There are so many ways to circumvent the system, it's obvious the Missle Defense Program is just another way to fund the Miltary-Industrial Complex.
Whether it works right now or not, it is never foolish to put work into a defense. Otherwise, we never would have made kevlar, because only steel could stop bullets. Did the first AA guns work perfectly? Shoot down every plane? How 'bout that radar... Really, what a waste to put money into a pie in the sky dream like that! Submarines? Come on, the first ones built all sank. Decoys and chaff for AA missles? Come on, that would NEVER work! Something new always looks foolish. But eventually with enough R&D, hard work, and effort, some of these projects bear fruit. Does it mean that we just fund everything? No. It does mean though that we always look for new ways to do things. Otherwise it's back to MAD, with an enemy that really doesn't CARE if you incinerate their people.
Don't you listen to Greenpeace man? Bears are People Too!
Actually it didn't change the statistics at all. Since this was an FCC report about US statistics, Canadian ISPs wouldn't be reported. It's just that the reporter is obviously a self centered US citizen, since he uses the generic term "American" to mean ONLY the USA. :)
:)
Course, I usually fall into that category too. When will you darn Canucks learn that you aren't American just because you occupy more of the continent than we do?
Because a lot of people refuse to get a second phone line, or use their cell phone as a primary when they're online. Therefore they aren't paying for an extra phone line. So if they can get cheap internet acess for $10-15/month, they will. Or if they're newbies, they'll pop in that AOL disk.
You miss understood. The problem is not the bigger and better hardware/bandwidth. The problem is that programmers and designers become more and more sloppy as things get bigger. One of the best word processors I ever used was Appleworks, which ran in 64K (128K if you wanted to do anything serious). And that 64K included the operating system!
Now we have to have some from MicroSoft (which is rather an ironic name now that their programs have become so damn bloated. Maybe we should rename them MacroSoft) that take minutes to load on anything less than a 100% state of the art machine, and can only be used if you have a shitload of memory and hard drive space.
Same for the bandwidth. Look what Microsoft tried to do with IRC! Let's send little cartoon representations of everyone on the chat line. After all, people have 28.8K modems now, we can waste a little bandwidth. *sigh* IRC did the job just fine, and still does it. We don't NEED to add crap to it like that.
What it means though in this case is that even we will always have the problem of running out of bandwidth. It won't matter if every house in the US has a fiber 100Gig connection to the Internet, as it is designers will figure out a way to overload it to the point that it's worthless.
Computer people can eat up excess capacity faster than it can be created. How many people here said when they got their first 20Meg HD "I'll NEVER fill up THAT much space!" I know I did.
All this really means is that in the near future web designers and multimedia providers will start to upgrade the amount of bandwidth needed, and the average person will still be screwed. We all saw it with the 2400 baud modem, the 14.4, the 28.8, and the 56K. We'll see it again with DSL and Cable. Until the day comes when web designers realize that too many geegaws ruin the experience, we'll continue to have this problem.
Wow sweetie... Do you ever READ Newsweek? Or anything mainstream? These people orgasm every time John Kerry walks into a room. No, not the room they're in, but just into any room in general. Their goal since 2000 has been to make sure Bush only has 1 term. Note the loving coverage given to "Bush waited 11 minutes," and the total silence on Kerry's admitted "We sat around for 40 minutes trying to figure out what the heck to do."
I'm also not set on calling the military "heroes" simply because their job danger comes from the fact that they are actively engaged to kill others, i.e. they're in the business of kill-or-get-killed and they know it; they're not out there trying to do something peaceful to better humanity, they're just violent mercenaries for whatever state they happen to have been born into.
Do you actually KNOW any military people? That assinine statement seems to show that you have had little or no contact with the men and women that make up our Armed Forces. Yes, you take the pay and you follow orders, but their job is to protect those who would try to find the peaceful solution. Without the Armed Forces to back up those "peaceful" solutions, we would quickly be at the mercy of every Tom, Dick, and Abdullah that decided it was time for people to die. Just like cops and firemen, these brave souls take responsibility for protecting YOU. Does this mean that all actions of the military are glowing examples of peace and love? God, I hope not.
Please understand that these people have done great good in the world, protecting us from many evils. From the Barbary Pirates to Hitler, and beyond, these people take on that duty so that those left behind can work on their peaceful betterment of humanity. Even the janitor who sweeps up the scientists garbage has a role to play in these tasks to make the world a better place. Maybe a small one, true, but a place non the less. Without the Armed Forces and police acting as the janitors, you would be too busy protecting yourself from your fellow man to get much work accomplished on that peaceful project to benefit humanity. So don't call them mercenaries and sneer at them. Remember that even Switzerland, the neutral, peace loving country that it supposedly is, has an army. Unfortunately due to human (or for that matter animal) nature, the only way to preserve the peace is to have the ability to fight back.
-Condi Rice is on camera saying "There is a definite connection between Iraq and 9/11." We now know that isn't true.
A partisan congressional committee decided there was no link between Osama and Saddam. This from a culture that created the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Both had a larger enemy in the US than they did with each other. I'll bet there really was a connection.
On the other hand, an impartial judge agreed with the claims of victims of terrorism that there WAS enough evidence to link Saddam and Osama, and allowed a suit against Iraq for reparrations for the deaths of their loved ones.
Just because a congressional committee (The only creature known to man to have over 4 legs, 4 eyes, and 2 mouths, and yet have no brain) decided for political reasons there was no connection, and a Big Fat Stupid White Guy claims there was no connection, this is not enough to say "We now know that isn't true."
I suppose Moore made up the statements on camera about Saddam not having weapons pre-911.
Perhaps for a more "fair and balanced" look, he could have maybe run all the clips of John Kerry, President AND Senator Clinton, and many of the rest of the Democratic party, along with clips of UN personel, including the Sec. Gen., all claiming WHOOPS! that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of Mass Destruction program and my tons of stockpiled chemical and biological weapons.
During the speeches Bush made leading up to the war, he SPECIFICALLY said that Iraq was not an "Imminent threat," since the only way we'll ever know of an imminent threat and be able to prove it is when a mushroom cloud hangs over NY City.
True, however the implication was that ANYONE could walk into the bank and walk out IMMEDIATELY with a free gun. Not exactly reality. It's a bending of truth for propoganda purposes. Cute, funny, but hardly the truth.
Michael Moore is a lying scum. There's probably more truth in the National Inquirers "I GAVE BIRTH TO AN ALIEN BABY" stories than most of the crap that Moore produces. It is disgusting that Moore and Company have just figured yet another way to get around the campaign finance reform laws that they pushed so hard for just 4 years ago.
So how exactly did I benefit in any way from the cops "solving a crime."
:)
Don't blame the cops for the Judge or Jury's mistake. They did their job, found, arrested, and incarcerated the criminal. It was some else that decided to let the poor misunderstood person go.
Most of the shitsack law enforcement I've come across would rather spend their time harassing kids drinking than investigating a rape.
If this is true, and it may be, I feel sorry for your town. Perhaps it is time for the administration there to do some top down cleaning, kicking people off the force, and getting in some fresh blood that isn't jaded. Unfortunately, it's easy to get jaded in a job like law enforcement, because of the situations you end up in. And, even when you do your job, you usually get shit thrown at you anyway.
I'd imagine being a cop a lot like being tech support. You only get called when something has gone wrong. If you fix it, people think it's their due, and rarely bother to thank you. If you can't, it's all your fault because you're just an incompetant asshole. I've seen system's admins and tech support people with bigger chips on their shoulders than a lot of cops.
have not been given monopoly power on the use of force, and guns to apply that power
Depends on the state. In my state, I have a right to protect myself and a legal means to do so. Thank God for must issue carry permit laws. In other places, I do not have this right, such as Washington DC, Chicago, NY City, or for that matter the whole state of NY, California, or any of a bunch of large areas where I am expected to rely on the police to protect me. The only problem is, I'm there, the cops aren't. This means that to the disarmed population of these areas, they have 2 choices. They can break the law themselves by carrying a concealed handgun (or other weapon) in violation of the law, and hence become criminals as soon as they use it to defend themselves, or they can allow the criminals to have the monopoly power of force over them.
Personally, I agree with my father. "Better 12 men judging than 6 men carrying."
Don't misunderstand me. I don't think all cops are angels. I ran into a problem with a jackass from Suger Grove or Sugar Notch or something like that PA myself. He kept us waiting 45 minutes while the young lady with the stomach virus puked her guts out, then lied like a champion. He didn't bother to ask if she needed medical attention, and the only thing he asked her was when he demanded her license, which, as she was not driving, he really had no right to do. BTW: After he finally let us go, she ended up in the hospital for 24 hours due to severe dehydration.
:) But aren't they about the best books out there?
I've also had cops let me off on tickets because of my "honest" face, I've had cops go out of their way to help me in the store I worked at, I've had cops give me a ride home when I was too drunk to drive, and never give me the slightest crap. It all depends on the cop.
I just really get pissed over a knee jerk reaction of "let's hang all the cops." Usually, the majority of cops are decent people. They don't like the bad apples any more than we do. I've even seen a cop slug his partner who was going too far. And press charges on him the next day. It's worth remembering that just because you ONCE had a bad run in with a cop doesn't mean you'll have another.
BTW: I read the Phoenix Guards so long ago, I really CAN'T remember...
It may be an analogy, but it is still a very BAD analogy. So, first they came for the criminals, and I wasn't one so I didn't speak up... Does that mean that they're going to come for me? No. The semi quote there was created because of the injustices of places like Germany and Russia, where they came for people not based off what they had done or were doing, but based off who they were. Using that quote to back up a guy who just basically managed to dig himself a big hole is not something I can really agree with.
Just because no one speaks up for someone doesn't mean anything... There may be a REASON that no one speaks up for him.
Some of the cops are worse than the local thugs. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a cop, EVER.
Some of the black people in the US are criminals and murderers. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a black man, EVER.
Some of the Jews in the US are embezzlers. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Jew, EVER.
Some of the Arabs are terrorists. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust an Arab, EVER.
Some of the Italians are in the mob. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust an Italian, EVER.
Some of the Russians are mobsters. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Russian, EVER.
Some of the gay men are pedophiles. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a gay man, EVER.
Some of the Unions take bribes and kickbacks. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a union, EVER.
Some of the minorities in the world get their jobs strictly through affirmative action. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a minority, EVER.
Some of the Liberals/Moderates/Conservatives in America are corrupt. Not all of them, but as long as there are a few like this, I won't trust a Liberal/Moderate/Conservative, EVER.
Some of the Environmentalists are extreme idiots that use junk science to justify their own whims, or are hypocrits who do exactly what they don't want anyone else doing. Not all of them, but as long as there a few like this, I won't trust an Environmentalist, EVER.
Is everyone out there starting to get the point? Or must I go on longer? Statements like these are prejudicial. Including the one about cops. Prejudicial: To judge someone or something without fact.
Is there a suspicion of a crime? Was the rally properly permitted, did they behave in a civilized way? No probable cause to be requiring names. I'd probably fight that one to the Supreme Court.
And, personally, I'm sorry, but if I felt that strongly on an issue, I believe like John Hancock. I don't give a rats ass WHO knows that I believe it. If I don't feel that strongly about it, then I probably wouldn't be there in the first place.
Please note: The Declaration of Independence was NOT posted under an Anonymous Coward account. And the people that signed it at the time had a hell of a lot more to lose, and no real recourse if they lost.
I guess it would depend on the definition of "essential liberty." I'm sure he would agree that giving up your guns is a Really Bad Idea. He'd probably also come down on the side of it being a bad idea to stop praying in public to obtain safety from your fellow citizens. I'm guessing he was probably rolling in the grave over Prohibition.
Do I think he would be up in arms about a requirement to honestly identify yourself to law enforcement? Doubt it. This was a man who proudly signed his name to a document that, had the war gone slightly differently, would have been key evidence in his trial as a traitor. I'll bet he would be more inclined to be up in arms over the goverment imposing a tax on it's citizens, a power that he and his fellow patriots specifically PROHIBITTED the Federal government from having, just so they could hand it out in "do gooder" charity. He'd probably be a up in arms about the requirement to have a concealed carry permit to protect oneself. I'll bet he'd be pissed that the workers at an office party couldn't put up a Christmas tree without getting sued. I know he'd be upset about people losing their houses because they had the audacity to fly an American flag. Conversely he'd also be pissed at making it illegal to burn the flag.
I'll bet he wouldn't have too many problems today with airline searches, background checks, etc. that the goverment does every day. And I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give a damn about "racial profiling."
Sorry, it's late, I ramble.
So, I agree that the personal interests of the members of the government are a problem. But their personal interest are not high, but low taxes (for corporation and rich people) and other business-friendly policies, while public services (health care, welfare, education, ...), for which taxes are needed, are not really important to them personally.
Back up this statement with facts. Roads and efficient travel are definitely a pervue of the government, because individuals cannot be allowed to just decide willy nilly where their own personal road will go to get them from Maine to California. Police are the pervue of the government because it discourages mob justice. Defense of the nation is a governmental function, in fact, probably the only TRUE and PURE govermental function because it is intended to equally protect the citizens of the state from a foreign or domestic aggressor.
Health care? Why is it the government's responsibility to help you live longer? Should they also start setting your diet for you and proscribing what you can and cannot eat, drink, or otherwise consume? Drugs harm your health, should the goverment be justified in removing them from the population and punishing those who deem to know better what their personal health can withstand?
Welfare? Why is it the governments responsibility to make sure you can survive and breed? Feed yourself, or if you can't, get your friends to do it for you. Don't rob my pocket to pay for your mistakes.
Education? Is it the responsibility of the government to make you smart? If so, why don't we just require that people must attend school until they are 30 or until they achieve a minimum of a masters degree, like we did with high school?
Oh, wait... I see... It's up to the state to provide you with the MEANS of doing all these things, and they should do it for FREE, because everyone is entitled to them. If government does not make it mandatory for everyone, then they should not be in the business of making it selectively available to others.
Heinlein had an interesting question in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" when Prof asks a simple question. I can't remember it exactly, but it went something like "When is it moral for the State to perform an action that is immoral for a citizen of the state to perform?" The proper answer is "NEVER." It is not moral for the State to steal money I have worked for to provide to others. It is not moral for the state to kill to protect the citizen, but make it illegal for the citizen to kill to protect himself.
The state should get out of the Nanny business and concentrate on what is really important in government. Protecting the rights of it's citizens to live and die on their own, without interfering.
I believe in social security, gov't healthcare, welfare, and all of that.
But I in *NO* way believe that they gov't should be able to demand my papers in any situation. (I also strongly support the 2nd Ammendment)
There is a difference between helping someone through a rough time, and spying on them.
If you want to collect Social Security, you have to prove to me that you have a valid social security number, possibly by showing a case worker your card. If you want to collect welfare, you have to produce some sort of ID that proves who you are so that you don't get issued 60000 checks. If you want to get government health care you'd better have your Access or Medicare card on you, so that we can prove you're not doctor shopping for narcotics. If you're carrying a sidearm concealed, best you have your carry permit on you. Your "Papers" are more than just a drivers license, and they can all be required from you at various points in your life. Allowing the state to identify you is a small price to pay for helping the greater good. A simple identity check by a police officer is not some huge spy plot by the Federal government. It merely helps the cogs of the machine move a little quicker and easier.
The Amish do just fine. Also, many people I know in larger cities do not own cars, because they cannot afford to park them. Many areas of the country have effecient enough public transportation systems that it is not necessary to have a drivers license. And for other issues, such as airline tickets, rental agreements, job application, etc, you can get something called a "passport" that will work on all these items. And no police officer can force you to produce your passport in the United States unless a judge is taking it away so you can't flee the country.
I personally lived for 7 years without a drivers license in a town with frankly piss poor public transport. I utilized a lot of cabs, and a lot of walking, and a whole hell of a lot more waiting for buses. But I survived well enough for those years, and was eventually able to get my license back because I could once again afford a car. However, if I lost my car tomorrow, I would survive and function quite well without it. I wouldn't be quite so happy in my life, but I would not be unable to function in American society.
It's only the jews they are carting off i have no need to worry or need to help people deprived of their rights.
Frankly, that comment totally trivializes the entire Holocaust. This person was not stopped or arrested for being a Jew, or gay, or black, or female, or anything else like that. He was arrested because he refused to tell a police officer who he was while he was being detained as a suspect in a case of assault.
"Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins." The man was suspected of violence, acting in a violent and aggitated manner, was aggressive with the cops, and generally being an obnoxious asshole. He was NOT peacefully and lawfully going about his daily business as a citizen of the United States.
It amazes me that the people that scoff about "the slippery slope" that judicial arguments about that are for such things as gay marriage, gay adoption, stem cell research, euthenasia, gambling, bigamy, etc. pull out that "slippery slope" argument every time the government asks for powers to help defend the citizens of the US from people that prey on them. "Since they could arrest this guy for being an asshole, they could arrest everyone else who was cooperative and not a total jackass." Looks like a slippery slope argument to me.
Sorry if that last doesn't apply to you, but I'm getting sick of people always defending the criminal class at the expense of the honest hard working law abiding MAJORITY of the US citizen population.
Before this ruling, we were not required so much as identify ourselves to the police if they had no probably cause for arrest. Now, we are.
Bullshit... Errr... Pardon me... Let me rephrase that... It appears that you are incorrect in your assumption.
Quote from FindLaw decision on the case:
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), this Court held that a police officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, stop and briefly detain for investigation an individual reasonably suspected of criminal activity. See, e.g., Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000). During the detention, the officer may ask the detainee his name and question him concerning matters relevant to the basis for the stop. See, e.g., Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972); Terry, 392 U.S. at 28, 30. Requiring a person stopped under Terry to identify himself violates neither the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures nor the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.
It's been illegal since 1968. Failure to answer basic questions as to identity would give the office probable cause to arrest the suspect. This could take place if the only cause they had for stopping the individual was for example that the description of the suspect was "white man with baseball cap," and you happened to be white and wearing a ball cap in the neighborhood.
The man refuses to give his name and now he's actually committed a crime. If the officer suspects the answer of not being truthful, he can either arrest him or demand his papers. If the man wasn't carrying his papers and the officer didn't for some reason believe the answer, he'd be perfectly justified in arresting the man, even if the answer had been, in the end, truthful.
Just as an aside, the person would not be "arrested." The proper term is "detained." An arrest takes place when the individual is actually charged. He may be detained for a reasonable amount of time while his identity is ascertained. He would never actually be "arrested" unless it was decided that he had in actuality provided false information.
Furthermore, I don't know about your state, but in PA, it is already illegal to give a false name to law enforcement. Whether it's couched as "false reports," "interfering with an investigation," you have no legal right in PA, and I would assume most states, to boldly lie to a police officer who is in performance of his duty.