According to rumor, Andover doesn't have any backdoors. They needed to sell them for their metal content, to stay solvent enough to keep/. up and, well, not really running, but limping along enthusiastically.
Well, I had an idea of who it could be, but then I thought, "Nah, John Katz probably wouldn't have the balls to do something this, much less the skill."
I have nothing against luggage checking. There are definite safety concerns on a airplane, that don't really exist anywhere else in our lives. What I object to is the removal of my freedoms. Disarming passengers on a flight only serves to make them more vulnerable. Disarming the people only serves the same purpose. Go look at Nazi Germany for an example of this. Warrantless net/wiretaps are a step towards removing all restraints on government violation of "...persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
I would consider email to be a "paper", as much as postal mail is. Email interception by "anyone" is not the issue here. Email interception by the government, based solely on the whim of whomever is doing the interception is.
Postal mail, in its generic form, can be intercepted and read with a minimum of effort, just like plain text email. Just walk down your street after the mailman passes, and take a letter opener with you. Viola! You have the tool to read postal mail. Easy? Yes. Illegal? You bet. What if a government agency decided that a terrorist had sent a letter at some point. Does that justify their setting up shop in whatever post office they feel like, and opening all mail that goes through it, without a court order? Or walking down your street behind the mailman, and opening all the mail he delivers?
Or perhaps, in a more apt scenario, they decide that a terrorist has used a telephone. Does this give the government license to install a wiretap on every single line at any phone company they want, when they want? Wiretaps are fairly easy, you really only need a field phone and access to the wires at the network interface.
Can you back this up with hard facts? Is the lowered crime rates in States such as Florida since the passage of concealed carry laws an indication that "increasing the percentage of people with guns increases the percentage of people dying at the hands of them"?
If they blame the problem on inadequate budgets, that doesn't really give them an example to point to to say, "We need easy access to $FOO, and $BAR, and, well, to whatever else we'd like, whenever we'd like."
OTOH, once.NET gets going we'll have the best of breed virus platform
that supports any MS programming language (and more!) of your choice:)
Yes, but will.NET be able to get Evolution on my RedHat 6.2 PC to run Outlook viruses properly? That is, immediately and with little to no intervention on my part?
Why is it that every opponent to self-reliance, self-preservation and the freedoms outlined and enforced by the Constitution and its Amendments seems to believe that the term "armed citizens" means a gang of trigger-happy imbecils just waiting to spray a hail of lead at whomever? Being armed does not solely require a gun, carrying penetrative rounds. There is the matter of the fact that you are sitting in a fairly flimsy aluminum tube, tens of thousands of feet up. The common use of weaponry that will compromise hull integrity to the point of failure is not a good idea. Frangible ammo, rubber ammo, bean-bag ammo are all available, and can disable a person with a greatly reduced risk of penetrating the hull.
The passengers of Flight 93 made an heroic sacrifice last week. They attempted to regain control of, or at least ground away from the target, their plane. They went up against hijackers who were minimally armed, but were likely well-trained in fighting, unarmed and with nothing but determination. Would Flight 93 have crashed had they been armed, and of a mindset to not "wait for the cops" when the attack on the crew occured?
Hmmm. Interesting interpretation. From what I've seen, it has been more like: Congress: We need more power. Trade us some of your freedom for a facade of security. Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety. Congress: The FBI needs to be able to read any and all digitised correspondance whenever they take it into their heads to do so. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. FAA: The passengers of Flight 53 are heroes for fighting the attackers. We obviously need more security. Make yourself as helpless as possible while flying. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Thomas Jefferson: The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert
that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by
themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
The "security" measures currently under proposal have only one effect: Reduction of the freedoms of the people of America.
Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties?
Bother, yes. Suprise me? No. There are certain members of Congress who will exploit any tragedy, sacrifice any human life and trample the rights of any citizen to pursue their own political agendas.
I personally wouldn't call it "using" the terrorist attacks, but rather "Dancing on the graves" of all those who died last week.
So true. Feinstein and Schumer are Democrats, and at the forefront of most of the "Fuck Freedom" bills. Hatch is a Republican, as you state. Judd Gregg is also a Republican, and the one calling for Prohibition of cryptographic technologies, which dovetails nicely with gutting the 4th Amendment.
There are enemies of America in both the House and the Senate, representing both of the big political parties. There are good people who take their duty to the people of America seriously in both parties as well. There are also people that get scared, panicked and make uniformed decisions because they are bombarded with forceful, "reasoned" arguments and are pressured to act quickly.
Write to your Representatives and Senators, referring to the points in the main article for effective ways to communicate with them.
Few, if any, of the airport restrictions put in place in the last week would have had any effect on this attack.
They are just as effective against terrorism as the ones in place BEFORE September 11, 2001. The thing to remember is that the restrictions are not designed to prevent terrorists, criminals or the people willing to put a little effort into circumventing them. The law-abiding citizen is their target. Ask yourself what would have happened if most or all the passengers on the hijacked planes had been armed, and willing to fight rather than to wait and hope. Would the WTC have been hit? Would the Pentagon have been hit?
"An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject." -- Robert Heinlein
You don't need Outlook to use Exchange Server for email. You can retreive mail using POP and/or IMAP clients, you don't need an MAPI client. There's no dearth of MUAs that can talk POP or IMAP in the *NIX world.
What in the hell is the postercomment compression filter, and why in the hell does it try to prevent the posting of a hyperlink to a single page version of a three page article? WHAT is Taco smoking?
Sigh. As soon as the shock wore off, I began to think: How long before Feinstein, Hatch and the other power-lusters in Congress would start dancing on the graves of Tuesday's victims in order to further their own poliical agendas?
Now I have an answer. Less than 72 hours.
Write your Representative and your Senator. Compose a well-reasoned letter and urge them to NOT trample on the freedoms of the People of America. This bill is simply a facade of terrorism detection plastered over a first step in the abolishment of the 4th Amendment. It will affect only the law-abiding citizens of this country instead of the ones it is being promoted to target. Funny how Hatch and Feinstein have a history of that, isn't it?
I live in Indianapolis, and I will spend a goodly amount of time this weekend composing a letter to Senator Richard Lugar. The Representative for my District is Julia Carson. I will also write to her as well, but she has spoken out against the Bill of Rights during her campaigning, so I am afraid I will be speaking to an enemy of the American people.
ANY law that is a blow against the freedoms of the people is a success for those who would destroy freedom, including terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
Or Athlon Roasting Hotdogs.
But I thought the marketing dept. of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation was going to be the first up against the wall...
After the spin-doctors, it should go after the lobbyists.
According to rumor, Andover doesn't have any backdoors. They needed to sell them for their metal content, to stay solvent enough to keep /. up and, well, not really running, but limping along enthusiastically.
Well, I had an idea of who it could be, but then I thought, "Nah, John Katz probably wouldn't have the balls to do something this, much less the skill."
I have nothing against luggage checking. There are definite safety concerns on a airplane, that don't really exist anywhere else in our lives. What I object to is the removal of my freedoms. Disarming passengers on a flight only serves to make them more vulnerable. Disarming the people only serves the same purpose. Go look at Nazi Germany for an example of this. Warrantless net/wiretaps are a step towards removing all restraints on government violation of "...persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
I would consider email to be a "paper", as much as postal mail is. Email interception by "anyone" is not the issue here. Email interception by the government, based solely on the whim of whomever is doing the interception is.
Postal mail, in its generic form, can be intercepted and read with a minimum of effort, just like plain text email. Just walk down your street after the mailman passes, and take a letter opener with you. Viola! You have the tool to read postal mail. Easy? Yes. Illegal? You bet. What if a government agency decided that a terrorist had sent a letter at some point. Does that justify their setting up shop in whatever post office they feel like, and opening all mail that goes through it, without a court order? Or walking down your street behind the mailman, and opening all the mail he delivers?
Or perhaps, in a more apt scenario, they decide that a terrorist has used a telephone. Does this give the government license to install a wiretap on every single line at any phone company they want, when they want? Wiretaps are fairly easy, you really only need a field phone and access to the wires at the network interface.
Can you back this up with hard facts? Is the lowered crime rates in States such as Florida since the passage of concealed carry laws an indication that "increasing the percentage of people with guns increases the percentage of people dying at the hands of them"?
If they blame the problem on inadequate budgets, that doesn't really give them an example to point to to say, "We need easy access to $FOO, and $BAR, and, well, to whatever else we'd like, whenever we'd like."
Snoopy Math would be a good one for 3D, too. Each wrong answer you gave, the Red Baron got another hit.
OTOH, once .NET gets going we'll have the best of breed virus platform
that supports any MS programming language (and more!) of your choice :)
.NET be able to get Evolution on my RedHat 6.2 PC to run Outlook viruses properly? That is, immediately and with little to no intervention on my part?
Yes, but will
How about "That Silly Person With Funky Hair, the Wild Guitar and the High Voice", since he can't seem to figure out what his own name is?
I do. I have never seen potatoes made from metals at Marsh, Kroger or Meijer.
Just another example of the varied ways that the Artist Formerly Known As Prince has become a fundmental force in our world.
Or it could be the final ingredient of a recombinant poison being spread by the Joker.
(Sorry. Watched Batman (Keaton & Nicholson) last night.)
Why is it that every opponent to self-reliance, self-preservation and the freedoms outlined and enforced by the Constitution and its Amendments seems to believe that the term "armed citizens" means a gang of trigger-happy imbecils just waiting to spray a hail of lead at whomever? Being armed does not solely require a gun, carrying penetrative rounds. There is the matter of the fact that you are sitting in a fairly flimsy aluminum tube, tens of thousands of feet up. The common use of weaponry that will compromise hull integrity to the point of failure is not a good idea. Frangible ammo, rubber ammo, bean-bag ammo are all available, and can disable a person with a greatly reduced risk of penetrating the hull.
The passengers of Flight 93 made an heroic sacrifice last week. They attempted to regain control of, or at least ground away from the target, their plane. They went up against hijackers who were minimally armed, but were likely well-trained in fighting, unarmed and with nothing but determination. Would Flight 93 have crashed had they been armed, and of a mindset to not "wait for the cops" when the attack on the crew occured?
Hmmm. Interesting interpretation. From what I've seen, it has been more like:
Congress: We need more power. Trade us some of your freedom for a facade of security.
Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Congress: The FBI needs to be able to read any and all digitised correspondance whenever they take it into their heads to do so.
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
FAA: The passengers of Flight 53 are heroes for fighting the attackers. We obviously need more security. Make yourself as helpless as possible while flying.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson: The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
The "security" measures currently under proposal have only one effect: Reduction of the freedoms of the people of America.
Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties?
Bother, yes. Suprise me? No. There are certain members of Congress who will exploit any tragedy, sacrifice any human life and trample the rights of any citizen to pursue their own political agendas.
I personally wouldn't call it "using" the terrorist attacks, but rather "Dancing on the graves" of all those who died last week.
So true. Feinstein and Schumer are Democrats, and at the forefront of most of the "Fuck Freedom" bills. Hatch is a Republican, as you state. Judd Gregg is also a Republican, and the one calling for Prohibition of cryptographic technologies, which dovetails nicely with gutting the 4th Amendment.
There are enemies of America in both the House and the Senate, representing both of the big political parties. There are good people who take their duty to the people of America seriously in both parties as well. There are also people that get scared, panicked and make uniformed decisions because they are bombarded with forceful, "reasoned" arguments and are pressured to act quickly.
Write to your Representatives and Senators, referring to the points in the main article for effective ways to communicate with them.
Few, if any, of the airport restrictions put in place in the last week would have had any effect on this attack.
They are just as effective against terrorism as the ones in place BEFORE September 11, 2001. The thing to remember is that the restrictions are not designed to prevent terrorists, criminals or the people willing to put a little effort into circumventing them. The law-abiding citizen is their target. Ask yourself what would have happened if most or all the passengers on the hijacked planes had been armed, and willing to fight rather than to wait and hope. Would the WTC have been hit? Would the Pentagon have been hit?
"An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject." -- Robert Heinlein
F.A.A - Facilitating Airborne Atrocities
You don't need Outlook to use Exchange Server for email. You can retreive mail using POP and/or IMAP clients, you don't need an MAPI client. There's no dearth of MUAs that can talk POP or IMAP in the *NIX world.
Click this link to view it as a single page?
What in the hell is the postercomment compression filter, and why in the hell does it try to prevent the posting of a hyperlink to a single page version of a three page article? WHAT is Taco smoking?
Are there any other vehicles they should show?
Dolph, Jimbo and Kearney should be driving their stolen mini-bikes.
Since Bart is driving a soapbox racer, Nelson should be in "Roadkill", his racer.
Flanders has both a wood-panelled station-wagon and a GEO.
The Capitol City Goofball should be in the "Baseball Cart."
Sigh. As soon as the shock wore off, I began to think: How long before Feinstein, Hatch and the other power-lusters in Congress would start dancing on the graves of Tuesday's victims in order to further their own poliical agendas?
Now I have an answer. Less than 72 hours.
Write your Representative and your Senator. Compose a well-reasoned letter and urge them to NOT trample on the freedoms of the People of America. This bill is simply a facade of terrorism detection plastered over a first step in the abolishment of the 4th Amendment. It will affect only the law-abiding citizens of this country instead of the ones it is being promoted to target. Funny how Hatch and Feinstein have a history of that, isn't it?
I live in Indianapolis, and I will spend a goodly amount of time this weekend composing a letter to Senator Richard Lugar. The Representative for my District is Julia Carson. I will also write to her as well, but she has spoken out against the Bill of Rights during her campaigning, so I am afraid I will be speaking to an enemy of the American people.
ANY law that is a blow against the freedoms of the people is a success for those who would destroy freedom, including terrorists.
Sometimes I just don't understand Government thinking.
It's just like Bureaucratic Efficiency, Military Intelligence, Microsoft Quality or Slashdot Spellchecking.
That clear anything up?
Eat breakfast at White Castle, if there is one close by. Burgers, cheeseburgers and onion chips. This will supplement the beans nicely.