While it is true that the Dreamcast power plant was slightly less powerful than the PS2, the memory architecture of the PS2 put heavy limits as to what the system could actually do. The Dreamcast on the other hand had a much better designed memory sub-system and did not cause the bottle necks that designers complained about with the Sony offering.
Overall, the Dreamcast was capable of putting out higher quality graphics to the screen under more situations than the PS2.
By design, and only God and the bean counters know why, Sony essentially put out a system with a relatively good heart but then proceeded to tie one of it's hands behind it's back.
That's the main advantage of any true sports car over a bike; four wheels means you are more stable in the corners and don't have to decelerate as much. However, in general bikes have the better acceleration times, and maybe not for 0-60 but after 60, where a cars acceleration curve tends to drop off a bit, a super bike is still going pretty steady.
In the case above, comparing the R1 to an Atom, the Atom, in most tests I've seen, has a slight advantage over the R1 in 0-60 but loses by at least 3/4s of a second if you extend it to 0-100. I'd say for most car/bike match-ups it would greatly depend on the actual course layout. Long straightaways would favour the bikes but most types of turns would favour the cars.
Of course if you allowed true racers, I don't think there's a bike out there that could beat an F1 and any recognized race track.
Schon, I don't think Mr. Pirsig ever drove an Atom.
Just look at the pics or some of the many online videos. There is little more compartment to it than your average bike. It's essentially a tubular frame with 4 wheels and a Civic Type R engine (pumping out anywhere from 220 to as high as 300 hp stock, or as high as 420 tuned) weighing in at just a little more than a Ninja ZX 10R Supersport. Just enough parts to be street legal and not much more. It doesn't even have a windshield to look through (which leads to some good face peeling scenes as Jeremy puts it through it's paces on the Top Gear tack.). It's pretty much as close to a bike as you can get in a 'production' car.
As an added bonus the supercharger intake sits right between the driver and passenger seat headrests and if you don't wear a helmet while driving it (a hey, why bother) you can feel the difference in air pressure from the right to left side of your head.
That being said, no car can ever truly replace the feel of a bike but as things go, the Atom is probably pretty damn close.
------- Some good pics of the Atom at their American distributors, Brammo site. Just to tie back to the original thread, you'll notice that they didn't even bother changing the paint job on the X1.
Never heard that before but it's definately the truth. Fits perfectly with what I was telling a friend of mine who is looking for a car in the next week or so.
She's looking for a small car and was comparing two with about the same 140-150hp but vastly different torque levels. She hates to get stuck behind slow drivers so I warned her about the low torque. Sure enough, though she liked the look of the car better she hates it's 'get up and go'.
I'm still trying to get her to wait for the Saturn Skye Redline, but I fear it's a lost cause.
Not to burst your bubble, but if this achieves anywhere close to the performance of the Atom which it is based on it will probably blow your bike away on any track tests.
With several suspension and handling advantages over a bike, when they tested it on Top Gear in just 1 lap it had a considerable lead on the sportbike with a professional racer driving the bike. And that was the old version Atom, the new one is a lot quicker.
Though I'd probably still steer clear of the electric car as the Atom itself is a lot cheaper (estimated about $35k US new) and faster 0-60 times (about 2.5 sec). Also gets about 250-350 miles/tank (depending on engine specs).
Though when you're talking cheap thrills, the bike is definately the way to go.
I think I've already said that I'm pretty sure that Haliburton abuses it's near monopoly in the industry for their own benefit, and I'm not debating that. All I'm saying is that the fact they happen to get all these contracts has more to do with the fact they are the only group in town than the fact they are connected to the VP, as displayed by the same 'favoritism' they received under the Clinton admin.
Sign. Another extreme left poster trying to use a guilt by association strawman to make an argument (you can always tell the extreme left posters because they like to disguise their identities through the use of AC postings while attacking the bravery of those they disagree with).
For the record I watch Fox News for a couple shows, 'Hannity and Colmes' and 'The O'Reilly Factor' chief amongst them, but I get most of my daily news from 'The Today Show' (that bastion of right-wing propaganda), the local newspapers and various websites, both various blogs and news sites (mostly CTV.CA and CBC.CA). That specific enough for ya or do you want me to send you a copy of my PVR's hard drive so you can scan it to be sure. If anything big comes up I usually go to CNN first, and then if I think about it Fox, and then channel swap back and forth.
And my view of which was funnier was which one made me laugh. Here's a hint, it wasn't Colbert, and by the look of responses in the room, I wasn't alone.
Even most of the people standing up for his routine aren't commenting so much on how funny it was, but like you, how much they hate Bush and how good it made them feel to see someone standup to him and the press. As if that really takes all that much bravery for an entertainer to do in an industry so left leaning. And honestly, what is the President going to do to Colbert besides not invite him to his daughter's birthday party?
If you read my post again you will see that my main concern was not for his comments but for his choice of venue.
This is akin to you inviting me to your wedding, and during the toast going into glorious detail about all your past sexual exploits or the details of the bachelor party. In another setting, when it's just the guys, that type of talk is perfectly fine, but when you're sitting next to your lovely new bride surrounded by friends and family, it's way out of line.
It's all about decorum and respect. If he wants to rant on about the press or whatever perceived injustices he sees in the world there is a time and place for that, perhaps on his daily television show.
In addition to being one of only a very small number of companies in the world capable of handling this type of situation (I still don't see anyone putting forward a competitor who also wanted the contract and was capable of delivering timely assistance), if you bothered to look up the facts, I know this is Slashdot and gut reactions always take precedent over facts, you may find out that Haliburton actually holds a LOGCAP contract with the US military. The LOGCAP system is indeed a competitive bidding process and esentially sets up one company to have front of the line status for instances where the normal bidding processes take to long. Winning companies have classified response plans on the ready to be put into action wherever a need arises.
Halliburton also won LOGCAP contracts under Clinton and was used in much the same way as the current admin uses it. Under both admins Haliburton was also awarded temporary no-bid contracts outside of the LOGCAP because they were seen as best company for a particular job and time was of the essence.
And I just love your well thought out attack on my anology.
First, and I'm sure this has already been said, but with the exception of the use of various P2P and streaming media apps to transmit this Colbert video, how exactly is this anything other than a blatent "Bush is Evil" type post. Don't we get enough of this from every single thread, even those that aren't in any way political. Do we really need unsolicited main page postings.
Second, and just to jump into this non-technical topic with both feet, "When in Rome" and all that, isn't this a better example of the most recent trend of declineing civility in debate than of a comic who, while normally quite funny, bombed at a press gala (and by most accounts, except for those of the more far left variety, he did indeed bomb). When was it exactly that people started losing respect for the various events they were invited too (press galas, award shows, charity drives) and instead thought it more important to "speak truth to power" whenever they could get a mic, especially these people that have any number of ways to get themselves heard outside of the event in question.
(I still maintain that unless you are in mainland China or some such place, the term "speaking truth to power" really has no value except to try and boost the speaker's, and his/her supporters, feelings of self-importance; but that's a discussion for another off topic thread.)
Colbert's choice of material was reminiscent of that comedianne they had on The Apprentice a while back. The material itself may not have been all bad, but that was definately NOT the audience for it, and not because of their pretentious nature, but because it was personally insulting to many of the attendees. Even in a roast type atmosphere, jokes are meant to be good natured ribbings and not overtly mean.
Now compare Colbert to the Presidents schtick, which was in perfect keeping with the self deprecating theme of the event, and which received genuine laughs from everyone. There is no question in most people's minds which was the funnier of the two.
Personally, I thing the whole "liberal media" thing comes from the fact that over 80% of MSM personnel self identify themselves as liberal (and sometimes higher when selecting specific organizations) and usually of the further from center variety.
In the old days that may have meant a lot less, but as on-air hosts and newspaper columnist are now being called upon more and more to let their personalities shine through instead of simply reporting the facts (have to differentiate yourself for the ratings afterall), their biases is becoming abundantly clear.
Just to use your comment for example, while unlike others you are not directly accusing Bush of being the anti-Christ, using terms such as "meager", "fanatics", "fundementalists right wing Christians" and in this case to a lesser degree "cult" all leave a reader with a very clear indication of your personal views. This is just a/. post expressing your opinion so that's fine, but very similar language is also often used when reporting on any Bush related story in the MSM.
The same can be said for many conservative commentators, but as they are a very small minority in this business, they have much less of an impact on the average persons daily life.
I also remember seeing a PEW study (I'm pretty sure it was PEW but have to get to work so no time to search for a link) asking people to identify the bias of certain media organizations. The result is that those who were identified as conservative or centrist both came out with an almost identicle listing of right-wing/left-wing/balanced media outlets. Those that were identified as liberal were able to define right-wing quite clearly but much less able to identify clearly left leaning sources.
I hear this all the time but I was just wondering, do you know just how many companies specialize in this type of rebuilding in highly dangerous environments? At the time I heard the number 2 being thrown around with Haliburton being the biggest and most capable to respond. There is a reason they get so many of these contracts, even before Bush was in the WH, and it's not all insider trading.
If a person is breaking into your home do you call the police or take time to shop around to give everyone a chance to make you an offer? This is not just some general construction contract that the team from Extreme Makeover can handle, it requires a great deal of security and a very specialized infrastructure, and while I'm sure Haliburton has used and abused their monopolistic position to their advantage, it's hard to blame the current administration for that. But this is a free market society so if you care so much go ahead and start your own international company to compete.
So please, if you are going to complain about no bid contracts, point out which competitors were also in the running and could have gotten resources on the ground as fast, otherwise it's pretty much a moot point.
The Judge in question, James Robertson, is probably not the best example to use. As a member of the self proclaimed "Magnificent Seven", he is Clinton apointee with a questionable history of pro-Clinton/anti-Bush rulings.
This is the same group of judges who bypassed the normal random assignment of cases to ensure that they received the majority of cases that made up the cornerstone of Ken Starr's case against the Clinton's, many later overturned on appeal but too late for Starr's case.
Now this doesn't mean that on a normal case he might not be a great judge, but when it comes to political hot potatos, he has definately violated the golden rule of "no appeareace of impropiety".
As for the other 10 FISA judges, they seems to all be standing behind the decision.
I'm just trying to state what is the recoqnized legal view of this issue. As it is the FISA court that was set up as a form of oversight for possible Presidental power abuse, and they seem to agree with the legality of the Presidents authorization of NSA wiretaps of international communications, then the case is pretty much open and closed.
But if you want to deal in hypotheticals, you may want to insert the key words to your example "Can the president open up snail mail from a suspected terrorist to an associate inside the United States without a warrant...".
You'll still get people who fall on both sides of the issue, but at least it's closer to NSA example than any generic snail mail example. As far as I am aware, no one, even those against the wiretapping, have presented any evidence that it is not being executed as has been reported by the government, that being the taps are restricted to communications between known terrorists outside of the US to people inside.
The FISA court has already ruled that they do not believe they have any authority to restrict what they see as a Constitutional power of the President:
"we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
I'll admit that IANAL but assuming the judges of the FISA courts are, I'd have to say it's hard for him to "sidestep" a court that believes he was excercising his rights as CiC.
This has been considered a Presidential power well before Bush (Even Bush 1 for that matter) ever made it to office, and used by both Republican and Democratics.
If you want to experience horror, just google Clinton's uses of this same implied Presidential power and then imagine what Bush could be doing with that as a precedent. If I were you I would be thankful he's only going after international communications.
Between you and the FISA court set up to determine the legality of said wiretaps I'll have to side with the judges of FISA and according to them, Bush was fully within the recognized powers of the Presidency to authorize the NSA taps.
Except the one court specifically set up to determine the legality of this type of wiretapping has already declared it a defacto power of the Presidency, and therefore out of their domain. Everything after that ruling was made is just showboating.
Google this phrase: "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
If anything, Bush has shown more restraint in his use of this so-called war times power. Previous Presidents, including as recently as Clinton, used this type of implied Constitutional authorzation for everything from searching suspected spies homes to drug raids on inner city neighbourhoods. Very few of their actions, if any, could be directly linked to any external military action being taken by the country at the time.
Sorry to break it to you Mr. AC (boy you do post a lot around here) but it takes as much faith to believe in a God as to not and if you even bother to read over your own wording you will see that it is just as much the dislike, or hatred, of religon that leads down the road to negativity.
Only an agnostic can claim any sort of insulation from the emotional highs and lows of the "is there/isn't there" debate because they just generally don't have a horse in the race.
P.S. Why is it that so many people try to use American citizenship as an insult on here for anyone with a conservative viewpoint? For the record, and this seems to come up almost every thread I'm in, I do not, nor have I ever, lived in the US. Please try to keep the debate to the point without feeling the need to throw in ad hoc, and pointless, guilt by association strawmen.
-= And now back to you regularly scheduled scientific discussion =-
With all the circular arguments that go on here whenever the ID/Evo issues raises it's ugly head it's clear that the issue is not going to be resolved on Slashdot, or anywhere else for that metter, anytime soon.
Since one relies on an unprovable pretext (the existance of a God) and the other on a set of circumstances that cannot be recreated in a lab (unless you have the time to create a primordial soup and wait for a fish to crawl out of it) then it's pretty much a matter of 'faith' no matter which camp you fall into.
I'm pretty much a creationist/evolutionist anyway. I believe in the existance of God but also have no problem believing he used evolution as a tool to get things where they are today. I just never understood why so many people on both sides feel the need to fight tooth and nail to try and make those systems appear mutually exclusive when there isn't really a need.
I saw the argument coming but I was really hoping no one would bring ID/Evo into this.
However I was seeing the case from the other side as 'proof' that if such fundemental scientific principles can be shown to be inaccurate, how much 'faith' can we have in the theory of Evolution which is laregely based on much less demonstrable certainties that the fields of physics and math.
Either way, I say just screw it and wait till you're dead. It's the only way to know who's right for sure anyway.
You can't download anything nowadays over a P2P network without getting a full DVD quality porn.
Whether it's the latest Linux distro of your choice or Ice Age 2, you can almost guarentee that at least one of the results is just a misnamed full length porn.
There essentially trying to come up with a plan to sell ice to eskimos. Definately an uphill battle.
You are aware, I'm assuming, that GITMO is not a US federal penetentiary, right? And that none of the things you described have been proven to have occured there. Even many of the formal complaints made by the prisoners border on the ridiculous "the guard touched my Koran with his left hand", "I was forced to see a female guard with her blouse partially unbuttoned", "some urine may or may not have travelled through the air vents from a guard who was relieving himself outside the facility during his evening rounds".
Now they may have justifiable complaints with regards to the water boarding (I'll admit I haven't seen anything describing how often this technique is used in interrogations but I disagree with it's use, even once), and I may even go so far as to possibly include the use of un-airconditioned cells, but all of the things you describe are occuring in the regular criminal prison system (incidentily, similar mistreatment of prisoners was also described about French prisoners). From your writing style, I would guess that you would fit right in, as you seem to see conservatives, primarily American conservatives but you seem to be willing to expand, as somehow, sub human much in the same way these prison guards view their inmates.
For those who haven't been paying attention, GITMO is primarily a detention center for combatants, who unlike convicted criminals, may continue to hold information necessary to national defense, and as such are viable subjects for interrogation.
I brought up the French prisons originally, to point out the stark hypocrisy of groups like Amnesty International, who like you, define everything the US does as torture, while ignoring or merely playing lip service to pretty much everything else around the world.
As a little excercise, just compare how many of the GITMO detainees have died since it was opened to the number who have refused to leave when being formally cleared. I don't think the numbers will work out in your favour, but you never know.
An interesting attacking on my blog discussing the goings on with the US when you are coming to Slashdot to complain about the US and I love how you try to 'smear' me with a Malkin association (not something I would consider a smear but I'm sure plays right into the crowd you are hoping to impress) when I was merely using her links to show the goings on at the UC Santa Cruz campus. Another great debating technique, attack the messenger, not the message. How's that working out for ya?
So to disprove my position that French prisons are some of the worst in the civilized world, you point to a BBC article about abuses at a US prison? What's your next trick; disprove that guns are deadly weapons by giving me the statictics for knife related deaths?
As for prozac, you may want to look into getting yourself a prescription, you seem to need it much more than anyone else that in this thread so far.
I believe this old article may also help you to face reality. And for that matter, even though you don't appear to be an American, the results from these twostudies may also help you deal with your anger issues. You know, the first step towards getting better is admitting you have a problem.
And just FYI, I'm not American nor do I believe that American prisons are necessarily the greatest places on Earth to serve one's incarceration, but I'm sure neither of those points will really mean much to you (see links above).
Introducing grammer/spelling to an argument is generally a sign of a very weak case, even when it is done by the original author as a strawman to try and draw the attention away from his complete lack of debating skills.
As to your P.S. I wouldn't have to be Derren Brown to have figured that out.
I have no problem with people petitioning the government to create a more transparent system, but I also accept that even so, in some cases at least, that transparency may be near impossible. For example, if the means of surveillance used to get the proof necessary to detain a specific prisoner is still in use, and by giving it to the defense team (who you have to admit, is not always made up of the most trustworthy of lawyers) would compromise further use, then I would accept that that that evidence remain sealed, although I would expect that the judge in the case would have full access. From reports I have read, and not necessarily with regards to GITMO cases, there have been some attempts at the "trust us Judge, he's a bad guy" type motions which have sadly been accepted. I would expect the judge who hears this type of case to do his/her due diligence and if it can be shown that they are just rubber stamping the Feds cases, then I would move for the judge to be removed and the case reheard.
I just don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water which seems to be what so many are demanding.
As for the VX example, I doubt if you would find too many security experts, or law enforcement personnel who would agree with your decision to hesitate. When the table is so slanted in the favor of the 'greater good' as in the scenario I gave (inconveniencing 19 innocent people to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands), there can be no holding back. In instances like these hesitation kills. It may not be comfortable, and of those 19 people I'm sure some would agree with you and demand compensation, but I would guess that in the majority of cases, they would see the police actions as reasonable, barring the use of excessive force of course.
And to clear up the FISA statement, here is the preceding text which I originally left out:
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it."
It doesn't really leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. Almost every President that you can think of in modern times have used this power, and unlike the current administration, some went much further than simply monitoring foreign communications (Clinton for example authorized the monitoring and searching of persons and places completely contained within the United States). In pretty much every case it was determined that if the purpose of the searches or surveillance in question was for the collection of foreign intelligence (in Clintons case catching a Russian agent) then the President was within his rights.
I do disagree with a later move, also by Clinton, to expand this power to include simple criminal cases but even though he made the argument that that was within his authority, I don't know if it was ever tested.
Powerline has a good write-up on the legal standing of the warrantless wire taps. And honestly, this was the first detailed legal response I could find with Google; I did not intentionally pick a conservative web site.
Slashdot Mirror
While it is true that the Dreamcast power plant was slightly less powerful than the PS2, the memory architecture of the PS2 put heavy limits as to what the system could actually do. The Dreamcast on the other hand had a much better designed memory sub-system and did not cause the bottle necks that designers complained about with the Sony offering.
Overall, the Dreamcast was capable of putting out higher quality graphics to the screen under more situations than the PS2.
By design, and only God and the bean counters know why, Sony essentially put out a system with a relatively good heart but then proceeded to tie one of it's hands behind it's back.
That's the main advantage of any true sports car over a bike; four wheels means you are more stable in the corners and don't have to decelerate as much. However, in general bikes have the better acceleration times, and maybe not for 0-60 but after 60, where a cars acceleration curve tends to drop off a bit, a super bike is still going pretty steady.
In the case above, comparing the R1 to an Atom, the Atom, in most tests I've seen, has a slight advantage over the R1 in 0-60 but loses by at least 3/4s of a second if you extend it to 0-100. I'd say for most car/bike match-ups it would greatly depend on the actual course layout. Long straightaways would favour the bikes but most types of turns would favour the cars.
Of course if you allowed true racers, I don't think there's a bike out there that could beat an F1 and any recognized race track.
Schon, I don't think Mr. Pirsig ever drove an Atom.
Just look at the pics or some of the many online videos. There is little more compartment to it than your average bike. It's essentially a tubular frame with 4 wheels and a Civic Type R engine (pumping out anywhere from 220 to as high as 300 hp stock, or as high as 420 tuned) weighing in at just a little more than a Ninja ZX 10R Supersport. Just enough parts to be street legal and not much more. It doesn't even have a windshield to look through (which leads to some good face peeling scenes as Jeremy puts it through it's paces on the Top Gear tack.). It's pretty much as close to a bike as you can get in a 'production' car.
As an added bonus the supercharger intake sits right between the driver and passenger seat headrests and if you don't wear a helmet while driving it (a hey, why bother) you can feel the difference in air pressure from the right to left side of your head.
That being said, no car can ever truly replace the feel of a bike but as things go, the Atom is probably pretty damn close.
-------
Some good pics of the Atom at their American distributors, Brammo site. Just to tie back to the original thread, you'll notice that they didn't even bother changing the paint job on the X1.
Never heard that before but it's definately the truth. Fits perfectly with what I was telling a friend of mine who is looking for a car in the next week or so.
She's looking for a small car and was comparing two with about the same 140-150hp but vastly different torque levels. She hates to get stuck behind slow drivers so I warned her about the low torque. Sure enough, though she liked the look of the car better she hates it's 'get up and go'.
I'm still trying to get her to wait for the Saturn Skye Redline, but I fear it's a lost cause.
Not to burst your bubble, but if this achieves anywhere close to the performance of the Atom which it is based on it will probably blow your bike away on any track tests.
With several suspension and handling advantages over a bike, when they tested it on Top Gear in just 1 lap it had a considerable lead on the sportbike with a professional racer driving the bike. And that was the old version Atom, the new one is a lot quicker.
Though I'd probably still steer clear of the electric car as the Atom itself is a lot cheaper (estimated about $35k US new) and faster 0-60 times (about 2.5 sec). Also gets about 250-350 miles/tank (depending on engine specs).
Though when you're talking cheap thrills, the bike is definately the way to go.
Not a lot of time for a full response so I'm just poting the first couple of links I found when searching for LOGCAP.
The LOGCAP site (warning, government website designed by 15 year old in 1992)
A bit on Cheney/Halliburton relationship (a ver detailed breakdown with lots of stuff I hadn't seen before).
A bit more on the Haliburton government contracts.
I think I've already said that I'm pretty sure that Haliburton abuses it's near monopoly in the industry for their own benefit, and I'm not debating that. All I'm saying is that the fact they happen to get all these contracts has more to do with the fact they are the only group in town than the fact they are connected to the VP, as displayed by the same 'favoritism' they received under the Clinton admin.
Sign. Another extreme left poster trying to use a guilt by association strawman to make an argument (you can always tell the extreme left posters because they like to disguise their identities through the use of AC postings while attacking the bravery of those they disagree with).
For the record I watch Fox News for a couple shows, 'Hannity and Colmes' and 'The O'Reilly Factor' chief amongst them, but I get most of my daily news from 'The Today Show' (that bastion of right-wing propaganda), the local newspapers and various websites, both various blogs and news sites (mostly CTV.CA and CBC.CA). That specific enough for ya or do you want me to send you a copy of my PVR's hard drive so you can scan it to be sure. If anything big comes up I usually go to CNN first, and then if I think about it Fox, and then channel swap back and forth.
And my view of which was funnier was which one made me laugh. Here's a hint, it wasn't Colbert, and by the look of responses in the room, I wasn't alone.
Even most of the people standing up for his routine aren't commenting so much on how funny it was, but like you, how much they hate Bush and how good it made them feel to see someone standup to him and the press. As if that really takes all that much bravery for an entertainer to do in an industry so left leaning. And honestly, what is the President going to do to Colbert besides not invite him to his daughter's birthday party?
If you read my post again you will see that my main concern was not for his comments but for his choice of venue.
This is akin to you inviting me to your wedding, and during the toast going into glorious detail about all your past sexual exploits or the details of the bachelor party. In another setting, when it's just the guys, that type of talk is perfectly fine, but when you're sitting next to your lovely new bride surrounded by friends and family, it's way out of line.
It's all about decorum and respect. If he wants to rant on about the press or whatever perceived injustices he sees in the world there is a time and place for that, perhaps on his daily television show.
In addition to being one of only a very small number of companies in the world capable of handling this type of situation (I still don't see anyone putting forward a competitor who also wanted the contract and was capable of delivering timely assistance), if you bothered to look up the facts, I know this is Slashdot and gut reactions always take precedent over facts, you may find out that Haliburton actually holds a LOGCAP contract with the US military. The LOGCAP system is indeed a competitive bidding process and esentially sets up one company to have front of the line status for instances where the normal bidding processes take to long. Winning companies have classified response plans on the ready to be put into action wherever a need arises.
Halliburton also won LOGCAP contracts under Clinton and was used in much the same way as the current admin uses it. Under both admins Haliburton was also awarded temporary no-bid contracts outside of the LOGCAP because they were seen as best company for a particular job and time was of the essence.
And I just love your well thought out attack on my anology.
First, and I'm sure this has already been said, but with the exception of the use of various P2P and streaming media apps to transmit this Colbert video, how exactly is this anything other than a blatent "Bush is Evil" type post. Don't we get enough of this from every single thread, even those that aren't in any way political. Do we really need unsolicited main page postings.
Second, and just to jump into this non-technical topic with both feet, "When in Rome" and all that, isn't this a better example of the most recent trend of declineing civility in debate than of a comic who, while normally quite funny, bombed at a press gala (and by most accounts, except for those of the more far left variety, he did indeed bomb). When was it exactly that people started losing respect for the various events they were invited too (press galas, award shows, charity drives) and instead thought it more important to "speak truth to power" whenever they could get a mic, especially these people that have any number of ways to get themselves heard outside of the event in question.
(I still maintain that unless you are in mainland China or some such place, the term "speaking truth to power" really has no value except to try and boost the speaker's, and his/her supporters, feelings of self-importance; but that's a discussion for another off topic thread.)
Colbert's choice of material was reminiscent of that comedianne they had on The Apprentice a while back. The material itself may not have been all bad, but that was definately NOT the audience for it, and not because of their pretentious nature, but because it was personally insulting to many of the attendees. Even in a roast type atmosphere, jokes are meant to be good natured ribbings and not overtly mean.
Now compare Colbert to the Presidents schtick, which was in perfect keeping with the self deprecating theme of the event, and which received genuine laughs from everyone. There is no question in most people's minds which was the funnier of the two.
Personally, I thing the whole "liberal media" thing comes from the fact that over 80% of MSM personnel self identify themselves as liberal (and sometimes higher when selecting specific organizations) and usually of the further from center variety.
/. post expressing your opinion so that's fine, but very similar language is also often used when reporting on any Bush related story in the MSM.
In the old days that may have meant a lot less, but as on-air hosts and newspaper columnist are now being called upon more and more to let their personalities shine through instead of simply reporting the facts (have to differentiate yourself for the ratings afterall), their biases is becoming abundantly clear.
Just to use your comment for example, while unlike others you are not directly accusing Bush of being the anti-Christ, using terms such as "meager", "fanatics", "fundementalists right wing Christians" and in this case to a lesser degree "cult" all leave a reader with a very clear indication of your personal views. This is just a
The same can be said for many conservative commentators, but as they are a very small minority in this business, they have much less of an impact on the average persons daily life.
I also remember seeing a PEW study (I'm pretty sure it was PEW but have to get to work so no time to search for a link) asking people to identify the bias of certain media organizations. The result is that those who were identified as conservative or centrist both came out with an almost identicle listing of right-wing/left-wing/balanced media outlets. Those that were identified as liberal were able to define right-wing quite clearly but much less able to identify clearly left leaning sources.
I hear this all the time but I was just wondering, do you know just how many companies specialize in this type of rebuilding in highly dangerous environments? At the time I heard the number 2 being thrown around with Haliburton being the biggest and most capable to respond. There is a reason they get so many of these contracts, even before Bush was in the WH, and it's not all insider trading.
If a person is breaking into your home do you call the police or take time to shop around to give everyone a chance to make you an offer? This is not just some general construction contract that the team from Extreme Makeover can handle, it requires a great deal of security and a very specialized infrastructure, and while I'm sure Haliburton has used and abused their monopolistic position to their advantage, it's hard to blame the current administration for that. But this is a free market society so if you care so much go ahead and start your own international company to compete.
So please, if you are going to complain about no bid contracts, point out which competitors were also in the running and could have gotten resources on the ground as fast, otherwise it's pretty much a moot point.
The Judge in question, James Robertson, is probably not the best example to use. As a member of the self proclaimed "Magnificent Seven", he is Clinton apointee with a questionable history of pro-Clinton/anti-Bush rulings.
This is the same group of judges who bypassed the normal random assignment of cases to ensure that they received the majority of cases that made up the cornerstone of Ken Starr's case against the Clinton's, many later overturned on appeal but too late for Starr's case.
Now this doesn't mean that on a normal case he might not be a great judge, but when it comes to political hot potatos, he has definately violated the golden rule of "no appeareace of impropiety".
As for the other 10 FISA judges, they seems to all be standing behind the decision.
I'm just trying to state what is the recoqnized legal view of this issue. As it is the FISA court that was set up as a form of oversight for possible Presidental power abuse, and they seem to agree with the legality of the Presidents authorization of NSA wiretaps of international communications, then the case is pretty much open and closed.
...".
But if you want to deal in hypotheticals, you may want to insert the key words to your example "Can the president open up snail mail from a suspected terrorist to an associate inside the United States without a warrant
You'll still get people who fall on both sides of the issue, but at least it's closer to NSA example than any generic snail mail example. As far as I am aware, no one, even those against the wiretapping, have presented any evidence that it is not being executed as has been reported by the government, that being the taps are restricted to communications between known terrorists outside of the US to people inside.
The FISA court has already ruled that they do not believe they have any authority to restrict what they see as a Constitutional power of the President:
"we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
I'll admit that IANAL but assuming the judges of the FISA courts are, I'd have to say it's hard for him to "sidestep" a court that believes he was excercising his rights as CiC.
This has been considered a Presidential power well before Bush (Even Bush 1 for that matter) ever made it to office, and used by both Republican and Democratics.
If you want to experience horror, just google Clinton's uses of this same implied Presidential power and then imagine what Bush could be doing with that as a precedent. If I were you I would be thankful he's only going after international communications.
Between you and the FISA court set up to determine the legality of said wiretaps I'll have to side with the judges of FISA and according to them, Bush was fully within the recognized powers of the Presidency to authorize the NSA taps.
Sorry, next case please.
Except the one court specifically set up to determine the legality of this type of wiretapping has already declared it a defacto power of the Presidency, and therefore out of their domain. Everything after that ruling was made is just showboating.
Google this phrase: "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
If anything, Bush has shown more restraint in his use of this so-called war times power. Previous Presidents, including as recently as Clinton, used this type of implied Constitutional authorzation for everything from searching suspected spies homes to drug raids on inner city neighbourhoods. Very few of their actions, if any, could be directly linked to any external military action being taken by the country at the time.
Sorry to break it to you Mr. AC (boy you do post a lot around here) but it takes as much faith to believe in a God as to not and if you even bother to read over your own wording you will see that it is just as much the dislike, or hatred, of religon that leads down the road to negativity.
Only an agnostic can claim any sort of insulation from the emotional highs and lows of the "is there/isn't there" debate because they just generally don't have a horse in the race.
P.S. Why is it that so many people try to use American citizenship as an insult on here for anyone with a conservative viewpoint? For the record, and this seems to come up almost every thread I'm in, I do not, nor have I ever, lived in the US. Please try to keep the debate to the point without feeling the need to throw in ad hoc, and pointless, guilt by association strawmen.
-= And now back to you regularly scheduled scientific discussion =-
Just pointing out the obvious.
With all the circular arguments that go on here whenever the ID/Evo issues raises it's ugly head it's clear that the issue is not going to be resolved on Slashdot, or anywhere else for that metter, anytime soon.
Since one relies on an unprovable pretext (the existance of a God) and the other on a set of circumstances that cannot be recreated in a lab (unless you have the time to create a primordial soup and wait for a fish to crawl out of it) then it's pretty much a matter of 'faith' no matter which camp you fall into.
I'm pretty much a creationist/evolutionist anyway. I believe in the existance of God but also have no problem believing he used evolution as a tool to get things where they are today. I just never understood why so many people on both sides feel the need to fight tooth and nail to try and make those systems appear mutually exclusive when there isn't really a need.
I saw the argument coming but I was really hoping no one would bring ID/Evo into this.
However I was seeing the case from the other side as 'proof' that if such fundemental scientific principles can be shown to be inaccurate, how much 'faith' can we have in the theory of Evolution which is laregely based on much less demonstrable certainties that the fields of physics and math.
Either way, I say just screw it and wait till you're dead. It's the only way to know who's right for sure anyway.
You can't download anything nowadays over a P2P network without getting a full DVD quality porn.
Whether it's the latest Linux distro of your choice or Ice Age 2, you can almost guarentee that at least one of the results is just a misnamed full length porn.
There essentially trying to come up with a plan to sell ice to eskimos.
Definately an uphill battle.
You are aware, I'm assuming, that GITMO is not a US federal penetentiary, right? And that none of the things you described have been proven to have occured there. Even many of the formal complaints made by the prisoners border on the ridiculous "the guard touched my Koran with his left hand", "I was forced to see a female guard with her blouse partially unbuttoned", "some urine may or may not have travelled through the air vents from a guard who was relieving himself outside the facility during his evening rounds".
Now they may have justifiable complaints with regards to the water boarding (I'll admit I haven't seen anything describing how often this technique is used in interrogations but I disagree with it's use, even once), and I may even go so far as to possibly include the use of un-airconditioned cells, but all of the things you describe are occuring in the regular criminal prison system (incidentily, similar mistreatment of prisoners was also described about French prisoners). From your writing style, I would guess that you would fit right in, as you seem to see conservatives, primarily American conservatives but you seem to be willing to expand, as somehow, sub human much in the same way these prison guards view their inmates.
For those who haven't been paying attention, GITMO is primarily a detention center for combatants, who unlike convicted criminals, may continue to hold information necessary to national defense, and as such are viable subjects for interrogation.
I brought up the French prisons originally, to point out the stark hypocrisy of groups like Amnesty International, who like you, define everything the US does as torture, while ignoring or merely playing lip service to pretty much everything else around the world.
As a little excercise, just compare how many of the GITMO detainees have died since it was opened to the number who have refused to leave when being formally cleared. I don't think the numbers will work out in your favour, but you never know.
An interesting attacking on my blog discussing the goings on with the US when you are coming to Slashdot to complain about the US and I love how you try to 'smear' me with a Malkin association (not something I would consider a smear but I'm sure plays right into the crowd you are hoping to impress) when I was merely using her links to show the goings on at the UC Santa Cruz campus. Another great debating technique, attack the messenger, not the message. How's that working out for ya?
So to disprove my position that French prisons are some of the worst in the civilized world, you point to a BBC article about abuses at a US prison? What's your next trick; disprove that guns are deadly weapons by giving me the statictics for knife related deaths?
As for prozac, you may want to look into getting yourself a prescription, you seem to need it much more than anyone else that in this thread so far.
I believe this old article may also help you to face reality. And for that matter, even though you don't appear to be an American, the results from these two studies may also help you deal with your anger issues. You know, the first step towards getting better is admitting you have a problem.
And just FYI, I'm not American nor do I believe that American prisons are necessarily the greatest places on Earth to serve one's incarceration, but I'm sure neither of those points will really mean much to you (see links above).
Introducing grammer/spelling to an argument is generally a sign of a very weak case, even when it is done by the original author as a strawman to try and draw the attention away from his complete lack of debating skills.
As to your P.S. I wouldn't have to be Derren Brown to have figured that out.
I just don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water which seems to be what so many are demanding.
As for the VX example, I doubt if you would find too many security experts, or law enforcement personnel who would agree with your decision to hesitate. When the table is so slanted in the favor of the 'greater good' as in the scenario I gave (inconveniencing 19 innocent people to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands), there can be no holding back. In instances like these hesitation kills. It may not be comfortable, and of those 19 people I'm sure some would agree with you and demand compensation, but I would guess that in the majority of cases, they would see the police actions as reasonable, barring the use of excessive force of course.
And to clear up the FISA statement, here is the preceding text which I originally left out:
It doesn't really leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. Almost every President that you can think of in modern times have used this power, and unlike the current administration, some went much further than simply monitoring foreign communications (Clinton for example authorized the monitoring and searching of persons and places completely contained within the United States). In pretty much every case it was determined that if the purpose of the searches or surveillance in question was for the collection of foreign intelligence (in Clintons case catching a Russian agent) then the President was within his rights.
I do disagree with a later move, also by Clinton, to expand this power to include simple criminal cases but even though he made the argument that that was within his authority, I don't know if it was ever tested.
Powerline has a good write-up on the legal standing of the warrantless wire taps. And honestly, this was the first detailed legal response I could find with Google; I did not intentionally pick a conservative web site.