You still have all your rights. Now, please tell us which of your rights are being violated when the NSA records without a warrant a telephone call that you receive from a known terrorist. Please be specific, and cite precedent when available.
I'm suggesting that. Please give examples of how Bush has knowingly deceived the American people. Simply making a statement that turns out to be false isn't a lie absent the speaker knowing the statement is false, and intending to deceive.
I don't know if the wiretaps were on domestic->international calls or domestic->domestic calls. That's the whole freaking point! You don't either... and the reason neither of us knows is because Bush bypassed FISA!
And if Bush hadn't "bypassed" FISA, would that have nay impact whatsoever on what you know? Of course not. This whole argument is about something which is supposed to happen in secret, so you aren't suppposed to know what's going on.
Where in the fourth amendment does it say that it is illegal to tap a phone without a search warrant?
For bonus points, for how long has a search warrant been required to tap a phone in the US, and what's the difference between a search warrant and a court order?
3) The only reason to get an ex post facto warrant is that you want to use the evidence gathered in court, and no evidence was gathered that will be used in court.
That's all very humorous, but of course the President can ignore a law passed by Congress. While Congress can delegate some of their authority to the President or anyone else, the President doesn't depend on them for permission to exercise his executive powers, therefore Congress also can't prevent him from doing so.
The President can ignore any law passed by Congress any time he choses. Congress has no authority over the exercise of executive power. Period. You may have learned about this concept in high-school civics class. It's usually refered to as "seperation of powers".
This has been an issue in outsourcing deals since forever. If you put your eggs in someone else's basket, you have a stake in how they build that basket. If you are big enough, contracts can be structured to strike an acceptable risk sharing balance. If you're just Joe Customer, you might get screwed, but you might not have a choice.
Except he can't, any more than a lowly/. editor could correctly diagnose cancer better than an oncologist. If he's going to make offhand remarks about his interpretation of the Constitution and federal law that quite frankly are contrary to the opinion of all of the scholars on the subject, he really should either support such statements with some decent facts and argumentation, or he should just STFU. And, FWIW, the current administration isn't oblivious to anything. You can argue that their counsel are wrong in their interpretations of the law, but you can't argue that their eyes are closed.
And then Scuttle Monkey added: "Forgive me if I don't agree."
Why would anyone care about Scuttle Monkey's interpretation of Constitutional Law? Even if I didn't like his conclusion, I'd give much more credence to the US AG's interpretation of the Constitution than a/. editor.
Re:Why not add a "material harmful for minors"?
on
Games Are Porn in Utah
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I think he's right. To believe what we're being told, it's wrong to be conservative or Republican. There's a laundry list of politicians supporting this legislation referenced in the article. The Republicans are all branded as such, while the Democrats aren't expressly identified. And of course no one want's to mention that Tipper Gore is the mother of modern music and video game censorship.
It's not the classic definition of "growth", but since the modern vogue is to only focus on stock price instead of earnings, it's not a surprising interpretation. While the intent of investing in growth stocks is usually to generate returns from increase in the value (growth) of the stock, and not from dividends (steady state), but that increase in value is supposed to come from increased earnings, not furious speculation.
Google's EPS is higher than Apple, Microsoft, and Yahoo's combined.
So is the P/E ratio. GOOG only has 300 Million shares outstanding. MSFT alone has 11 Billion. If you really think there's still value in GOOG, buy all you can get.
Actually, it's neither. Speculators are buying Google's stock. If they were younger, they'd be trading baseball cards instead of stocks. The "growth" in growth stocks still refers to earnings, not stock price.
People can and do sue government agencies in this country. It's just that the causes of action are limited, and you usually must allege something more than mere negligence. I'd be willing to be the law is similar in Canada. I doubt very strongly that the Canadian courts do not recognize any immunity for official acts.
Just supporting IE 5 will probably get you most users. IME, most users of Opera and Firefox have IE to fall back to if their prefered browser doesn't work.
While I'm not an apologist for Gibson, I think it should be pointed out that he stated quite clearly in the original interview that his view on the metafile vulnerability was conjecture, and was based on his limited work with the subsystem.
When did he point that out? Certainly not in this interview where he was adamant that the flaw was a deliberate backdoor. The only thing he equivocated on was who at Microsoft knew, and how old it was.
Steve:...This was not a mistake. This is not buggy code. This was put into Windows by someone. We are never going to know who. We're never going to know - well, actually I'm going to find out when because we're going to know when this appeared because this appeared - I'm guessing this is not in older versions of Windows, which is why this function - or if it is in older versions of Windows, it's done slightly differently. I'm still on the hunt...
Leo: So you're saying intentionally or - Microsoft intentionally put a backdoor in Windows? Is that what you're saying?
Steve: Yes.
Leo: Well, that's a pretty strong accusation. Could this not have been a...
Steve: Well, it's the only conclusion...
Leo: It couldn't have been a mistake?
Steve: I don't see how it could have been a mistake. Again, I'm going to continue to look at it. But from what I've seen now, this had to be deliberate. It was not what we were led to believe.
Leo:...But let me ask you one more - you're convinced there's no way this could have happened by accident. It can't be a programming error or bad design.
Steve: No. No. I mean, you know, again, this is as much a surprise to me, Leo, as it is to, you know, anyone who hears this. I did not expect to see this....
Now, again, I will know more in a week. I have to say that, you know, I want to call this preliminary. But I don't see any way that this was not something that someone in Microsoft deliberately put into Windows. And, you know, the other thing, too...
Criticize Bush II all you want, but get your facts right.
Like the fact that the orginal law was signed by President Clinton, defended by Reno, and then after the Supreme Court struck it down, the replacement was again signed by Clinton? The government isn't asking for the data from search engines so that they can spy on anyone. They are asking for it because it is relevant evidence in an ongoing court battle. If the ACLU was asking for a subpoena for the same evidence to bolster their case,/. would be singing their praises.
Anyone who wants to say the ACLU is on the side of angels should really read the complaint first. The ACLU along with CAIR, some folks from Al Haq, etc. are basically claiming that the Bush administration has impaired their ability to talk to and about terrorists and suspected terrorists.
You obviously did not RTFA or you would know that he isn't sure of himself- he has only worked/looked at this a total of one day and happened to bring it up on the podcast, He has a;lso stated NUMEROUS times that it SEEMS to be a bacvkdoor, but until he has a chance to work at this longer to find out- it appears to him to have no toher function he can see AT THIS TIME.
So, when you RTFA, did you miss the part where he said, "This was not a mistake. This is not buggy code. This was put into Windows by someone"?
Slashdot Mirror
You still have all your rights. Now, please tell us which of your rights are being violated when the NSA records without a warrant a telephone call that you receive from a known terrorist. Please be specific, and cite precedent when available.
I'm suggesting that. Please give examples of how Bush has knowingly deceived the American people. Simply making a statement that turns out to be false isn't a lie absent the speaker knowing the statement is false, and intending to deceive.
"Sixteen words, sixteen words!"
I don't know if the wiretaps were on domestic->international calls or domestic->domestic calls. That's the whole freaking point! You don't either... and the reason neither of us knows is because Bush bypassed FISA!
And if Bush hadn't "bypassed" FISA, would that have nay impact whatsoever on what you know? Of course not. This whole argument is about something which is supposed to happen in secret, so you aren't suppposed to know what's going on.
Where in the fourth amendment does it say that it is illegal to tap a phone without a search warrant?
For bonus points, for how long has a search warrant been required to tap a phone in the US, and what's the difference between a search warrant and a court order?
or
3) The only reason to get an ex post facto warrant is that you want to use the evidence gathered in court, and no evidence was gathered that will be used in court.
That's all very humorous, but of course the President can ignore a law passed by Congress. While Congress can delegate some of their authority to the President or anyone else, the President doesn't depend on them for permission to exercise his executive powers, therefore Congress also can't prevent him from doing so.
The President can ignore any law passed by Congress any time he choses. Congress has no authority over the exercise of executive power. Period. You may have learned about this concept in high-school civics class. It's usually refered to as "seperation of powers".
This has been an issue in outsourcing deals since forever. If you put your eggs in someone else's basket, you have a stake in how they build that basket. If you are big enough, contracts can be structured to strike an acceptable risk sharing balance. If you're just Joe Customer, you might get screwed, but you might not have a choice.
Except he can't, any more than a lowly /. editor could correctly diagnose cancer better than an oncologist. If he's going to make offhand remarks about his interpretation of the Constitution and federal law that quite frankly are contrary to the opinion of all of the scholars on the subject, he really should either support such statements with some decent facts and argumentation, or he should just STFU. And, FWIW, the current administration isn't oblivious to anything. You can argue that their counsel are wrong in their interpretations of the law, but you can't argue that their eyes are closed.
And then Scuttle Monkey added: "Forgive me if I don't agree."
/. editor.
Why would anyone care about Scuttle Monkey's interpretation of Constitutional Law? Even if I didn't like his conclusion, I'd give much more credence to the US AG's interpretation of the Constitution than a
I think he's right. To believe what we're being told, it's wrong to be conservative or Republican. There's a laundry list of politicians supporting this legislation referenced in the article. The Republicans are all branded as such, while the Democrats aren't expressly identified. And of course no one want's to mention that Tipper Gore is the mother of modern music and video game censorship.
It's not the classic definition of "growth", but since the modern vogue is to only focus on stock price instead of earnings, it's not a surprising interpretation. While the intent of investing in growth stocks is usually to generate returns from increase in the value (growth) of the stock, and not from dividends (steady state), but that increase in value is supposed to come from increased earnings, not furious speculation.
Google's EPS is higher than Apple, Microsoft, and Yahoo's combined.
So is the P/E ratio. GOOG only has 300 Million shares outstanding. MSFT alone has 11 Billion. If you really think there's still value in GOOG, buy all you can get.
Actually, it's neither. Speculators are buying Google's stock. If they were younger, they'd be trading baseball cards instead of stocks. The "growth" in growth stocks still refers to earnings, not stock price.
People can and do sue government agencies in this country. It's just that the causes of action are limited, and you usually must allege something more than mere negligence. I'd be willing to be the law is similar in Canada. I doubt very strongly that the Canadian courts do not recognize any immunity for official acts.
Just supporting IE 5 will probably get you most users. IME, most users of Opera and Firefox have IE to fall back to if their prefered browser doesn't work.
Opera still ID's itself as Opera, unless you've modified your UA.ini:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; en) Opera 8.51
If you had RTFA, or just taken a look at the blog in question, you would have seen that is exactly what they did.
When did he point that out? Certainly not in this interview where he was adamant that the flaw was a deliberate backdoor. The only thing he equivocated on was who at Microsoft knew, and how old it was.
Criticize Bush II all you want, but get your facts right.
/. would be singing their praises.
Like the fact that the orginal law was signed by President Clinton, defended by Reno, and then after the Supreme Court struck it down, the replacement was again signed by Clinton? The government isn't asking for the data from search engines so that they can spy on anyone. They are asking for it because it is relevant evidence in an ongoing court battle. If the ACLU was asking for a subpoena for the same evidence to bolster their case,
It's the later. Did you actually read the complaint?
Anyone who wants to say the ACLU is on the side of angels should really read the complaint first. The ACLU along with CAIR, some folks from Al Haq, etc. are basically claiming that the Bush administration has impaired their ability to talk to and about terrorists and suspected terrorists.
Now pretend you are a foreign government. Which way would *you* bet? Pretend that you are a company in competition. Which way would *you* bet?
Assuming I wasn't a complete moron, I would be more worried about the elements not called "NSAKEY".
You obviously did not RTFA or you would know that he isn't sure of himself- he has only worked/looked at this a total of one day and happened to bring it up on the podcast, He has a;lso stated NUMEROUS times that it SEEMS to be a bacvkdoor, but until he has a chance to work at this longer to find out- it appears to him to have no toher function he can see AT THIS TIME.
So, when you RTFA, did you miss the part where he said, "This was not a mistake. This is not buggy code. This was put into Windows by someone"?
That's my point. We still don't know whether iPod owners are more or less honest than others.