How are any of those rights removed by the PATRIOT act? Please cite the specific section. I'm especially interested in the part where it says law enforcement no longer has to get search warrants. You do of course realize that the right to be free of unreasonable searches is guaranteed by the 4th Ammendment, and that a law passed by Congress can't overrule that, right? Have you even read the act or are you just repeating what you've heard?
I think you misunderstood the question. The poster asked WHICH RIGHTS were taken away, not which laws you don't like. Maybe you did understand the question, but you didn't have an answer for it?
Neither Red Hat nor Microsoft sell windows. They both sell operating systems. If Microsoft was trying to trademark "Operating System" you might have a point.
All 191 United Nations members agree on a treaty to prohibit cloning human beings, but they are divided over whether to extend such a ban to stem cell and other research known as therapeutic cloning.
That's the everyone I was talking about, and that is the problem I thought you were offering a solution to.
The ability to clone just the organ you need, as opposed to an entire person, would be such a fantastic step forward it can't be overstated.
Actually, it can be and it is overstated quite frequently. There's a down side to being able to keep people alive longer. Maybe you haven't noticed that the world's population is on the rise, more people are living in povery, lots of people don't have food, and Social Security is going bankrupt.
I'm mildly curious why I never hear about this tidbit of info in any stem cell debates, since it's the perfect human solution: Group A gets what they want without being in moral opposition to Group B.
You don't hear more about it because it has no propaganda value.
How is that different from human cloning, which everyone agrees should be banned? The only way the cloners can justify using embryos for cloning is to destroy them and declare them non-human life.
I think you need to go back and retake ground school. You should also do some MCA practice. It's a lot of fun flying a Cessna backwards, and it doesn't take anywhere near 100 knot winds.
No matter what you've been told about the "dangerous downwind turn" an airplane doesn't care how fast or in what direction the body of air it is in is moving (excluding events like windshear of course). Clearly it could kill your groundspeed, which is what caused him to get stuck, but there's no danger to the plane. A crosswind on landing is a different story (maximum demonstrated crosswind component is only ~15 knots in a 172) but winds aloft are not the same as at ground level, and I'd imagine that in Antarctica he could land in the direction of his choosing.
Yup, summer. Which also means they can order new supplies and have them arrive in a timely manner. This guy just wants fuel - Do you suppose it costs more (both monetarily and time-wise) to have a few hundred gallons of fuel flown in, or a transport plane capable of taking Johanson's RV-4 back with it?
I think it costs much more to ship out his plane. But he'll have to pay for it. I'm sure no one would stop him from flying in his own fuel if he wanted, but the point being made is that he's on his own. If you want to fly down there great, but don't plan on the kindness of strangers. They aren't going to let him die, but they aren't going to help his mission either.
I'll agree that the scientists have only a minimal obligation to keep this guy alive, but refusing to refuel him appears to create more of a burden for everyone, as well as passing up a great opportunity to make a few bucks.
They don't care about the money. And they aren't creating more of a burden for everybody, they are just rightly not allowing this guy to create a burden for them. The burden on him is his own making, they are declining to help him shoulder it. Basically they are saying, "Pretend we aren't here."
Essentially you're saying only the very rich or government/company backed individuals should be allowed to get anywhere near Antarctica.
No they are saying that only self sufficient expeditions should go to Antarctica, and they'd be happy if even those stayed home. It isn't about selling fuel, or how much they could sell it for, it's about keeping the barriers up. If they give him fuel they significantly lower the barriers for anyone considering doing this sort of thing in the future. They aren't there to encourage tourism or make a profit they are there to do research.
If you think there is money to be made having gas stations at the south pole, then by all means get some capital and have at it!
Darl (not Linus) said that "Copyright law should be interpreted to promote financial gain" - which everybody pretty knows to be false.
No he didn't. He said the article of the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to make copyright law should be interpreted to promote financial gain. If this argument is accepted it would follow that any copyright laws passed by Congress which were not intended to promote financial gain would be unconstitutional.
The problem with Linus's 'rebuttal' is that it's just a strawman. He's chosing the defininition of financial gain that he wants to argue against, but it isn't necessarily the definition that McBride would use. McBride didn't claim that the requirement for financial gain originates in ths USC, he claims that it originates in the Constitution. He also wasn't refering to the USC's definition of financial gain. Financial gain was merely his shorthand interpretaion of "progress in the arts and sciences."
If McBride's argument is correct (I don't think it is) then you can quote the USC all day long, but any part of it which doesn't promote financial gain is moot since unconstitional laws have no power. It doesn't matter how the USC defines financial gain, it matters how you interpret "progress in the art and sciences" in the Constitution.
The ratio of payouts is actually varied based on time of day and day of week. I don't know what the specifics of the law are, but I think it's based on the aggregate payout, not the payout at any given time.
Well, Germany is a member of the Axis of Weasels with their good buddy, France. Since Italy is currently a member of the Coalition Against Raping Dictators, I'm sure they will soon be kicked out of the EU by France unless France finds someone to surrender to in the meantime.
So why were you getting your asses kicked by the Axis before the US entered WWII? Before the US entered the war we weren't really spending much on the war machine, but Europe was putting every dime they had into making war. When we did enter the war we managed to crank up the war machine, increase domestic output and help pull your butts from the fire. You think you could out R&D the US? Do you remember that the USSR went Chapter 11 when they tried that?
Bullshit. The images on the doors are concessions to illiterates, not heterosexuals. If you are a man (do you have a dick?) go in the men's room. If you are a woman (do you have a vagina?) go in the women's room. Have both? Flip a coin, but the men's room usually has a shorter line. I don't give a rat's ass if you are wearing a skirt or not.
As long as you are not checking every vote the probability of detecting the cheat is (ratio of fraudulent votes) * (ratio of checked votes), so you haven't improved over the existing system, but you've given up on anonymity.
The computerized system starts out at a significant disadvantage to the paper ballot system because there are a finite number of ways to cheat a paper system. That's why all of the computerized systems are trending towards glorified systems for filling out paper ballots.
When I vote today, I am handed a ballot after I present my credentials. I trust that there is not a mark that ties me to the ballot. Same thing with a VOTE_ID, it would be generated sequencially. I would have to trust that there is no cross reference to my identity. Hopefully the voting process should make that obvious.
The cross reference is you standing there with a ballot with a unique ID. Plus if you want to be able to correct said ballot, you must be able to somehow prove that it is YOUR ballot after the vote is cast.
I think a reporting / audit process could easily be designed but it would require a VOTE_ID to be able to use a sampling process.
So I write my trojan to report the correct vote whenever you query it with a particular VOTE_ID, but always report my adjusted total. Unless you check every single vote, I always win.
In my county we use scantron type ballots (really easy you just color the circle next to the right name). When you are done you feed the ballot into the reader attached to a locked box. The computer counts the votes, but the original ballots are safely locked away in case a manual recall is called for. A new very expensive computerized system would have to be BETTER than this system or it's worthless.
4. The point here is not to offer more security than is available today. Today a judge could wait until the end of the day, bribe the other judges and replace current paper ballots. If we want a system more secure than today's systems, I agree we need a whole new plan.
Why would we spend billions of dollars on a system that is less secure or differently insecure than the current system? That's just stupid.
9. The point of an audit is that you check a small (0.5% - 10% of the ballots against a report. If the vote report for a location listed all the VOTE_IDs above the total for the candidate. The audit compares the receipts to the reports. Even one mis-match (a VOTE_ID on the receipt in conflict with the report) reveals tampering. Much more reliable than today.
You can't print a unique id on the print outs because the votes have to be anonymous. You also can't know that the end of day print out isn't altered in the same way as the voter print outs. They only way to be sure, would be to count _all_ the paper ballots and make sure the total sent to the master counting system jibes with the e-total. You can't count a subset because you can't link a e-vote to a paper ballot. Even if you could, we're talking about software so the fraud can take place at any point, and the system can remember the real count and the fraudulent count.
10b2. Of course, this is doomsday, this is a faulty report. The only choices are reschedule or accept a tampered vote. I think the choice is obvious.
There is no reschedule option (-- That's a period) The only choice would be to throw out all the suspect votes, but the reprecussions from that are obviously huge.
Slashdot Mirror
How are any of those rights removed by the PATRIOT act? Please cite the specific section. I'm especially interested in the part where it says law enforcement no longer has to get search warrants. You do of course realize that the right to be free of unreasonable searches is guaranteed by the 4th Ammendment, and that a law passed by Congress can't overrule that, right? Have you even read the act or are you just repeating what you've heard?
I think you misunderstood the question. The poster asked WHICH RIGHTS were taken away, not which laws you don't like. Maybe you did understand the question, but you didn't have an answer for it?
Neither Red Hat nor Microsoft sell windows. They both sell operating systems. If Microsoft was trying to trademark "Operating System" you might have a point.
All 191 United Nations members agree on a treaty to prohibit cloning human beings, but they are divided over whether to extend such a ban to stem cell and other research known as therapeutic cloning.
That's the everyone I was talking about, and that is the problem I thought you were offering a solution to.
The ability to clone just the organ you need, as opposed to an entire person, would be such a fantastic step forward it can't be overstated.
Actually, it can be and it is overstated quite frequently. There's a down side to being able to keep people alive longer. Maybe you haven't noticed that the world's population is on the rise, more people are living in povery, lots of people don't have food, and Social Security is going bankrupt.
I'm mildly curious why I never hear about this tidbit of info in any stem cell debates, since it's the perfect human solution: Group A gets what they want without being in moral opposition to Group B.
You don't hear more about it because it has no propaganda value.
How is that different from human cloning, which everyone agrees should be banned? The only way the cloners can justify using embryos for cloning is to destroy them and declare them non-human life.
I think by models they meant instanciations, and if so we've seen all of them. 2 are dead, 1 is on Galactica, and 9 are at the ammo dump.
I think you need to go back and retake ground school. You should also do some MCA practice. It's a lot of fun flying a Cessna backwards, and it doesn't take anywhere near 100 knot winds.
No matter what you've been told about the "dangerous downwind turn" an airplane doesn't care how fast or in what direction the body of air it is in is moving (excluding events like windshear of course). Clearly it could kill your groundspeed, which is what caused him to get stuck, but there's no danger to the plane. A crosswind on landing is a different story (maximum demonstrated crosswind component is only ~15 knots in a 172) but winds aloft are not the same as at ground level, and I'd imagine that in Antarctica he could land in the direction of his choosing.
Yup, summer. Which also means they can order new supplies and have them arrive in a timely manner. This guy just wants fuel - Do you suppose it costs more (both monetarily and time-wise) to have a few hundred gallons of fuel flown in, or a transport plane capable of taking Johanson's RV-4 back with it?
I think it costs much more to ship out his plane. But he'll have to pay for it. I'm sure no one would stop him from flying in his own fuel if he wanted, but the point being made is that he's on his own. If you want to fly down there great, but don't plan on the kindness of strangers. They aren't going to let him die, but they aren't going to help his mission either.
I'll agree that the scientists have only a minimal obligation to keep this guy alive, but refusing to refuel him appears to create more of a burden for everyone, as well as passing up a great opportunity to make a few bucks.
They don't care about the money. And they aren't creating more of a burden for everybody, they are just rightly not allowing this guy to create a burden for them. The burden on him is his own making, they are declining to help him shoulder it. Basically they are saying, "Pretend we aren't here."
Essentially you're saying only the very rich or government/company backed individuals should be allowed to get anywhere near Antarctica.
No they are saying that only self sufficient expeditions should go to Antarctica, and they'd be happy if even those stayed home. It isn't about selling fuel, or how much they could sell it for, it's about keeping the barriers up. If they give him fuel they significantly lower the barriers for anyone considering doing this sort of thing in the future. They aren't there to encourage tourism or make a profit they are there to do research.
If you think there is money to be made having gas stations at the south pole, then by all means get some capital and have at it!
How would a 100 knot headwind pose any kind of threat to a plane in flight?
Last I checked, Australia was owned by nobody, by international agreement.
I think the Australians might disagree with you.
Darl (not Linus) said that "Copyright law should be interpreted to promote financial gain" - which everybody pretty knows to be false.
No he didn't. He said the article of the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to make copyright law should be interpreted to promote financial gain. If this argument is accepted it would follow that any copyright laws passed by Congress which were not intended to promote financial gain would be unconstitutional.
The problem with Linus's 'rebuttal' is that it's just a strawman. He's chosing the defininition of financial gain that he wants to argue against, but it isn't necessarily the definition that McBride would use. McBride didn't claim that the requirement for financial gain originates in ths USC, he claims that it originates in the Constitution. He also wasn't refering to the USC's definition of financial gain. Financial gain was merely his shorthand interpretaion of "progress in the arts and sciences."
If McBride's argument is correct (I don't think it is) then you can quote the USC all day long, but any part of it which doesn't promote financial gain is moot since unconstitional laws have no power. It doesn't matter how the USC defines financial gain, it matters how you interpret "progress in the art and sciences" in the Constitution.
You don't have to modify what's on the strip, you only have to modify the probablity of hitting a certain spot.
The ratio of payouts is actually varied based on time of day and day of week. I don't know what the specifics of the law are, but I think it's based on the aggregate payout, not the payout at any given time.
22,200 just looks made up.
So if you put together the GDP of 18 countries it's roughly equal to the GDP of the US. No wonder you Euros have such an inferiority complex.
Well, Germany is a member of the Axis of Weasels with their good buddy, France. Since Italy is currently a member of the Coalition Against Raping Dictators, I'm sure they will soon be kicked out of the EU by France unless France finds someone to surrender to in the meantime.
Because they'll have surrendered to the enemy by then.
So why were you getting your asses kicked by the Axis before the US entered WWII? Before the US entered the war we weren't really spending much on the war machine, but Europe was putting every dime they had into making war. When we did enter the war we managed to crank up the war machine, increase domestic output and help pull your butts from the fire. You think you could out R&D the US? Do you remember that the USSR went Chapter 11 when they tried that?
If you are using the interfaces on the pimp you're doing it wrong.
Bullshit. The images on the doors are concessions to illiterates, not heterosexuals. If you are a man (do you have a dick?) go in the men's room. If you are a woman (do you have a vagina?) go in the women's room. Have both? Flip a coin, but the men's room usually has a shorter line. I don't give a rat's ass if you are wearing a skirt or not.
As long as you are not checking every vote the probability of detecting the cheat is (ratio of fraudulent votes) * (ratio of checked votes), so you haven't improved over the existing system, but you've given up on anonymity.
The computerized system starts out at a significant disadvantage to the paper ballot system because there are a finite number of ways to cheat a paper system. That's why all of the computerized systems are trending towards glorified systems for filling out paper ballots.
When I vote today, I am handed a ballot after I present my credentials. I trust that there is not a mark that ties me to the ballot. Same thing with a VOTE_ID, it would be generated sequencially. I would have to trust that there is no cross reference to my identity. Hopefully the voting process should make that obvious.
The cross reference is you standing there with a ballot with a unique ID. Plus if you want to be able to correct said ballot, you must be able to somehow prove that it is YOUR ballot after the vote is cast.
I think a reporting / audit process could easily be designed but it would require a VOTE_ID to be able to use a sampling process.
So I write my trojan to report the correct vote whenever you query it with a particular VOTE_ID, but always report my adjusted total. Unless you check every single vote, I always win.
In my county we use scantron type ballots (really easy you just color the circle next to the right name). When you are done you feed the ballot into the reader attached to a locked box. The computer counts the votes, but the original ballots are safely locked away in case a manual recall is called for. A new very expensive computerized system would have to be BETTER than this system or it's worthless.
4. The point here is not to offer more security than is available today. Today a judge could wait until the end of the day, bribe the other judges and replace current paper ballots. If we want a system more secure than today's systems, I agree we need a whole new plan.
Why would we spend billions of dollars on a system that is less secure or differently insecure than the current system? That's just stupid.
9. The point of an audit is that you check a small (0.5% - 10% of the ballots against a report. If the vote report for a location listed all the VOTE_IDs above the total for the candidate. The audit compares the receipts to the reports. Even one mis-match (a VOTE_ID on the receipt in conflict with the report) reveals tampering. Much more reliable than today.
You can't print a unique id on the print outs because the votes have to be anonymous. You also can't know that the end of day print out isn't altered in the same way as the voter print outs. They only way to be sure, would be to count _all_ the paper ballots and make sure the total sent to the master counting system jibes with the e-total. You can't count a subset because you can't link a e-vote to a paper ballot. Even if you could, we're talking about software so the fraud can take place at any point, and the system can remember the real count and the fraudulent count.
10b2. Of course, this is doomsday, this is a faulty report. The only choices are reschedule or accept a tampered vote. I think the choice is obvious.
There is no reschedule option (-- That's a period) The only choice would be to throw out all the suspect votes, but the reprecussions from that are obviously huge.