Why would someone use an OS that is proprietary and expensive when there is a free OS that is open source and costs nothing? Convenience.
That can't be it, because Windows is not particularly convenient.
Maybe for you. Everyone I know who has a job that requires the use of a computer finds Windows quite convenient. If they had a lot of free time to play around, maybe they'd figure out how to use alternatives. Until then, Windows is convenient.
Our enemies want to destroy our way of life, let's not hand them the knife and stretch our throats. I think the point is, we're doing an excellent job destroying our way of life ourselves. This case is the perfect example of the erosion of the American morals and principles upon which the country was founded. Congratulations. Terrorists:1,Corporations:1,Regular People/Freedom:0. The US has not had and does not have a terrorism problem. Israel has a terrorism problem. Iraq, now, has a terrorism problem.
The US is all flowers and puppies. And corporations.
Please welcome our new corporate dictatorship. I for one am glad I have dual US/EU citizenship. You'll enjoy WALMART, I'll enjoy a continent devoid of those who created the mess the US is in in the first place.
To clarify your "FISA OK'd it" comment, here's the full text of it:
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.
Since you are fond of reading briefs and such, I'm sure that last part of what the judges said should have been part of your "FISA OK'd it" stance. The courts and congress wil determine if he acted legally - contrary to everything you have claimed. And that is what the EFF is trying to do on the Judicial side, and Congress will tackle it on the Legislative side. Thank you. Move along.
Haha.
PS.
The President of the US is not obligated to seek the permission of Congress for anything other than lawmaking. So lets take a look at the branches because its quite obvious you are not familiar with our form of Government. Legislative (Makes laws), Judicial (reviews laws, and execution thereof), and Executive (Executes said laws) - there's a simplified summary for you. I would imagine you would have been able to deduce that the President needs the permission of Congress to do almost everything - after all his job is to EXECUTE its functions as dictated by the constitution and CONGRESS!
The President of the US is not obligated to seek the permission of Congress for anything other than lawmaking. That office is allowed to do things like command the army, poop, and have a beer without congressional oversight
I'm not sure pooping and drinking are in dispute here, so irrelevant to the subject. But let's look at the other claim "seek the permission of Congress for anything other than lawmaking":
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [... ] To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
The President does not just sit around waiting for people to hand him papers to sign (unless his name is Clinton who obviously had far too much time on his hands).
According to this document you deem useless stored under glass and revered by the very people who claim it doesn't apply to them, the President has to sit around waiting for people to hand him permission to do certain things.
FISA is a secret court. If they oversaw the program (or not), you and I are not going to know beyond what they choose to release. To claim knowledge of anything else is foolish. However, we do know that FISA did say it oversaw the program.
The Intel analogy is worthless and not applicable here. Please stick to the facts and argument. The FISA did not say it oversaw the program, to the contrary. Bush said specifically said he didn't need to have FISA or anyone oversee his clearly illegal program.
January 18, 2007, Thursday - Bush administration reverses itself and says it will give secret court jurisdiction over National Security Agency's wiretapping program; says it will also end practice of eavesdropping without warrants on Americans suspected of terrorist ties
Moving on:
What we do know is that the EFF doesn't have a clue when the program began (read the brief) and doesn't have a clue what was disclosed.
That's a great point! We do know from justice department officials that the program started around 2002 soon after the 2001 attacks. We know FISA didn't get oversight until 2007. That leaves 5 years of intentional breaking of the law - the fourth Amendment, plus the FISA law itself. That's why we have the court case and judicial oversight over the other branches, to determine if a law was broken. And so far, all evidence that has come out has shown gross corruption on all scales at the top level of the Bush Administration. Katrina, Libby, FBI illegally obtaining information, removing attorneys who don't play the political game, wiretapping of American citizens, the redifinition of "unreasonable search and seizure".
I realize that incompetence and inexperience are often the reason for gullibility but having some experience in a police state will help those who support the terror of freedom justice and law understand what is wrong with the current picture. I'm just sad that ignorance and the lack of education is so rampant in the United States to allow such underhanded decieving behaviour.
And no court should be allowed to declare the illegal actions and intentional law breaking of the administration retroactively as legal. That makes laws very flexible to those in
You skirted the issue. That's nice. But you claimed FISA oversaw this program ("This is not the case. The case is that FISA, which is a court, asked AT&T to tap people.") and gave permission for it. FISA was not allowed to review this program until recently. The Bush administrator lied about the program's existence, then lied about its legality - "this program does not require court review", and when people started getting really upset, and the democrats took control of Congress, things quickly started changing. All of a sudden the program was allowed to be reviewed by the FISA when it looked like lower courts might find that the president violated the FISA act, the constitution and its mandate to govern given to it by the people. The law was broken and the "We thought we could do it because we're in charge and have to combat the terrorists" argument won't fly.
I'll avoid the age ad hominem as you have yet to make an argument for your original comments, you addressed your original comments by spewing more unrelated garbage.
First your argument was "it was legal and ordered" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti cle/2006/06/26/AR2006062600563.html | "Bush denied overstepping his bounds by not seeking court or congressional approval for the program in the nearly five years since it was established following the attacks of Sept.") then it was "the 9th circuit will probably end up abdicating (this word has an 'a' in it)".
They violated the FISA law, they violated the fourth amendment, and as more of their lies, and twisting of the law get exposed (as was recently exposed with the FBI violating the fourth amendment and laws that they swore they wouldn't violate, "The US Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected financial and personal information on tens of thousands of people since 2003, using a special type of subpoena that does not require judicial review, according to a report by the Justice Department's inspector general. This spying was often carried out in violation of existing laws and regulations.").
Please provide a viable argument for both of your statements avoiding ad hominem and "maybe probably possibly I think" logic. Just put down what is known, called 'the facts'. Then put down what 'the laws' say on the subject. Then explain how the laws weren't violated. Try an argument of "If A happened and the law says A will only happen under these conditions." - And the conditions of A happening weren't met, isn't this a violation of the very laws these people swore to uphold? I don't see how that is a valid argument following any sort of logic. You asserted the FISA court ordered these wiretaps and Bush says he didn't need approval and didn't seek it - do you have some t0p s3kr3t knowledge?
Move along. People like you are exactly what the Administration needs.
I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. But if you aren't you really need to stop bending over, make sure to clean up any of Dubya's stains off your nice pants and proceed to stop spreading lies. That is not how it went and we all know that already - don't treat us like children either. I've run into useless govspeaks like you before - in Communist Romania. You & your cronies won't get away, the unfortunate thing is that none of you will get a proper treatment like Ceausescu did for violating the trust of the people, the rights of the people, and everything that is good and decent and human that the US was supposed to stand for. Fuck you @ the executive branch and and its doublespeak.
When I began my Lithium treatment, I experienced my first encounter with what I call "Lithium Thirst". Extreme unquenchable thirst - until you've experienced Lithium Thirst, you haven't experienced thirst. I'd easily go through at least 2-4L in an hour sometimes. What you have to remember is that as your body's sodium level drops (due to the water) your body starts to retain as much liquid/etc as possible to "retain" the sodium, which only screws the body up more as more water gets added. A healthy salt intake is really needed. With Lithium a healthy salt intake is really important as it aids in removing the element from your body.
I work in the field. Decapping the chips isn't a problem, taking pictures of the chips isn't a problem and doesn't require super-sophisticated equipment and reverse engineering isn't a problem; in fact, it doesn't even take someone with an EE degree to reverse engineer a circuit from die pictures. A highschool degree and 6 months of vocational school for IC Layout Mask Design will let you reverse engineer (draw the schematic from pictures of the die) a chip from die pictures without knowing a single thing as an electrical engineer. Interpreting the reverse engineered circuits/schematics is another matter.
Accents don't matter as much as you claim. In fact, one can easily deduce a word from context even when dropping most of the vowels from it. They do it in Arabic. Accents can change the meaning of a word, but are not entirely necessary.
The question shouldn't be whether 'this happens in every part of the first world' or not, it is whether the information theft is more prevalent in an (non-'first world') environment that is dealing with our (first world) personal information more and more as companies off-shore to poorer countries like India. India has a GDP per capita of $3344, that places the average monthly salary somewhere near $300? Someone making $300 a month working long long hours might be more inclined to *steal* from people who make much more than them, of a different race, of a different nationality, 4000+ miles away to achieve their own selfish goals (whether feeding their family or buying nice first world goods at first world prices - after all, trust me, they're not wiping their asses with Charmin Plus Aloe toilet paper, last time I went to a non-first world country I learned that really quickly). Not to say the same isn't true in first world countries with rich people also stealing (Enron?) for their own selfish reasons. But again the main question is: is it more prevalent there, and is there a system to punish these people? If you haven't lived outside the first-world you really don't understand how 'having laws against something' and 'having laws against something enforced' are two completely different (on a magnitude not comparable to the first world) things with the latter being a huge problem in none-first world countries.
My title is Sr. IC Mask Layout Designer / CAD Engineer, I'm sorry what was yours again?? http://www.answers.com/topic/tape-out tape-out [... ] The term refers to the writing of the magnetic tape with the final data file describing the circuit layout and other details. The term is still used even though magnetic tapes are now rarely used for this process.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would someone use an OS that is proprietary and expensive when there is a free OS that is open source and costs nothing? Convenience.
That can't be it, because Windows is not particularly convenient.
Maybe for you. Everyone I know who has a job that requires the use of a computer finds Windows quite convenient. If they had a lot of free time to play around, maybe they'd figure out how to use alternatives. Until then, Windows is convenient.
The US is all flowers and puppies. And corporations.
Please welcome our new corporate dictatorship. I for one am glad I have dual US/EU citizenship. You'll enjoy WALMART, I'll enjoy a continent devoid of those who created the mess the US is in in the first place.
Regards.
That's great news! More reason not to give the telecoms retroactive immunity: they don't need protection because they did nothing wrong.
Correction. 12 years of Bush, most people seem to forget that. aristocracy?
You used to be a microsoft fanboy...
Orwell was a socialist. Communist and socialist are not the same thing.
Did anyone else read that as Senator Colbert?
I was under the impression distilling in your own hmoe is illegal. That leaves beer & wine.
Since you are fond of reading briefs and such, I'm sure that last part of what the judges said should have been part of your "FISA OK'd it" stance. The courts and congress wil determine if he acted legally - contrary to everything you have claimed. And that is what the EFF is trying to do on the Judicial side, and Congress will tackle it on the Legislative side. Thank you. Move along.
Haha.
PS. The President of the US is not obligated to seek the permission of Congress for anything other than lawmaking. So lets take a look at the branches because its quite obvious you are not familiar with our form of Government. Legislative (Makes laws), Judicial (reviews laws, and execution thereof), and Executive (Executes said laws) - there's a simplified summary for you. I would imagine you would have been able to deduce that the President needs the permission of Congress to do almost everything - after all his job is to EXECUTE its functions as dictated by the constitution and CONGRESS!
It's like arguing with a child. No point. The super intelligence ub3r s3kr3t knowledge he has and lies spewed speak for themselves. :-)
The President of the US is not obligated to seek the permission of Congress for anything other than lawmaking. That office is allowed to do things like command the army, poop, and have a beer without congressional oversight
I'm not sure pooping and drinking are in dispute here, so irrelevant to the subject.
But let's look at the other claim "seek the permission of Congress for anything other than lawmaking":
The President does not just sit around waiting for people to hand him papers to sign (unless his name is Clinton who obviously had far too much time on his hands).
According to this document you deem useless stored under glass and revered by the very people who claim it doesn't apply to them, the President has to sit around waiting for people to hand him permission to do certain things.
FISA is a secret court. If they oversaw the program (or not), you and I are not going to know beyond what they choose to release. To claim knowledge of anything else is foolish. However, we do know that FISA did say it oversaw the program.
The Intel analogy is worthless and not applicable here. Please stick to the facts and argument. The FISA did not say it oversaw the program, to the contrary. Bush said specifically said he didn't need to have FISA or anyone oversee his clearly illegal program.
January 18, 2007, Thursday - Bush administration reverses itself and says it will give secret court jurisdiction over National Security Agency's wiretapping program; says it will also end practice of eavesdropping without warrants on Americans suspected of terrorist ties
Moving on:
What we do know is that the EFF doesn't have a clue when the program began (read the brief) and doesn't have a clue what was disclosed.
That's a great point! We do know from justice department officials that the program started around 2002 soon after the 2001 attacks. We know FISA didn't get oversight until 2007. That leaves 5 years of intentional breaking of the law - the fourth Amendment, plus the FISA law itself. That's why we have the court case and judicial oversight over the other branches, to determine if a law was broken. And so far, all evidence that has come out has shown gross corruption on all scales at the top level of the Bush Administration. Katrina, Libby, FBI illegally obtaining information, removing attorneys who don't play the political game, wiretapping of American citizens, the redifinition of "unreasonable search and seizure".
I realize that incompetence and inexperience are often the reason for gullibility but having some experience in a police state will help those who support the terror of freedom justice and law understand what is wrong with the current picture. I'm just sad that ignorance and the lack of education is so rampant in the United States to allow such underhanded decieving behaviour.
And no court should be allowed to declare the illegal actions and intentional law breaking of the administration retroactively as legal. That makes laws very flexible to those in
You skirted the issue. That's nice. But you claimed FISA oversaw this program ("This is not the case. The case is that FISA, which is a court, asked AT&T to tap people.") and gave permission for it. FISA was not allowed to review this program until recently. The Bush administrator lied about the program's existence, then lied about its legality - "this program does not require court review", and when people started getting really upset, and the democrats took control of Congress, things quickly started changing. All of a sudden the program was allowed to be reviewed by the FISA when it looked like lower courts might find that the president violated the FISA act, the constitution and its mandate to govern given to it by the people. The law was broken and the "We thought we could do it because we're in charge and have to combat the terrorists" argument won't fly.
i cle/2006/06/26/AR2006062600563.html | "Bush denied overstepping his bounds by not seeking court or congressional approval for the program in the nearly five years since it was established following the attacks of Sept.") then it was "the 9th circuit will probably end up abdicating (this word has an 'a' in it)".
I'll avoid the age ad hominem as you have yet to make an argument for your original comments, you addressed your original comments by spewing more unrelated garbage.
First your argument was "it was legal and ordered" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/art
They violated the FISA law, they violated the fourth amendment, and as more of their lies, and twisting of the law get exposed (as was recently exposed with the FBI violating the fourth amendment and laws that they swore they wouldn't violate, "The US Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected financial and personal information on tens of thousands of people since 2003, using a special type of subpoena that does not require judicial review, according to a report by the Justice Department's inspector general. This spying was often carried out in violation of existing laws and regulations.").
Please provide a viable argument for both of your statements avoiding ad hominem and "maybe probably possibly I think" logic. Just put down what is known, called 'the facts'. Then put down what 'the laws' say on the subject. Then explain how the laws weren't violated. Try an argument of "If A happened and the law says A will only happen under these conditions." - And the conditions of A happening weren't met, isn't this a violation of the very laws these people swore to uphold? I don't see how that is a valid argument following any sort of logic. You asserted the FISA court ordered these wiretaps and Bush says he didn't need approval and didn't seek it - do you have some t0p s3kr3t knowledge?
Move along. People like you are exactly what the Administration needs.
I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. But if you aren't you really need to stop bending over, make sure to clean up any of Dubya's stains off your nice pants and proceed to stop spreading lies. That is not how it went and we all know that already - don't treat us like children either. I've run into useless govspeaks like you before - in Communist Romania. You & your cronies won't get away, the unfortunate thing is that none of you will get a proper treatment like Ceausescu did for violating the trust of the people, the rights of the people, and everything that is good and decent and human that the US was supposed to stand for. Fuck you @ the executive branch and and its doublespeak.
I read that as Americans instead of Animals. D'uh.
Your body starts retaining the water in an effort to keep sodium in the body. Those runners also need more sodium in their diet.
When I began my Lithium treatment, I experienced my first encounter with what I call "Lithium Thirst". Extreme unquenchable thirst - until you've experienced Lithium Thirst, you haven't experienced thirst. I'd easily go through at least 2-4L in an hour sometimes. What you have to remember is that as your body's sodium level drops (due to the water) your body starts to retain as much liquid/etc as possible to "retain" the sodium, which only screws the body up more as more water gets added. A healthy salt intake is really needed. With Lithium a healthy salt intake is really important as it aids in removing the element from your body.
http://www.deadspin.com/sports/adam-knox-fund/intr oducing-the-adam-knox-fund-205453.php is the original story dated 10/05/2006. Suppose they tried to move the money from the PayPal account to the bank account on 10/15/2006. PayPal suspends account. That does make me question something tho.. why did it take them so long for their follow up article, http://www.deadspin.com/sports/adam-knox-fund/payp al-doesnt-want-slain-soldiers-families-to-receive- aid-227699.php 01/10/2007)
I work in the field. Decapping the chips isn't a problem, taking pictures of the chips isn't a problem and doesn't require super-sophisticated equipment and reverse engineering isn't a problem; in fact, it doesn't even take someone with an EE degree to reverse engineer a circuit from die pictures. A highschool degree and 6 months of vocational school for IC Layout Mask Design will let you reverse engineer (draw the schematic from pictures of the die) a chip from die pictures without knowing a single thing as an electrical engineer. Interpreting the reverse engineered circuits/schematics is another matter.
Cheers.
Let's all email SCO and inquire about a license. "We heard you're going out of business and were wondering if you could spare us some licenses."
Fine. It's not a "reign of terror". Call it... "shock and awe".
Accents don't matter as much as you claim. In fact, one can easily deduce a word from context even when dropping most of the vowels from it. They do it in Arabic. Accents can change the meaning of a word, but are not entirely necessary.
Get a clue. Cohen's comedy is pure anti-anything bigotry. You obviously missed the point.
The question shouldn't be whether 'this happens in every part of the first world' or not, it is whether the information theft is more prevalent in an (non-'first world') environment that is dealing with our (first world) personal information more and more as companies off-shore to poorer countries like India. India has a GDP per capita of $3344, that places the average monthly salary somewhere near $300? Someone making $300 a month working long long hours might be more inclined to *steal* from people who make much more than them, of a different race, of a different nationality, 4000+ miles away to achieve their own selfish goals (whether feeding their family or buying nice first world goods at first world prices - after all, trust me, they're not wiping their asses with Charmin Plus Aloe toilet paper, last time I went to a non-first world country I learned that really quickly). Not to say the same isn't true in first world countries with rich people also stealing (Enron?) for their own selfish reasons. But again the main question is: is it more prevalent there, and is there a system to punish these people? If you haven't lived outside the first-world you really don't understand how 'having laws against something' and 'having laws against something enforced' are two completely different (on a magnitude not comparable to the first world) things with the latter being a huge problem in none-first world countries.
Yeah, the old entry specifies what tapeout means. I know they used tape to do PCB/etc layout. But we're talking about tapeout not tape.
My title is Sr. IC Mask Layout Designer / CAD Engineer, I'm sorry what was yours again?? ... ]
http://www.answers.com/topic/tape-out
tape-out
[
The term refers to the writing of the magnetic tape with the final data file describing the circuit layout and other details. The term is still used even though magnetic tapes are now rarely used for this process.
Thanks.