I am certainly not defending this program as Constitutional. In my opinion, it is not. Nevertheless Congress can go beyond Constitutional requirements and have a (secret, unaccountable) court review programs when that is not strictly Constitutionally required. That is one way to interpret the program which would not violate the Constitution, and we already know (sadly) that it doesn't violate federal statutes.
In the end, your opinion and mine don't matter very much. If the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government approve of this program, as do a majority of American voters, then sure I'll get all pissy about it and try to change an opinion or two if I can, but if I believe in Democracy then eventually I have to let the country proceed when I'm in the minority.
Usually the decision hinges on 'unreasonable'. Read it carefully: a reasonable search or seizure needs no warrant at all, much less one based on probably cause supported by Oath or affirmation, nor one particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Agreed. I switched to Feedly a few hours after Google told me they didn't want me to get news from them anymore. I think it's pretty good. The thing I miss from GR is using 'n' and 'p' to read the next and previous news stories. Feedly's documentation swears that it supports keyboard shortcuts, but it doesn't work for me on any of my machines. The layout is usually pretty nice. I'd like more features, but the basic implementation is a satisfactory replacement for Reader.
You know they correct for that, right? Do you think pollmakers are mentally retarded? These are mathematicians, they use math to work around such problems.
I never understood why conservatives were upset about F&F. It was a program that helped get guns into the hands of the public. If the Democrats had tried to stop Bush from doing it, the Teatards would have started a revolution blathering about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" Seriously this is the party with a platform plank for making sure criminals have easy access to murder weapons by opposing background checks. Since when did the Republicans have the moral authority to complain about guns?
Oh shut up with the bullshit, that's bullshit. Bush authorized torture. I don't care how many lawyers you have, that's not legal.
And Obama could blow up the motherfucking planet and he'd be covered by the AUMF. You don't need to try hard to "stay within the law" when the law is "do whatever the fuck you want, it's all good". Don't pretend that the same bad laws which protected Bush don't protect Obama -- and Obama is the one openly calling for the AUMF to be repealed.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
"I read as far as the second syllable of the fourth word and then stopped reading. The problem must be with the article, because the problem couldn't possibly be with my oh hey look a cloud."
After it took you nine pages to ask a question that could have been asked with twenty words. The superfail is your inability to compose.
Oh, here, let me go on for nine more pages to make my point...
A corporation can do anything a government can do, and so can your neighbor or any other person or organization, because all of those things are just people doing stuff. At the end of the day democracy is the best tool, though imperfect, for fighting power abuse. No other tool is as good as democracy.
Well, I certainly appreciate your anecdote, it will make me do extra research before I ever buy a Samsung. I had never heard of the problems you describe. But their reputation is good and gaining so if I ever buy a new smartphone (I've never owned a new smartphone*, only used ones, and never a Samsung) then they are a likely choice for me.
* I tried that Republic phone for a month but it didn't work well enough. It's a great concept but the implementation, alas, left too much to be desired.
Good luck, roc! Telecommunications is a pain in the butt.
Mmmm, no, then we'd have powerful corporations (unelected concentrations of power) with no way to fight against them. With democratic government (elected concentration of power) at least we have a bit of say. And don't feed me that bullshit about the power of the people voting against corporations with their wallets -- that is nonsense and all thinking people see right through it. It has never worked before, ever, in the entire history of humanity, so it is crazytalk to say that it would magically happen if only we had anarchy-markets.
Powerful government is a problem but powerless government is a bigger problem. There's a balance and we're not too far off of it. So long as democracy continues to function, we're mostly okay. Today, in America, we're mostly okay. It could be better, but we're doing better than most other places in the world, and we're doing better than pretty much any time in the past.
I've never owned a Samsung phone but I hope to someday. They look nice.
On the other hand, FUCK ATT. They are fucking bastards and I hated every single moment that I was their customer. I'm on a prepaid plan now (PagePlus) and much happier. My service is cheaper and better and it is totally impossible for me to be overcharged.
You guys over there are so cute, what with your Theocratic Monarchy and all. I love how you pretend that you joined the rest of the world in the 18th century, but really you never did. Heck even Canada became a real country in 1982!
You (and I) live in a country where it is illegal to intercept some signals thrown out into the universe. I share your opinion that that is ridiculous. The answer to the problem of people intercepting signals is encryption not prosecution.
More like comparing Pink Lady apples to Honeycrisp apples. They are very similar products, but not exactly the same. I would compare it to the similarity between Bluetooth and Wifi.
"Keep your aircraft carriers 500km away from our coast (even though "territorial waters" extends only 19.3km) or we'll fire ICBMs at them?"
Yes, of course, if you have a big enough military beef with a country. Isn't that what we're talking about? Here let me go check the thread...
"The purpose is to deter the US" "How does an ICBM with a range of 5,500km deter a country that's 12,500km away?" "by scaring away warships"...yep that's what we're talking about.
I'm just saying, you can deter a country (especially one like the USA which uses warships and international military bases) without having the capability to bomb their homeland. I feel like that is an uncontroversial statement. You really feel otherwise?
"Anyways, the MIRV missiles here are decidedly not for defense, as the (very short) article also states.... First strike == aggression != defense"
I'm not going to let you get away with that nonsense. First strike does not equal aggression. That's poppycock. First strikes might or might not be aggression depending on other circumstances.
Yes. What you said is true -- true and irrelevant. That's why we "make distinctions", because the distinctions matter, making the rest of what you said irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
I am certainly not defending this program as Constitutional. In my opinion, it is not. Nevertheless Congress can go beyond Constitutional requirements and have a (secret, unaccountable) court review programs when that is not strictly Constitutionally required. That is one way to interpret the program which would not violate the Constitution, and we already know (sadly) that it doesn't violate federal statutes.
In the end, your opinion and mine don't matter very much. If the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government approve of this program, as do a majority of American voters, then sure I'll get all pissy about it and try to change an opinion or two if I can, but if I believe in Democracy then eventually I have to let the country proceed when I'm in the minority.
Usually the decision hinges on 'unreasonable'. Read it carefully: a reasonable search or seizure needs no warrant at all, much less one based on probably cause supported by Oath or affirmation, nor one particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Agreed. I switched to Feedly a few hours after Google told me they didn't want me to get news from them anymore. I think it's pretty good. The thing I miss from GR is using 'n' and 'p' to read the next and previous news stories. Feedly's documentation swears that it supports keyboard shortcuts, but it doesn't work for me on any of my machines. The layout is usually pretty nice. I'd like more features, but the basic implementation is a satisfactory replacement for Reader.
You know they correct for that, right? Do you think pollmakers are mentally retarded? These are mathematicians, they use math to work around such problems.
Alien and Sedition much? That was 1798, so golly it was a pretty brief window of magical perfect freedom that the Republicans love to harken back to.
I never understood why conservatives were upset about F&F. It was a program that helped get guns into the hands of the public. If the Democrats had tried to stop Bush from doing it, the Teatards would have started a revolution blathering about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" Seriously this is the party with a platform plank for making sure criminals have easy access to murder weapons by opposing background checks. Since when did the Republicans have the moral authority to complain about guns?
Oh shut up with the bullshit, that's bullshit. Bush authorized torture. I don't care how many lawyers you have, that's not legal.
And Obama could blow up the motherfucking planet and he'd be covered by the AUMF. You don't need to try hard to "stay within the law" when the law is "do whatever the fuck you want, it's all good". Don't pretend that the same bad laws which protected Bush don't protect Obama -- and Obama is the one openly calling for the AUMF to be repealed.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Agreed. Note that in 2004 the Democrats ran ads against the Green candidate.
Still, it's mostly worthless.
Yes, apparently, back in the 1940s when the NSA was formed.
No, I didn't. Thanks for asking but try to stay on topic.
No, dude, you don't get to say this
"I read as far as the second syllable of the fourth word and then stopped reading. The problem must be with the article, because the problem couldn't possibly be with my oh hey look a cloud."
After it took you nine pages to ask a question that could have been asked with twenty words. The superfail is your inability to compose.
Oh, here, let me go on for nine more pages to make my point...
Who do you fear more, elected people who come to take your home away or unelected people who come to take your home away?
A corporation can do anything a government can do, and so can your neighbor or any other person or organization, because all of those things are just people doing stuff. At the end of the day democracy is the best tool, though imperfect, for fighting power abuse. No other tool is as good as democracy.
Well, I certainly appreciate your anecdote, it will make me do extra research before I ever buy a Samsung. I had never heard of the problems you describe. But their reputation is good and gaining so if I ever buy a new smartphone (I've never owned a new smartphone*, only used ones, and never a Samsung) then they are a likely choice for me.
* I tried that Republic phone for a month but it didn't work well enough. It's a great concept but the implementation, alas, left too much to be desired.
Good luck, roc! Telecommunications is a pain in the butt.
Mmmm, no, then we'd have powerful corporations (unelected concentrations of power) with no way to fight against them. With democratic government (elected concentration of power) at least we have a bit of say. And don't feed me that bullshit about the power of the people voting against corporations with their wallets -- that is nonsense and all thinking people see right through it. It has never worked before, ever, in the entire history of humanity, so it is crazytalk to say that it would magically happen if only we had anarchy-markets.
Powerful government is a problem but powerless government is a bigger problem. There's a balance and we're not too far off of it. So long as democracy continues to function, we're mostly okay. Today, in America, we're mostly okay. It could be better, but we're doing better than most other places in the world, and we're doing better than pretty much any time in the past.
I've never owned a Samsung phone but I hope to someday. They look nice.
On the other hand, FUCK ATT. They are fucking bastards and I hated every single moment that I was their customer. I'm on a prepaid plan now (PagePlus) and much happier. My service is cheaper and better and it is totally impossible for me to be overcharged.
You guys over there are so cute, what with your Theocratic Monarchy and all. I love how you pretend that you joined the rest of the world in the 18th century, but really you never did. Heck even Canada became a real country in 1982!
Your attempt at pedantry fails: An excise or excise tax (sometimes called a duty of excise special tax) is an inland tax...
You (and I) live in a country where it is illegal to intercept some signals thrown out into the universe. I share your opinion that that is ridiculous. The answer to the problem of people intercepting signals is encryption not prosecution.
A computer running iPlayer doesn't "receive tv signals" does it?
"Doesn't matter what history shows."
That's the refrain of the conquered and the unscientific.
More like comparing Pink Lady apples to Honeycrisp apples. They are very similar products, but not exactly the same. I would compare it to the similarity between Bluetooth and Wifi.
"Keep your aircraft carriers 500km away from our coast (even though "territorial waters" extends only 19.3km) or we'll fire ICBMs at them?"
Yes, of course, if you have a big enough military beef with a country. Isn't that what we're talking about? Here let me go check the thread...
"The purpose is to deter the US" ...yep that's what we're talking about.
"How does an ICBM with a range of 5,500km deter a country that's 12,500km away?"
"by scaring away warships"
I'm just saying, you can deter a country (especially one like the USA which uses warships and international military bases) without having the capability to bomb their homeland. I feel like that is an uncontroversial statement. You really feel otherwise?
"Anyways, the MIRV missiles here are decidedly not for defense, as the (very short) article also states.... First strike == aggression != defense"
I'm not going to let you get away with that nonsense. First strike does not equal aggression. That's poppycock. First strikes might or might not be aggression depending on other circumstances.
Well, I imagine by scaring away warships, the ones America has used in 100% of armed conflicts for a century. Isn't that what you also figure?
Yes. What you said is true -- true and irrelevant. That's why we "make distinctions", because the distinctions matter, making the rest of what you said irrelevant.