Not by an ordinary citizen they can't — legally. The ("insightful") poster I was responding to, insisted, that we have just as much right to break into e-mail accounts of government officials, as they are allowed to break into ours under Patriot Act...
Yeah, really worked out for the Romans in the end.
Roman civilization lasted for 2000 years — from around 500BC, when the city was founded, to the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
That's pretty long by any measure — US has existed for less than 250 years — even if we ignore for a second the fact, that the modern Europe (and the US) consider themselves the descendants of their civilization.
But you did not just make a moronic irrelevant observation, that all earlier civilizations have waned for some reason or the other — or else they wouldn't be "earlier" — and that we should not adapt any of their opinions or other features, if we want to survive.
You must've tried to make a specific point... And the only point you could've been making in the context, is that the disdain for entertainers has, in your opinion, contributed (significantly) to Romans' demise. Is that what you are saying?
Try telling Tom Cruise that Scientology is a crock. I'd imagine he'd scream incoherently at the top of his lungs, jump up and down then rip your face off.
Matt Damon or Lindsey Lohan would do the same to you, if you tell them, Obama is a crock... With Barbara Streisand singing a notch lauder to drown your screams...
Seriously, there is a good reason, Romans considered entertainers to be among the lowest class of citizens — above only prostitutes... They weren't even allowed to serve in the regular army units.
When someone does this sort of hacking/eavesdropping/snooping to a government official, it's called "a shocking invasion of...privacy and a violation of law." When the government does it to you, it's called the "Patriot Act."
Guess what? You can't legally imprison government officials either — but they can do it to you... Because they are, uhm, government officials. Get over it.
which calls them evidence that the GOP vice presidential candidate has improperly used private email
Oh, yes, right. Whatever excuses can be found to (try to) justify publishing illegally-obtained materials...
That the other site carrying these is Gawker ought to tell you, how low Obama's fans are willing to stoop.
McCain, they said, is unqualified, because he is not using e-mail (never mind, that his repeatedly-broken hands make typing painful for him). And Sarah Palin is unfit because she has a personal e-mail account (with pictures of her children)?
Sorry, I don't believe this "change". So much so, one would be excused for suspecting, an anti-Obama provocateur has done this...
Or realtors with connections tracked the movements of other realtors, only to make counter-offers on all of their good finds.
The customers would benefit — just as they did from pricewatch or Froogle (to name just a few).
But these are all off-topic, because they exemplify non-governmental (ab)use of the cameras.
Ever been to a friend's birthday party at a strip club? You can give up on your goal of becoming a teacher now: it's public.
Nope, not if everyone's behavior is up for a similar review.
What would the cost be if a senator in the pocket of Boeing could smear Northrup out of a bidding war before it happened?
Our entire system — separation of powers, markets, prosecution vs. defense et al. — is based on pitching people (along with their flaws) against each other. These cameras will not represent anything revolutionary new — companies and people already hire private investigators to "smear" others. The proposed cameras would be just the next evolutionary step — and they may equalize us — they would've recorded Ted Kennedy's drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident just as scrupulously, as a policeman investigates such allegations against an ordinary citizen.
Seriously, I think, you "oversuspect" the technlogy approach. For example, I always argue, that automatic toll-payment systems should be routinely used to issue speeding citations — based on the distance between the vehicle's entrance and exit and the time in between. This would slow everybody down and quickly cause the speeding limits to be raised to reasonable levels or eliminated altogether... As things stand, the policemen's discretion leads inevitably to selective enforcement...
This technology is equivalent to having hundreds of thousands (millions) of officers watching the public highways and recording the every license plate. Included are also the clerks collecting the notes and able to search through them in seconds.
No society could afford this many policemen — the cameras and the computers are productivity tools, just as they are in the offices or at industrial facilities.
The old adage is, police can solve any crime, but not every crime — for lack of resources.
The real question is, do we want to increase the ratio of solved crimes (up to 100%) — as the technology may allow us to do? Or do we want to allow some transgressions unpunished to allow some "breathing room" for future fighters against some hypothetical tyranny?
Secondly: $40 billion out of a $2.8 trillion budget isn't much of a difference between social security and defense. Do you really think that justifies voting Republican over Democrat or vis versa?
I think, I knocked your argument on its back — that, no, contrary to your jest, "current Republicans" would not "spend all the money on wars". Now you are splitting hairs trying to get back — not realizing, even, the huge amounts spent on "social security" and other rob-rich-to-buy-poor's-votes schemes by the States, who don't have their own defense budgets. Plus, of course, there are charities — they don't spend on Defense, but they do spend on the poor. So, no, once again, "the current Republicans" would not "spend it all on wars" — far more is spent on hand-outs, despite the "current Republicans" being in power for so long.
instead of mucking about the world wasting my money and getting foreigners pissed at me.
Quite evidently, some foreigners were pissed at you on September 10th, 2001... The others got pissed later — out of envy. They can not attempt, what we did, and so they come up with various reasons, why we should not be doing it either. For example, when we are trying to bring just governance to failing states (Iraq, Afghanistan), they blast us for not fixing North Korea, Sudan, and Iran at the same time.
Hell, if I were smart I'd vote for Obama since the easiest way to cut the budget is to pull right out of Iraq
No, actually, that would not help — we both reviewed the Defense spending, and both concluded, that it is a relatively small part of the budget. So, no, the ignobility of pulling out too early would not help the budget much — and is likely to end up costing even more, because he will be gleefully blaming all problems on Bush, while claiming credit for whatever silver linings there may be. Heck, he is already revealed to have tried to stall the withdrawal process to leave more of the glory for himself...
Therefore, if someone is going to make a big difference in spending it will be a Democrat.
Some Democrats are disagreeable, because they are scumbags, however smart (i.e. Clinton). Obama is revolting because he is a Socialist — he wants to increase taxes on the rich (never mind, that they already pay far more than others) so as to be able to buy the votes of the "middle class". If I wanted to live in his "ideal society", I would not have left Soviet Union. I don't want the America of my dreams (which his pastor would "god damn", no less) to be "Changed" even further in the Socialism direction — it was quite a disappointment to find it as it was 16 years ago...
You are right, that the next President is unlikely to undo the existing travesties completely, but Obama is likely to introduce new ones — beginning with the socialized medicine (I did try it, thank you very much). So, to borrow a slogan: No way - no how!
On the other hand, I have no reasons to worry, that McCain and Palin will try to force me to shoot bears, and if my daughter ever needs an abortion, I'm confident, she'll be able to get one, even if the Federal law guaranteeing access to it (a.k.a. "Roe vs. Wade") is overturned.
If the current Republicans had their way, traveling to Canada for an abortion would be an act of terrorism.
No, it would not. I know, you said it in jest, but you were still wrong. It would never become any harder to travel to Canada for this purpose, than it currently is to travel to Britain from Ireland for the same purpose. Yes, the "European" Ireland, which the liberal Bono is happy to call home, bans abortions. A 17 year-old had to go to court recently to win the right to travel abroad...
The Constitution protects Americans much better against the government's excesses of this kind, than against the other side's... The Founding Fathers had seen, what religious phanatiques can do, but they did not live to witness Marx...
And they'll match or beat Democrats at spending with their wars.
Another jest... In 2007 — 7 years into the rule of "the current Republicans" — we were still spending more on Social Security alone (without Medicare, Medicad, transportation, etc.) than on the entire Defense (wars and all). 2006 is about same.
Unfortunately, the alternative to the guy who promises to pillage my wallet is a lukewarm cadaver.
Given this choice, I'd vote for a cadaver in a heartbeat. Fortunately, McCain is quite hale and healthy, so the choice is perfectly clear.
There is a deeper truth in here. You may disagree — and most Libertarians do — with both major movements (the Left and the Right). We despise the Left's intent to spend our money (taken from us at gunpoint, remember) as they see fit, while the Right's quest to control our bodies is quite repulsive too.
The reason most Libertarians end up siding with the Right, is because it is possible to escape them. As long as I have my money, I can travel to Canada to have an abortion, put blinds on my windows, or move to a less conservative State. On the other hand, if my "windfall" income is taxed, being able to engage anal sex and have an abortion (in a state-run clinic, of course) is poor consolation — I'm not into most of those things anyway, even though I think, they ought to be perfectly legal as a matter of principle.
I'm not sure that's a good test. I mean, yes, there were other hypertext interfaces [...]
Uhm, so — you doubt the test's validity in one sentence, and then try to satisfy it in the next? Weird...
Tim's protocols and markup language were the ones that became widely adopted.
So? Did RIM ("Blackberry") invent "wireless email"?
It's generally accepted that the web's success is down to the accessibility of the technology rather than the basic ideas behind it.
That's NCSA's Mosaic, of which Sir Tim was only one of the contributors — and Netscape...
Citing Gopher as prior art seems to me to be seriously missing the point.
I don't know, if you've used it, but it really was quite similar — the graphical Mosaic was simply the next logical step, as the hardware became better.
We all feel for the man but how many times do we have to see this card played? And quite frankly what bearing does it have on his qualifications?
No bearing at all — it just explains, why he is not a computer user.
The point is that some physical issues are pertinent to what your expected to do. As per your example would you like your cab driver to be blind?
No, I don't want my cab driver to be blind — but that's not a requirement for a governor. Similarly, I wouldn't mind my president being unable to type — no matter how many times Obama (the Let's-Talk-about-Issues! Obama) mocks that handicap in his opponent.
Did you just compare a bunch of old, rich, white people [...]
No, I was just demonstrating, how two wrongs can sometimes make a right. My example consisted of discriminating against minorities (wrong number 1), which is currently being followed by discriminating against whites (wrong number 2) — to make right at the end. I like to compare this to bending a bent stick into the opposite direction to righten it...
Similarly, if the original poster, who was so completely ignorant of Hollywood's vast ties to the Democratic Party, were to now vote for the Republicans, he would've compensated for the past untruths, which he said and posted about them... Even if voting Republican were "wrong", he would be apologizing and compensating them...
Having done so enough times, he would be free to vote freely again, based upon other issues, whatever they might be.
McCain accused Obama of teaching about sex. Not about sex-education, as you, amazingly, continue to repeat! Sorry, kid, you aren't qualified to talk on an adults' forum.
You missed the point — and the associated lesson in answering questions — even after it was rammed into your pimpled face...
Now, feeling charitable, I'll explain, that one simply can not teach about "sexual predators" without also mentioning "sex" in some way (and answering related questions from curious toddlers). Whether Obama-sponsored legislation was good or bad, McCain's ad was technically true...
Um, why for cripes sake? I know a guy who voted for Bush [...]
Here is why I I supported Bush. (I don't mention there, that I strongly dislike Socialists and any talk of "income redistribution" — because it was not Bush-specific.)
Khmm... I wonder, what made him a "nutter" in your opinion. The disagreement with you or the desire to remain anonymous?
But he isn't trying to file a patent [...]
If he were, he would've failed — and that's the test, that we should be employing in determining, whether anyone is an inventor of something. The ability to pass the patent's requirements may not be sufficient to deserve the honor (there are some ridiculous patents awarded), but it ought to be a required condition. And Tim would've failed, if only for the abundance of prior art...
The bending of a stick in the other direction may be a way to righten in straight. Just consider the "affirmative action" programs, which discriminate against whites in order to compensate for the past discrimination against minorities... The trick, of course, is in knowing, when to stop — but that's even further off-topic.
McCain must have had some help with this, we all know he doesn't use computers, doesn't know how to use e-mail and admittedly depends upon his wife for that.
Clinton, reportedly, has personally authored a total of two (that's 2, not 2000) e-mails in eight years in office. Certainly, McCain's wife could help her husband do as many — or more, as she wouldn't be distracted by neither her own senatorial and presidential ambitions nor by having to chase out the pretty interns.
As for McCain's being reluctant to type, maybe, the fact, that his arms were repeatedly broken by his Vietnamese torturers, has something to do with that? The man can't raise his hands above his shoulders — must you blast him for depending upon his wife to comb his hair?
Talk about out of touch with the 21st Century.
Gee, if this were required qualifications for an executive office, certainly, the blind Governor of New York should be disqualified, because he can't drive and is thus "out of touch" with New York's horrific traffic congestion problems.
When repeating Obama's ads on other forums, check the expiration date — they get stale very quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's exactly what I said. Why waste time and bandwidth to post a "ditto"?
Not by an ordinary citizen they can't — legally. The ("insightful") poster I was responding to, insisted, that we have just as much right to break into e-mail accounts of government officials, as they are allowed to break into ours under Patriot Act...
That would be illegal.
Roman civilization lasted for 2000 years — from around 500BC, when the city was founded, to the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
That's pretty long by any measure — US has existed for less than 250 years — even if we ignore for a second the fact, that the modern Europe (and the US) consider themselves the descendants of their civilization.
But you did not just make a moronic irrelevant observation, that all earlier civilizations have waned for some reason or the other — or else they wouldn't be "earlier" — and that we should not adapt any of their opinions or other features, if we want to survive.
You must've tried to make a specific point... And the only point you could've been making in the context, is that the disdain for entertainers has, in your opinion, contributed (significantly) to Romans' demise. Is that what you are saying?
From the law — she does not. From Gawker — we all do.
Matt Damon or Lindsey Lohan would do the same to you, if you tell them, Obama is a crock... With Barbara Streisand singing a notch lauder to drown your screams...
Seriously, there is a good reason, Romans considered entertainers to be among the lowest class of citizens — above only prostitutes... They weren't even allowed to serve in the regular army units.
Guess what? You can't legally imprison government officials either — but they can do it to you... Because they are, uhm, government officials. Get over it.
Oh, yes, right. Whatever excuses can be found to (try to) justify publishing illegally-obtained materials...
That the other site carrying these is Gawker ought to tell you, how low Obama's fans are willing to stoop.
McCain, they said, is unqualified, because he is not using e-mail (never mind, that his repeatedly-broken hands make typing painful for him). And Sarah Palin is unfit because she has a personal e-mail account (with pictures of her children)?
Sorry, I don't believe this "change". So much so, one would be excused for suspecting, an anti-Obama provocateur has done this...
Did you just write "False" in red pen across my entire posting?
What would happen, that has not already happened?
The customers would benefit — just as they did from pricewatch or Froogle (to name just a few).
But these are all off-topic, because they exemplify non-governmental (ab)use of the cameras.
Nope, not if everyone's behavior is up for a similar review.
Our entire system — separation of powers, markets, prosecution vs. defense et al. — is based on pitching people (along with their flaws) against each other. These cameras will not represent anything revolutionary new — companies and people already hire private investigators to "smear" others. The proposed cameras would be just the next evolutionary step — and they may equalize us — they would've recorded Ted Kennedy's drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident just as scrupulously, as a policeman investigates such allegations against an ordinary citizen.
Seriously, I think, you "oversuspect" the technlogy approach. For example, I always argue, that automatic toll-payment systems should be routinely used to issue speeding citations — based on the distance between the vehicle's entrance and exit and the time in between. This would slow everybody down and quickly cause the speeding limits to be raised to reasonable levels or eliminated altogether... As things stand, the policemen's discretion leads inevitably to selective enforcement...
This technology is equivalent to having hundreds of thousands (millions) of officers watching the public highways and recording the every license plate. Included are also the clerks collecting the notes and able to search through them in seconds.
No society could afford this many policemen — the cameras and the computers are productivity tools, just as they are in the offices or at industrial facilities.
The old adage is, police can solve any crime, but not every crime — for lack of resources.
The real question is, do we want to increase the ratio of solved crimes (up to 100%) — as the technology may allow us to do? Or do we want to allow some transgressions unpunished to allow some "breathing room" for future fighters against some hypothetical tyranny?
of course it is: Isaac Newton — himself a deeply religious member of Royal Society — would never have resigned...
The "war on drugs" is a bipartisan thing.
I think, I knocked your argument on its back — that, no, contrary to your jest, "current Republicans" would not "spend all the money on wars". Now you are splitting hairs trying to get back — not realizing, even, the huge amounts spent on "social security" and other rob-rich-to-buy-poor's-votes schemes by the States, who don't have their own defense budgets. Plus, of course, there are charities — they don't spend on Defense, but they do spend on the poor. So, no, once again, "the current Republicans" would not "spend it all on wars" — far more is spent on hand-outs, despite the "current Republicans" being in power for so long.
Quite evidently, some foreigners were pissed at you on September 10th, 2001... The others got pissed later — out of envy. They can not attempt, what we did, and so they come up with various reasons, why we should not be doing it either. For example, when we are trying to bring just governance to failing states (Iraq, Afghanistan), they blast us for not fixing North Korea, Sudan, and Iran at the same time.
Hell, if I were smart I'd vote for Obama since the easiest way to cut the budget is to pull right out of Iraq
No, actually, that would not help — we both reviewed the Defense spending, and both concluded, that it is a relatively small part of the budget. So, no, the ignobility of pulling out too early would not help the budget much — and is likely to end up costing even more, because he will be gleefully blaming all problems on Bush, while claiming credit for whatever silver linings there may be. Heck, he is already revealed to have tried to stall the withdrawal process to leave more of the glory for himself...
Some Democrats are disagreeable, because they are scumbags, however smart (i.e. Clinton). Obama is revolting because he is a Socialist — he wants to increase taxes on the rich (never mind, that they already pay far more than others) so as to be able to buy the votes of the "middle class". If I wanted to live in his "ideal society", I would not have left Soviet Union. I don't want the America of my dreams (which his pastor would "god damn", no less) to be "Changed" even further in the Socialism direction — it was quite a disappointment to find it as it was 16 years ago...
You are right, that the next President is unlikely to undo the existing travesties completely, but Obama is likely to introduce new ones — beginning with the socialized medicine (I did try it, thank you very much). So, to borrow a slogan: No way - no how!
On the other hand, I have no reasons to worry, that McCain and Palin will try to force me to shoot bears, and if my daughter ever needs an abortion, I'm confident, she'll be able to get one, even if the Federal law guaranteeing access to it (a.k.a. "Roe vs. Wade") is overturned.
No, it would not. I know, you said it in jest, but you were still wrong. It would never become any harder to travel to Canada for this purpose, than it currently is to travel to Britain from Ireland for the same purpose. Yes, the "European" Ireland, which the liberal Bono is happy to call home, bans abortions. A 17 year-old had to go to court recently to win the right to travel abroad...
The Constitution protects Americans much better against the government's excesses of this kind, than against the other side's... The Founding Fathers had seen, what religious phanatiques can do, but they did not live to witness Marx...
Another jest... In 2007 — 7 years into the rule of "the current Republicans" — we were still spending more on Social Security alone (without Medicare, Medicad, transportation, etc.) than on the entire Defense (wars and all). 2006 is about same.
Given this choice, I'd vote for a cadaver in a heartbeat. Fortunately, McCain is quite hale and healthy, so the choice is perfectly clear.
There is a deeper truth in here. You may disagree — and most Libertarians do — with both major movements (the Left and the Right). We despise the Left's intent to spend our money (taken from us at gunpoint, remember) as they see fit, while the Right's quest to control our bodies is quite repulsive too.
The reason most Libertarians end up siding with the Right, is because it is possible to escape them. As long as I have my money, I can travel to Canada to have an abortion, put blinds on my windows, or move to a less conservative State. On the other hand, if my "windfall" income is taxed, being able to engage anal sex and have an abortion (in a state-run clinic, of course) is poor consolation — I'm not into most of those things anyway, even though I think, they ought to be perfectly legal as a matter of principle.
Uhm, so — you doubt the test's validity in one sentence, and then try to satisfy it in the next? Weird...
So? Did RIM ("Blackberry") invent "wireless email"?
That's NCSA's Mosaic, of which Sir Tim was only one of the contributors — and Netscape...
I don't know, if you've used it, but it really was quite similar — the graphical Mosaic was simply the next logical step, as the hardware became better.
"Teach education" is what they do, when preparing teachers. Compare with "Teach Mathematics".
So it was somebody else's foot in your mouth, I see...
He was not accused of sponsoring it — only of voting for it. Technically, the ad was true...
No bearing at all — it just explains, why he is not a computer user.
No, I don't want my cab driver to be blind — but that's not a requirement for a governor. Similarly, I wouldn't mind my president being unable to type — no matter how many times Obama (the Let's-Talk-about-Issues! Obama) mocks that handicap in his opponent.
No, I was just demonstrating, how two wrongs can sometimes make a right. My example consisted of discriminating against minorities (wrong number 1), which is currently being followed by discriminating against whites (wrong number 2) — to make right at the end. I like to compare this to bending a bent stick into the opposite direction to righten it...
Similarly, if the original poster, who was so completely ignorant of Hollywood's vast ties to the Democratic Party, were to now vote for the Republicans, he would've compensated for the past untruths, which he said and posted about them... Even if voting Republican were "wrong", he would be apologizing and compensating them...
Having done so enough times, he would be free to vote freely again, based upon other issues, whatever they might be.
McCain accused Obama of teaching about sex. Not about sex-education , as you, amazingly, continue to repeat! Sorry, kid, you aren't qualified to talk on an adults' forum.
You missed the point — and the associated lesson in answering questions — even after it was rammed into your pimpled face...
Now, feeling charitable, I'll explain, that one simply can not teach about "sexual predators" without also mentioning "sex" in some way (and answering related questions from curious toddlers). Whether Obama-sponsored legislation was good or bad, McCain's ad was technically true...
Here is why I I supported Bush. (I don't mention there, that I strongly dislike Socialists and any talk of "income redistribution" — because it was not Bush-specific.)
No child was taught about sex-education. Take the foot out of your mouth and come back in four years.
Thank you. Next question, please!
Khmm... I wonder, what made him a "nutter" in your opinion. The disagreement with you or the desire to remain anonymous?
If he were, he would've failed — and that's the test, that we should be employing in determining, whether anyone is an inventor of something. The ability to pass the patent's requirements may not be sufficient to deserve the honor (there are some ridiculous patents awarded), but it ought to be a required condition. And Tim would've failed, if only for the abundance of prior art...
That's what's now being called "lies" by the desperate one of the presidential campaigns :-)
The bending of a stick in the other direction may be a way to righten in straight. Just consider the "affirmative action" programs, which discriminate against whites in order to compensate for the past discrimination against minorities... The trick, of course, is in knowing, when to stop — but that's even further off-topic.
Clinton, reportedly, has personally authored a total of two (that's 2, not 2000) e-mails in eight years in office. Certainly, McCain's wife could help her husband do as many — or more, as she wouldn't be distracted by neither her own senatorial and presidential ambitions nor by having to chase out the pretty interns.
As for McCain's being reluctant to type, maybe, the fact, that his arms were repeatedly broken by his Vietnamese torturers, has something to do with that? The man can't raise his hands above his shoulders — must you blast him for depending upon his wife to comb his hair?
Gee, if this were required qualifications for an executive office, certainly, the blind Governor of New York should be disqualified, because he can't drive and is thus "out of touch" with New York's horrific traffic congestion problems.
When repeating Obama's ads on other forums, check the expiration date — they get stale very quickly.
Uhm, with all due respect, what planet are you f-ing from?!
Both the recently deceased Jack Valenti and the current MPAA chairman Dan Glickman are loyal Democrats.
This is the point, where an honest man in your shoes either commits suicide or promises to vote for a Republican as a penance...