The liberty that is being given up is privacy: our expectation that the government will not send out agents to watch us without oversight.
The article is about an increase in legal wiretaps. The increase-figure cited is: "The number of telephone wiretaps from 2000 to 2004 authorized by state and federal judges increased by 44% to 1,710, according to the latest annual report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The vast bulk of the wiretaps related to drug and racketeering investigations, according to the report. But terrorism and other national-security investigations also helped drive the increase, according to security experts and service providers."
The reason it's temporary is that the law-breakers are at least as creative as law enforcement agents, so as they learn how to circumvent wiretaps, the effectiveness of the enforcement will wane.
This is a flawed argument against all wiretapping, including legal. The reason it is flawed, is, even though it might "wane", it will not disappear...
That's what hospitals, banks, advertisers, and doubleclick.com have taken long ago. The democratic governments' record on this is not too bad, actually.
If the current illegal wiretapping scheme or any of the privacy invasions of the Patriot Act actually interfere with terrorists, they will find another means of communication and planning.
"Illegal"? The article is talking about legal wiretapping... "Patriot Act"? The article says "especially in Europe".
But anyway, which "other means of communication and planning" will the enemy use? Their own telephone network? Their own Internet? If they have to attach an encryption expert to every terrorist cell in the field, their efficiency will be crippled. But even that will not work — often times, the content of the communication is less important, than the very fact of it, or a sudden change in its volume.
There has been no evidence offered by the administration that any terrorist attacks have been prevented by the president's warrantless wiretapping.
Up until very recently, there has been no evidence of, for example, Alan Turing's heroic hard work during WW2 either. Such evidence, unfortunately, has to be kept secret until the threat is comfortably over.
Bush just offered something related, but with notably vague details...
Actually, I've probably 'gained' an FBI dossier by posting this, if I don't already have one for being a card-carrying ACLU member and registered Democrat.
Your persecution complex is rivaled only by that of superiority. Don't worry, as long Michael Moore is able to attend national conventions of both major political parties, as long as the brave Democrats, who dared to oppose King George in elections remain well-off US-Senators, you are comfortably safe.
Just like the post-Christ theology of Christianity, Islam has plenty of post-Prophet works of its own. As all religions, Islam provides plenty of excuses for anything the Muslim leaders want.
I think many Muslims believe whatever their imam tells them to beleive...
All the images I was able to go through are either non-credited, or credited to Europeans. Could you be more specific, please?
That site's argument is different from yours too. They don't argue, that depicting the Prophet is Ok with Islam. Their point is, it was done before to much calmer (if any) reactions.
That I totally agree with. Today's crisis is, obviously, artificially created by the enemies of the Western culture.
Do you really think that someone determined to kill alot of people won't be able to pull it off, even with the violations of liberties?
So, what you are really arguing for, is the abolition of all law-enforcement efforts. Because if someone is really determined to commit a crime, they'd pull it off, wouldn't they?
Off-topic. The article is about increases of the use of (lawful) wiretaps (in US and abroad) and its strain on carriers.
And you completely ommitted the second requirement for the applicability of Ben Franklin's quote. You must also demonstrate, that the gains in security are only temporary.
Benjamin Franklin had it right. If we are willing to give away all of this, we do not deserve freedom.
The actual quote, I believe, goes:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
But using the correct quote would take the punch out of your fear-mongering, would not it? You'd have to — both — point at a single essential liberty given up, and explain how the gained security is only temporary. Oops, it is not longer a clear-cut sound bite now, is it?
Showing images of Mohammed or any Prophet is only prohibited by the Wahabbi sect of Islam
Are you sure? Do you have any references for that? I don't have any direct evidence to the contrary either here, but there are no pictures of him anywhere. The Wahabbists may have extended the ban on portrayals of all people and animals, but portraing the Prophet was a no-no from the beginning.
The man fought various pagan idolatry cults for years, but never replaced any of each of these cults' idols with anything.
The balance between security and privacy is affected by fear. On hand, there is a fear of government's abuse and misuse, on the other — that of the foreign enemies and domestic criminals.
Of these factors, only the fear of terrorists (foreign and and domestic) has risen noticably in recent years. Hence the willingness of the citizens of democracies to accept their governments' attempts to prevent new attacks.
However, given the fact that the current administration knew full well that Osama bin Laden intended to use hijacked airliners as missiles
The article you are linking to is from 2003. The commision, creation of which they are talking about there, has actually released their findings since then. Nothing like your "Bush knew full well" allegation was in them — you are simply wrong on this one.
If anything, it is the Americans' trait of fearing their government more than the foreign enemies, that is to blame... The latter fear has increased substantially in recent years, hence the public's acceptance of the administration's eavesdroping antics.
Your attempts to whip the former fear up, on the other hand, are so far fruitless, because, although the government has not become much better, it has not become much worse either... I'll take the unauthorized eavesdropping on terrorist suspects over the authorized raid on the child abuse suspects any day.
wholesale violation of the privacy of American citizens, I really can't see the justification here.
What "wholesale violation of the privacy"? The article talks about harvesting web-sites. No more invasive, than what Google and other search engines do for a living... Carnivore or the Clipper chip — yes, that could've been threatening...
They do not have the privilege of paying what the market can bear.
You contradict yourself... If they can't pay it, then the market can not bear it.
Practically, if the stuff can be made quickly in large quantities, it will be available on poorer markets for less. If it can not — it will be expensive and reach the richest markets first. And that is how the things should be...
Sorry Randians, the lives of billions are more important.
"Billions"? Come, come... The millions were and still are dying waiting for a drug to appear. If a profit-pursuing, IP-protected entity is the first (only!) to deliver it, then the Pursuit of Profit and the concept of Intellectual Property are to be thanked, not vilified....
I see very little need for pilots in the future except
Pilots will be flying these things -- from far away, of course. Not neccessarily from bases on the mainland US -- the speed of light is not infinite, and latency will impact the effectivness of control. But from an airbase, a carrier, or even a submarine close to the action, but not in it? Yes...
Not only will it improve the pilots' safety a lot, and make the aircraft cheaper. Not having to worry about the limitations of the human body will also allow to make them faster and more maneurable. 20g? No problem. 30? Ok. Steel will hold where flesh will not.
While lawsuits from 'green' organizations make plant construction more costly (due to delays), I seriously doubt they are a significant factor.
It is not so much lawsuits, as the red tape and regulations. Another poster in this thread mentioned it being impossible to build new plants. He seems to have meant illegal, which I'll easily believe. The NIMBY mentality is quite pervasive and Greenpeace-like organizations are happy to whip up this sentiment.
Also a large portion of the initial capital outlay for building a nuclear powerplant is the labor required.
Oh, please, at this day and age we can build anything. Britain and Europe are planning to build new nuclear plants too. As, hopefully, is US. The world is wising up again -- you can't explain this away by China's cheaper labor. I'm sure, the main cost is in the know-how, but I'd be interested in your numbers...
Also since China is a large exporter of coal as well as consumer they're reduced export capacity due to local consumption also drives up foreign prices.
Coal is a commodity. The price for it is (almost) the same everywhere. This is a non-argument.
Chinese know the benefits of nuclear power, but have no Greenpeace-like organizations to obstruct them. One of the rare benefits of not being a Democracy...
Slashdot Mirror
But anyway, which "other means of communication and planning" will the enemy use? Their own telephone network? Their own Internet? If they have to attach an encryption expert to every terrorist cell in the field, their efficiency will be crippled. But even that will not work — often times, the content of the communication is less important, than the very fact of it, or a sudden change in its volume.
Up until very recently, there has been no evidence of, for example, Alan Turing's heroic hard work during WW2 either. Such evidence, unfortunately, has to be kept secret until the threat is comfortably over.Bush just offered something related, but with notably vague details...
Your persecution complex is rivaled only by that of superiority. Don't worry, as long Michael Moore is able to attend national conventions of both major political parties, as long as the brave Democrats, who dared to oppose King George in elections remain well-off US-Senators, you are comfortably safe.A practical exception to the theory...
That site's argument is different from yours too. They don't argue, that depicting the Prophet is Ok with Islam. Their point is, it was done before to much calmer (if any) reactions.
That I totally agree with. Today's crisis is, obviously, artificially created by the enemies of the Western culture.
You just had to say something, I guess...
It being command-line compatible with (or simply a back-end of) an existing compiler like gcc is even better.
Add a port of a good OS, and your platform is suddenly incredibly attractive to developers.
And you completely ommitted the second requirement for the applicability of Ben Franklin's quote. You must also demonstrate, that the gains in security are only temporary.
Try again.
Very good. Now you just need to show an essential liberty given up, and demonstrate, that the security increase is merely temporary. Oops...
The man fought various pagan idolatry cults for years, but never replaced any of each of these cults' idols with anything.
Of these factors, only the fear of terrorists (foreign and and domestic) has risen noticably in recent years. Hence the willingness of the citizens of democracies to accept their governments' attempts to prevent new attacks.
Picturing the Prophet in any way is offensive. Showing him smelling flowers, writing a poem, or getting married is strictly forbidden.
That's the dry theory. For the more entertaining practice, see this amusing editorial.
If anything, it is the Americans' trait of fearing their government more than the foreign enemies, that is to blame... The latter fear has increased substantially in recent years, hence the public's acceptance of the administration's eavesdroping antics.
Your attempts to whip the former fear up, on the other hand, are so far fruitless, because, although the government has not become much better, it has not become much worse either... I'll take the unauthorized eavesdropping on terrorist suspects over the authorized raid on the child abuse suspects any day.
What "wholesale violation of the privacy"? The article talks about harvesting web-sites. No more invasive, than what Google and other search engines do for a living... Carnivore or the Clipper chip — yes, that could've been threatening...Some healthy grownups, however, should indeed be "fragged" sometimes, hence the need for weapons.
And Yahoo! too may decide to fight the next US government request to "atone" for the arrests of Chinese dissidents.
They know their users — worldy and sophisticated, so good at seeing the other side, most lose sight of their own.
"Wider", you know, as in "bandwidth"...
Even PCI-X? I'm sure, these will improve too, in the future, of course...
Is not it? A flaimbait of the day...
Practically, if the stuff can be made quickly in large quantities, it will be available on poorer markets for less. If it can not — it will be expensive and reach the richest markets first. And that is how the things should be...
Sorry Randians, the lives of billions are more important. "Billions"? Come, come... The millions were and still are dying waiting for a drug to appear. If a profit-pursuing, IP-protected entity is the first (only!) to deliver it, then the Pursuit of Profit and the concept of Intellectual Property are to be thanked, not vilified....
Not only will it improve the pilots' safety a lot, and make the aircraft cheaper. Not having to worry about the limitations of the human body will also allow to make them faster and more maneurable. 20g? No problem. 30? Ok. Steel will hold where flesh will not.
A welcome progress...
Chinese know the benefits of nuclear power, but have no Greenpeace-like organizations to obstruct them. One of the rare benefits of not being a Democracy...