Executive Branch President and a whole bunch of other depts under him
Legislative Branch Congress or Senate and House or Reps
Judicial Branch Supreme Court and othe Federal Courts
All are "evenly matched" through "checks and balances".
If the Senate and House are evenly split, the power splits pretty evenly. When we're talking about passing laws and such, you need 51% to get anything done. In the Senate it's even worse, because you need a much higher percentage to defeat a filibuster (such as the Democrats have done recently to Bush Judicial nominees).
For more info about the left-leaning US Media read Bias by Bernard Goldberg.
Also, your story from the Mirror (a left wing tabloid if there ever was one) it was the banner headline on Drudge Report, so yes it is getting covered by the American press. Everyone who is anyone in the power circles reads Drudge.
OK, maybe they're right wing compared to what you have over there, but to anyone who has studied media and politics, the only media remotely "right-wing" which is to say centrist, is Fox News/NY Daily News/Boston Herald.
See my previous post. It really depends on what you mean by right wing, we're not talking Moussolini here.
Your viewpoint has been determined to have a left-leaning slant. You have been marked for censorship.
But seriously, how naive are you? Who controls the media in this country?
Liberal journalists SERIOUSLY outnumber conservative ones.
Maybe political power rests with the "right" but the last time I checked the balance of power in the Senate and House was pretty evenly matched. Take off your tin-foil hat.
They're called futurists, they predict what nifty technologies will come down the line.
Speilberg went to great lengths to make Minority Report look as realistic as possible based on information we have now, and some research projects looking toward the future.
Communicators were "Science Fiction" in Star Trek Classic, now we have cell phones galore.
There is also a connection between reality and fiction. Explore that. Smart-ass.
Minority Report? The cameras in the Gap that read people's retina's to recommend special sales and things, similar to recommendations that Amazon.com makes when you sign on.
SOMEDAY these cameras will be cheap enough. If cameras are good enough to do retinal scans, they should be good enough to see where you are looking.
As with most new technologies (see my other post about it) I think the benefits outweigh the risks with this one.
I just spoke to a friend of mine in law-enforcement, and he said suspicious behavior relating to the eyes is l"ooking up and to the right." Something about you doing that naturally when accessing some part of the brain.
Yes, all security-related technology can have positive uses. Nobody is disputing that fact. However, such technologies can also empower the government, law-enforcement agencies, or private business to snoop where they shouldn't snoop, and to stifle our freedoms.
Cars allow the police to patrol our neighborhoods easier... they can cover several blocks per police officer, rather than just one block with a officer walking back and forth.
There are also downsides to cars, they may injure innocent pedestrians, just walking down the street, or cause high-speed pursuits that can go very wrong, and injure a lot of people.
This is not a particularly good example, but anyone can play devil's advocate. Almost any technology can be used to "snoop" on us. Telephones, email, postal mail? All can be snooped on. I guess we'll just have to speak to people in person from now on.
Why is surveillance cameras that spot suspicious behavior bad? It seems like it would be good, because the cameras will not be watching the vast majority of people walking by. Just the ones that are darting from person to person, or back and forth looking for cops.
Also, why didn't the poster mention "use in interfaces for quadriplegics who use their gaze to operate a computer". Sounds like that is a lot more interesting to the Slashdot crowd than surveillance cameras.
Sounds kinda nifty to me. As far as the surveillance part, they won't learn that much from me. Guys look at breasts a LOT. Wow. Newsflash.
Except for the fact that the Judicial branch is pretty much sidestepped when it comes to gathering the information from his ISP under the Patriot Act.
Judicial branch did not sidestep with regard to info from ISP. They determined that it was not unconstitutional. Very different from what you are asserting.
I hope the judge finds that asserting the Patriot Act in this case was wrong.
I can tell you right now that he will not, because that would be like a judge ruling that a search warrant legitimately signed by a judge was unconstitutional. It isn't going to happen.
As we discussed elsewhere, the FBI investigates criminal copyright infringement which is well within their power. Rather than doing the MPAA's "dirty work", the FBI was doing what they are supposed to.
There are checks and balances on their power. It's called the Judicial branch. The FBI is part of the Executive Branch (if I remember my Government class correctly).
When they bring the evidence to trial, the presiding Judge will make judgements (aptly named) about whether the Patriot Act was legitimately used.
And you would be calling bs incorrectly. As I pointed out here:
From the first section: An act "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes."
They should use the tools the have to catch the criminals.
All the people on this site seem to like to talk about how great Europe is compared to the USA. There are lots of restrictions on what you can say and wear relating to Nazi paraphenalia in Germany, and there are cameras EVERYWHERE in London (I just returned from a vacation there).
Jaywalking is not enough for the FBI to come and "take away your stuff" (with a subpoena of course), or make me "disappear forever" (habeas corpus, and before you get into Guantanamo, the difference is I am a US Citizen, nor am I committing treason or trying to destroy the government).
The government is responsible for keeping myself and the country safe from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Since it's an American law we're talking about, and an American company getting investigated, an American fellow getting arrested, and a criminal investigation by the American Government...
It seems that it doesn't much matter if you're not from the States.
From the first section: An act To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
I guess this isn't outside the scope of the law, is it?
More drama on Slashdot when you mention Patriot Act or Bush than in Fahrenheit 9/11.
Slashdot Mirror
Pew Research: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/
v ey_prc4.asp
I CLE_ID=39754
I CLE_ID=39754
I CLE_ID=39754
First, you are wrong: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/journalist_sur
For the National Press:
34% liberal, 54% moderate, 7% conservative
Average American:
20% liberal, 41% moderate, 33% conservative
Spin from both sides:
NPR Spin about said report: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
More spin: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
More spin: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
Talk radio is the last bastion of conservativism.
Try the CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS National News. Try CNN, MSNBC, or even the BBC. You can get their news on most cable channels.
For the radio you have NPR, and Air America if you are in one of their 26 (that's just laughable) markets or have XM Radio.
There are three parts of the US Government
Executive Branch
President and a whole bunch of other depts under him
Legislative Branch
Congress or Senate and House or Reps
Judicial Branch
Supreme Court and othe Federal Courts
All are "evenly matched" through "checks and balances".
If the Senate and House are evenly split, the power splits pretty evenly. When we're talking about passing laws and such, you need 51% to get anything done. In the Senate it's even worse, because you need a much higher percentage to defeat a filibuster (such as the Democrats have done recently to Bush Judicial nominees).
For more info about the left-leaning US Media read Bias by Bernard Goldberg.
Also, your story from the Mirror (a left wing tabloid if there ever was one) it was the banner headline on Drudge Report, so yes it is getting covered by the American press. Everyone who is anyone in the power circles reads Drudge.
It's still up there, go see for yourself.
Any proof that they are liars?
Who are you going to believe? John Kerry and his two-dozen-odd decorated veterans?
Or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth folks with their dozen-dozen decorated veterans? Including a Navy Admiral?
Cite your source. Otherwise, sit down and shut up. And no, that ain't censorship, it's a bitch slap.
Touche. Kofi Annan is going to implode over the Oil for Food program. France and Germany and Russia are in seriously deep shit.
To anyone who doesn't know this story, maybe do a little research before you criticize, ok?
And you would be terribly wrong.
OK, maybe they're right wing compared to what you have over there, but to anyone who has studied media and politics, the only media remotely "right-wing" which is to say centrist, is Fox News/NY Daily News/Boston Herald.
See my previous post. It really depends on what you mean by right wing, we're not talking Moussolini here.
Your viewpoint has been determined to have a left-leaning slant. You have been marked for censorship.
But seriously, how naive are you? Who controls the media in this country?
Liberal journalists SERIOUSLY outnumber conservative ones.
Maybe political power rests with the "right" but the last time I checked the balance of power in the Senate and House was pretty evenly matched. Take off your tin-foil hat.
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/int/2002/07/10/und erkoffler_belker/
They're called futurists, they predict what nifty technologies will come down the line.
Speilberg went to great lengths to make Minority Report look as realistic as possible based on information we have now, and some research projects looking toward the future.
Communicators were "Science Fiction" in Star Trek Classic, now we have cell phones galore.
There is also a connection between reality and fiction. Explore that. Smart-ass.
Minority Report? The cameras in the Gap that read people's retina's to recommend special sales and things, similar to recommendations that Amazon.com makes when you sign on.
SOMEDAY these cameras will be cheap enough. If cameras are good enough to do retinal scans, they should be good enough to see where you are looking.
As with most new technologies (see my other post about it) I think the benefits outweigh the risks with this one.
I just spoke to a friend of mine in law-enforcement, and he said suspicious behavior relating to the eyes is l"ooking up and to the right." Something about you doing that naturally when accessing some part of the brain.
I'm sure someone could Google it...
Yes, all security-related technology can have positive uses. Nobody is disputing that fact. However, such technologies can also empower the government, law-enforcement agencies, or private business to snoop where they shouldn't snoop, and to stifle our freedoms.
Cars allow the police to patrol our neighborhoods easier... they can cover several blocks per police officer, rather than just one block with a officer walking back and forth.
There are also downsides to cars, they may injure innocent pedestrians, just walking down the street, or cause high-speed pursuits that can go very wrong, and injure a lot of people.
This is not a particularly good example, but anyone can play devil's advocate. Almost any technology can be used to "snoop" on us. Telephones, email, postal mail? All can be snooped on. I guess we'll just have to speak to people in person from now on.
I think the idea is that the computers operating the cameras would determine suspicious behavior, not requiring human intervention.
That may end up being more impeding however.
Why is surveillance cameras that spot suspicious behavior bad? It seems like it would be good, because the cameras will not be watching the vast majority of people walking by. Just the ones that are darting from person to person, or back and forth looking for cops.
Also, why didn't the poster mention "use in interfaces for quadriplegics who use their gaze to operate a computer". Sounds like that is a lot more interesting to the Slashdot crowd than surveillance cameras.
Sounds kinda nifty to me. As far as the surveillance part, they won't learn that much from me. Guys look at breasts a LOT. Wow. Newsflash.
Except for the fact that the Judicial branch is pretty much sidestepped when it comes to gathering the information from his ISP under the Patriot Act.
Judicial branch did not sidestep with regard to info from ISP. They determined that it was not unconstitutional. Very different from what you are asserting.
I hope the judge finds that asserting the Patriot Act in this case was wrong.
I can tell you right now that he will not, because that would be like a judge ruling that a search warrant legitimately signed by a judge was unconstitutional. It isn't going to happen.
As we discussed elsewhere, the FBI investigates criminal copyright infringement which is well within their power. Rather than doing the MPAA's "dirty work", the FBI was doing what they are supposed to.
From dictionary.com for steal. First definition:
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
So, he took the (intellectual) property of another, without right or permission.
So, follow me here, he STOLE PROPERTY ILLEGALLY.
Smart ass.
Also, GMail supports Safari. Read here.
OK, people have been trying. But not enough people.
That's the beauty of a republic, you vote for your representative.
Get more people to vote with you, so you can have more representatives who agree with you, and you can get the laws changed.
Somehow I doubt rioting is going to change anything, but good luck.
There are checks and balances on their power. It's called the Judicial branch. The FBI is part of the Executive Branch (if I remember my Government class correctly).
When they bring the evidence to trial, the presiding Judge will make judgements (aptly named) about whether the Patriot Act was legitimately used.
Thank you for assisting in proving my point.
You are free to break the law if you want, if you are willing to pay the consequences.
If you aren't willing to pay the consequences if you get caught, then maybe you shouldn't be doing it?
And you would be calling bs incorrectly. As I pointed out here:
From the first section: An act "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes."
They should use the tools the have to catch the criminals.
All the people on this site seem to like to talk about how great Europe is compared to the USA. There are lots of restrictions on what you can say and wear relating to Nazi paraphenalia in Germany, and there are cameras EVERYWHERE in London (I just returned from a vacation there).
Jaywalking is not enough for the FBI to come and "take away your stuff" (with a subpoena of course), or make me "disappear forever" (habeas corpus, and before you get into Guantanamo, the difference is I am a US Citizen, nor am I committing treason or trying to destroy the government).
The government is responsible for keeping myself and the country safe from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
They aren't acting in secrecy, this made it to Slashdot.
If he was stealing TV shows and putting them up on his website, that's justification enough for me.
Yes, but if I get caught, I get a fine.
If you steal tv shows and put them up on the internet, you may get caught, you may get fined, you may go to jail. It's a tradeoff.
If I went to prison for speeding, I wouldn't do it.
Sorry for you if you aren't.
Since it's an American law we're talking about, and an American company getting investigated, an American fellow getting arrested, and a criminal investigation by the American Government...
It seems that it doesn't much matter if you're not from the States.
From the first section: An act To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
I guess this isn't outside the scope of the law, is it?
More drama on Slashdot when you mention Patriot Act or Bush than in Fahrenheit 9/11.