Don't forget that most of Europe's city planning was complete before the advent of the automobile. Older US cities tend to follow the European path more often that not (New York, Philly, Boston, Chicago). Generally speaking, the newer the city, the more likely lots of driving will be required. This is especially true the further west you go (Phoenix, Seattle, Los Angeles...San Francisco is aberrantly more like east coast cities, but probably because it was the west coast's first real city in the mid-19th century).
Re:People are Obese regarless of Income or Geograp
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Also, we used to run after our food and throw spears at it before we could eat.
I had to chase down a hot dog vendor today and throw spears at him before he'd stop to sell me a Chicago dog with everything and an icy cold Coca-Cola. Does that count?
mean really, where is the limit? Look at what this administration is claiming as it's "rights". It wants to be able to spy on Americans without a warrant. It wants to be able to torture people. And it wants to be able to detain people, even American citizens on American soil, indefinitly. All without any judicial oversight. In the name of a war without a defined opponent or victory conditions.
1) I don't see it as "spying on Americans". We've both stated our positions, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. 2) Water boarding and sleep deprivation are not "torture". If they brought out the branding iron or something like that, I'd be just as up in arms as you. 3) Enemy combatants should be detained until the end of hostilities. Even if they're citizens of your country. So no sympathy from me for traitors who help Al Qaeda and their ilk. They're no different from the Americans who went to Germany to fight for the Fatherland in WWII. 4) Since when does the judiciary have any authority on the President's war making powers? 5) The war does have a definied opponent, international terrorist groups and the rogue states who support them. Just because the enemy is amorphous doesn't mean it's not defined. And the victory conditions are clear: destroy them all. Just like in all ways run properly.
Hiibel was arrested for the mere action of standing mute when asked for his name.
If you've seen the video of the arrest, "standing mute" is not an accurate description of Hiibel's actions. As I recall, he was yelling and being argumentative from the start, basically daring the officer to arrest him. I think it's more accurate to say he was arrested for being an ass than anything else.
Can someone point me to a google query that indicates that its results were filtered in accordance wuth US laws? Or am I misreading that?
They're referring to take-downs resulting from copyright enforcement, especially under the DMCA. However, a private party fighting to keep its IP from being widely disseminated is a very different thing than outright censorhip, like in Germany and China.
The US doesn't have actual censorship[1], at least not as far as Google results are concerned. This, this, and this are all examples of searches which, had they been conducted in China relating to similar items in Chinese history, would most certainly have been blocked. Also compare this result from Germany.
Oddly enough, a search at chillingeffects.org turned up only one result for sender=france|french and recipient=google, and while I don't read French it looks like it's more about a copyright infringement than any kind of censorship.
[1] I suspect that the one search that might turn up some kind of "censorship" result would be searching for kiddie porn on Google. But since I'm at work, and that kind of thing can get you fired, I'm not going to test it right now.
Page two contains nothing about the direction of the calls.
Strictly speaking, you're right. I mispoke. However, the quote from the AG does make clear that one of the parties to the call is outside the US. Going back to my original analogy, if my phone is tapped and you call me (maybe to yell at me for my, IYO, idiotic ramblings on Slashdot), they're going to listen to your end of the conversation, too. Are your rights being violated?
So you aren't going to try and claim that they actually obeyed the law, but rather that it's OK for them to break the law?
Not quite. I'm claiming that the law you're citing doesn't apply to this case. It would be like you trying to have me cited for jay walking when all I did was cut from one bike path to another in a park. It might look the same, but it's not. OK, that's a bad analogy, but right now I can't come up with a better one.
I never said, nor implied, that the President is above the law. I said that this law, regarding FISA, doesn't apply to this situation. Or at least, that's my reading of the administration's reasoning.
Maybe you should ask the Irish just how well infinitely justifiable government authority has worked out for them.
Any war is "infinite", until it ends. Congress didn't declare war on Japan and Germany "until August 15, 1945, and May 8, 1945, respectively." The war would last until it was over, how over long that took. Same thing this time around, the powers of the President to go after terrorists linked to Al Qaeda will continue until we've beaten Al Qaeda. Considering OBL recently asked for a truce, that time is probably in the near future.
>Please name one, single, US citizen who has been so treated. I've heard of residents and immigrants being treated this way, but no actual citizens.
Jose Padilla
Riiiight. Except that Padilla was granted access to lawyers. Oh, and everyone knew where he was. Oh, and he had several court dates, in all of which the courts sided with the administration. Not exactly an unperson, is he?
First, you're just plain making shit up. You don't know that they were only hitting inbound calls. That level of detail about the program hasn't been revealed. If you can point to a reliable source, I'd love to see it.
No, I'm repeating what's been reported. You're assuming facts not in evidence, and according to Sam Waterson, that's a no-no. The Federation of American Scientists has a good write-up on it here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf. Page 2 lists some quotes on what the wiretapping encompasses.
What we do know is that FISA covers domestic surveillance of foreign targets and the administration did not follow the rules found in FISA. The question I want answered is: Why is the administration evading the legally mandated judicial oversight FISA requires? FISA was passed to make what the administration is doing legal, as long as they allow judicial oversight. Why don't they want that oversight?
IMO, they probably don't want to jump through any more hoops than is absolutely required, especially hoops they saw as irrelevant. Reference how many administration officials (and some outside the administration) are saying "We had the authority under the authorization to invade Afghanistan, when Congress said 'all force'."
It's not uncommon in history for Presidents to site executive privilege on a number of items, this is probably another case of that. After all, even Bush supporters (which I guess I am, more often than not) agree that the man's a cowboy who likes doing things his way. His rationale could be as simple as "I'm the President, I have the authority, I'm not giving up that authority to no one, no how." Simple arrogance, nothing more.
Specifically Page 2: "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out some of its parameters, telling reporters that it involves 'intercepts of contents of communications where one . . . party to the communication is outside the United States' and the government has 'a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.' The aim of the program, according to Principal Deputy 3 Director for National Intelligence General Michael Hayden, is not 'to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and warn and prevent [terrorist] attacks.'"
Now, the AG might be lying, but that's up to you to prove now. Good luck!
Hypothetically, I'm suspected of committing some crime. The local police get a warrant and tap my phone. After they do that, I call you and talk to you about seeing a movie or something. Have your rights been violated because the police listened in on your conversation?
It's a similar circumstance here, except that the originator of the call is outside the country and is a suspected enemy of the country, therefore is not entitled to the same rights you and I are. So when Ali calls you from Medina to talk about Saudi Arabia's chances in the World Cup (I'm assuming you're a soccer fan), there's a chance (if he's running with the wrong crowd) that the NSA is going to listen to your conversation. Your rights have not been violated any more than in the above example, because it was not your phone that was tapped. Savvy?
All of the rhetoric, spin, and use of loaded words is designed to distract us from what is really going on here: warrantless searches of United States Citizens by the federal government.
No, it's strategic listening to incoming calls from suspected terrorists. Whom they're calling is irrelevant, we need to know what those people (al Qaeda) are up to.
Bush and Co. have also argued that they have the power to hold citizens incommunicado without bail and without recourse to counsel for as long as they want just because they are suspected of being terrorists.
Please name one, single, US citizen who has been so treated. I've heard of residents and immigrants being treated this way, but no actual citizens.
It is ridiculous that 47% of Americans are not completely up-in-arms about this. We can't have our president breaking any law that he wants to.
You need to RTFS(ummary): Forty-seven percent of those polled responded they they did not support 'wiretapping in order to reduce the threat of terrorism'.
Which means a small majority of Americans support eavesdropping on conversations which originate outside the borders of the country by suspect terrorists.
Which law did the President break, exactly? Certainly not lying to a Federal judge in a civil rights case (which, last I checked, was not sufficient to remove him from office).
20. He's a perfect 10 -- a 1, plus 9 glasses of sparkling Lambrini!
Having barred alcohol marketing that associates drinking with sex, British regulators block an ad that shows women imbibing Lambrini sparkling wine while using a fishing pole to hook a hunky guy. The Advertising Standards Authority says the ad violates its guidelines because the guy "looks quite attractive and desirable to the girls." It would pass muster if only he were "overweight, middle-aged, balding, etc." The company then runs a version of the ad using a paunchy, chrome-domed model.
Yeah, cause showing a bunch of drunk women getting so horny that even a fat bald guy looks good doesn't violate any standards linking sex and alcohol, does it?
The way that I'm reading the article one would have to be at the keyboard of the Mac in order to exploit the security flaws.
If that's the case, then what's the problem? If you have that kind of console access, any system can be cracked in short order. Even that means putting in a new boot cd, power cycling, and running vi/etc/shadow or the equivilant.
The Chinese government is making that decision, not Google. Google is deciding to help the government do that.
There are some shades of grey, here, alright, but as I pointed out elsewhere, Google's policy was to not to do evil. They didn't quantify how much evil they wouldn't do, so even a little bit is against their policy.
Refusing to compromise your principles to make a few bucks is a good thing. You're trying to change the terms of the debate, and I'm not going to fall for it.
So, by that reasoning Google is evil no matter which choice they make!
"provide no content" - evil
"provide filtered content with a disclaimer" - evil
What do you propose they do?
I disagree with your premise. Providing no content is not evil, as that is the one where they refuse to knuckle down before the totalitarian government. So that's the high road they should've taken.
I am not against capitalism and big corporations, and I am not pro government control or communism. I just hope people see companies for what they are: money making machines and that's it. No niceness, no honesty not other "virtues" should be expected from them, no matter what they claim and whatever publicity front they put up.
I'm an ardent capitalist, and believe fiercely that companies should be encouraged to earn as much as they can for their shareholders. I also believe, just as fiercely, that lying, cheating, and stealing are not acceptable forms of business practice.
Google said they would do no evil. They have now enabled the Chinese government keep its citizens in the dark about the great, wide, world. That is evil. Ergo, they lied.
And don't give any BS about them just obeying the law in China, they're fighting the US government before giving up non-identifying information about search terms, they could've fought this one, too. They just chose not to.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that most of Europe's city planning was complete before the advent of the automobile. Older US cities tend to follow the European path more often that not (New York, Philly, Boston, Chicago). Generally speaking, the newer the city, the more likely lots of driving will be required. This is especially true the further west you go (Phoenix, Seattle, Los Angeles...San Francisco is aberrantly more like east coast cities, but probably because it was the west coast's first real city in the mid-19th century).
Also, we used to run after our food and throw spears at it before we could eat.
I had to chase down a hot dog vendor today and throw spears at him before he'd stop to sell me a Chicago dog with everything and an icy cold Coca-Cola. Does that count?
mean really, where is the limit? Look at what this administration is claiming as it's "rights". It wants to be able to spy on Americans without a warrant. It wants to be able to torture people. And it wants to be able to detain people, even American citizens on American soil, indefinitly. All without any judicial oversight. In the name of a war without a defined opponent or victory conditions.
1) I don't see it as "spying on Americans". We've both stated our positions, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
2) Water boarding and sleep deprivation are not "torture". If they brought out the branding iron or something like that, I'd be just as up in arms as you.
3) Enemy combatants should be detained until the end of hostilities. Even if they're citizens of your country. So no sympathy from me for traitors who help Al Qaeda and their ilk. They're no different from the Americans who went to Germany to fight for the Fatherland in WWII.
4) Since when does the judiciary have any authority on the President's war making powers?
5) The war does have a definied opponent, international terrorist groups and the rogue states who support them. Just because the enemy is amorphous doesn't mean it's not defined. And the victory conditions are clear: destroy them all. Just like in all ways run properly.
So you aren't allowed to fly and are held in custody until you can convice them you aren't going to blow shit up.
That would suck.
And now you have a slight inkling of how an Arab-American feels.
Damn, no wonder they're always blowing shit up!
Hiibel was arrested for the mere action of standing mute when asked for his name.
If you've seen the video of the arrest, "standing mute" is not an accurate description of Hiibel's actions. As I recall, he was yelling and being argumentative from the start, basically daring the officer to arrest him. I think it's more accurate to say he was arrested for being an ass than anything else.
...and sometimes speed is a necessity. You can look at any company, even a relativistically good one...
I know there's a joke in there somewhere, I just know it!
Can someone point me to a google query that indicates that its results were filtered in accordance wuth US laws? Or am I misreading that?
They're referring to take-downs resulting from copyright enforcement, especially under the DMCA. However, a private party fighting to keep its IP from being widely disseminated is a very different thing than outright censorhip, like in Germany and China.
The US doesn't have actual censorship[1], at least not as far as Google results are concerned. This, this, and this are all examples of searches which, had they been conducted in China relating to similar items in Chinese history, would most certainly have been blocked. Also compare this result from Germany.
Oddly enough, a search at chillingeffects.org turned up only one result for sender=france|french and recipient=google, and while I don't read French it looks like it's more about a copyright infringement than any kind of censorship.
[1] I suspect that the one search that might turn up some kind of "censorship" result would be searching for kiddie porn on Google. But since I'm at work, and that kind of thing can get you fired, I'm not going to test it right now.
Page two contains nothing about the direction of the calls.
Strictly speaking, you're right. I mispoke. However, the quote from the AG does make clear that one of the parties to the call is outside the US. Going back to my original analogy, if my phone is tapped and you call me (maybe to yell at me for my, IYO, idiotic ramblings on Slashdot), they're going to listen to your end of the conversation, too. Are your rights being violated?
So you aren't going to try and claim that they actually obeyed the law, but rather that it's OK for them to break the law?
Not quite. I'm claiming that the law you're citing doesn't apply to this case. It would be like you trying to have me cited for jay walking when all I did was cut from one bike path to another in a park. It might look the same, but it's not. OK, that's a bad analogy, but right now I can't come up with a better one.
I never said, nor implied, that the President is above the law. I said that this law, regarding FISA, doesn't apply to this situation. Or at least, that's my reading of the administration's reasoning.
Maybe you should ask the Irish just how well infinitely justifiable government authority has worked out for them.
Any war is "infinite", until it ends. Congress didn't declare war on Japan and Germany "until August 15, 1945, and May 8, 1945, respectively." The war would last until it was over, how over long that took. Same thing this time around, the powers of the President to go after terrorists linked to Al Qaeda will continue until we've beaten Al Qaeda. Considering OBL recently asked for a truce, that time is probably in the near future.
>Please name one, single, US citizen who has been so treated. I've heard of residents and immigrants being treated this way, but no actual citizens.
Jose Padilla
Riiiight. Except that Padilla was granted access to lawyers. Oh, and everyone knew where he was. Oh, and he had several court dates, in all of which the courts sided with the administration. Not exactly an unperson, is he?
First, you're just plain making shit up. You don't know that they were only hitting inbound calls. That level of detail about the program hasn't been revealed. If you can point to a reliable source, I'd love to see it.
No, I'm repeating what's been reported. You're assuming facts not in evidence, and according to Sam Waterson, that's a no-no. The Federation of American Scientists has a good write-up on it here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf. Page 2 lists some quotes on what the wiretapping encompasses.
What we do know is that FISA covers domestic surveillance of foreign targets and the administration did not follow the rules found in FISA. The question I want answered is: Why is the administration evading the legally mandated judicial oversight FISA requires? FISA was passed to make what the administration is doing legal, as long as they allow judicial oversight. Why don't they want that oversight?
IMO, they probably don't want to jump through any more hoops than is absolutely required, especially hoops they saw as irrelevant. Reference how many administration officials (and some outside the administration) are saying "We had the authority under the authorization to invade Afghanistan, when Congress said 'all force'."
It's not uncommon in history for Presidents to site executive privilege on a number of items, this is probably another case of that. After all, even Bush supporters (which I guess I am, more often than not) agree that the man's a cowboy who likes doing things his way. His rationale could be as simple as "I'm the President, I have the authority, I'm not giving up that authority to no one, no how." Simple arrogance, nothing more.
What the hell, it's a slow day now that I've trained the Solaris guy how to babysit autoyast...
Here, read this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf
Specifically Page 2: "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out some of its parameters, telling reporters that it involves 'intercepts of contents of communications where one . . . party to the communication is outside the United States' and the government has 'a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.' The aim of the program, according to Principal Deputy 3 Director for National Intelligence General Michael Hayden, is not 'to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and warn and prevent [terrorist] attacks.'"
Now, the AG might be lying, but that's up to you to prove now. Good luck!
FISA, you dumbass, which makes spying on people without statutory authority a felony.
And authorization to use "all neccessary force" isn't "statutory authority"? What's your definition of "all"?
Please site your sources for:
A) proof that they are listening to only incoming calls.
B) proof that they are listening to only suspected terrorists.
I can't, you don't have sufficient clearance. Either that or I'm lazy and will get to it later, take your pick.
You're not getting it, so let me put it this way:
Hypothetically, I'm suspected of committing some crime. The local police get a warrant and tap my phone. After they do that, I call you and talk to you about seeing a movie or something. Have your rights been violated because the police listened in on your conversation?
It's a similar circumstance here, except that the originator of the call is outside the country and is a suspected enemy of the country, therefore is not entitled to the same rights you and I are. So when Ali calls you from Medina to talk about Saudi Arabia's chances in the World Cup (I'm assuming you're a soccer fan), there's a chance (if he's running with the wrong crowd) that the NSA is going to listen to your conversation. Your rights have not been violated any more than in the above example, because it was not your phone that was tapped. Savvy?
All of the rhetoric, spin, and use of loaded words is designed to distract us from what is really going on here: warrantless searches of United States Citizens by the federal government.
No, it's strategic listening to incoming calls from suspected terrorists. Whom they're calling is irrelevant, we need to know what those people (al Qaeda) are up to.
Bush and Co. have also argued that they have the power to hold citizens incommunicado without bail and without recourse to counsel for as long as they want just because they are suspected of being terrorists.
Please name one, single, US citizen who has been so treated. I've heard of residents and immigrants being treated this way, but no actual citizens.
It is ridiculous that 47% of Americans are not completely up-in-arms about this. We can't have our president breaking any law that he wants to.
You need to RTFS(ummary):
Forty-seven percent of those polled responded they they did not support 'wiretapping in order to reduce the threat of terrorism'.
Which means a small majority of Americans support eavesdropping on conversations which originate outside the borders of the country by suspect terrorists.
Which law did the President break, exactly? Certainly not lying to a Federal judge in a civil rights case (which, last I checked, was not sufficient to remove him from office).
20. He's a perfect 10 -- a 1, plus 9 glasses of sparkling Lambrini!
Having barred alcohol marketing that associates drinking with sex, British regulators block an ad that shows women imbibing Lambrini sparkling wine while using a fishing pole to hook a hunky guy. The Advertising Standards Authority says the ad violates its guidelines because the guy "looks quite attractive and desirable to the girls." It would pass muster if only he were "overweight, middle-aged, balding, etc." The company then runs a version of the ad using a paunchy, chrome-domed model.
Yeah, cause showing a bunch of drunk women getting so horny that even a fat bald guy looks good doesn't violate any standards linking sex and alcohol, does it?
The way that I'm reading the article one would have to be at the keyboard of the Mac in order to exploit the security flaws.
/etc/shadow or the equivilant.
If that's the case, then what's the problem? If you have that kind of console access, any system can be cracked in short order. Even that means putting in a new boot cd, power cycling, and running vi
I'll share, but only out of the sick hope that this will become the latest fad:
/,$_)){$_ =~ s/breasts/\<b\>breasts\<\/b\>/||$_ =~ s/\w+/blah/}print map {"$_ "} @a}'
perl -e 'while (<>){for(@a=split(/
The Chinese government is making that decision, not Google. Google is deciding to help the government do that.
There are some shades of grey, here, alright, but as I pointed out elsewhere, Google's policy was to not to do evil. They didn't quantify how much evil they wouldn't do, so even a little bit is against their policy.
Refusing to compromise your principles to make a few bucks is a good thing. You're trying to change the terms of the debate, and I'm not going to fall for it.
What do you propose they do?
I disagree with your premise. Providing no content is not evil, as that is the one where they refuse to knuckle down before the totalitarian government. So that's the high road they should've taken.
WTF?!? You're not allowed to pimp your ride, for fuck's sake? What if you're stuck with some old POS that looks like it's been through a war?
What kind of monsters are those people?
I am not against capitalism and big corporations, and I am not pro government control or communism. I just hope people see companies for what they are: money making machines and that's it. No niceness, no honesty not other "virtues" should be expected from them, no matter what they claim and whatever publicity front they put up.
I'm an ardent capitalist, and believe fiercely that companies should be encouraged to earn as much as they can for their shareholders. I also believe, just as fiercely, that lying, cheating, and stealing are not acceptable forms of business practice.
Google said they would do no evil. They have now enabled the Chinese government keep its citizens in the dark about the great, wide, world. That is evil. Ergo, they lied.
And don't give any BS about them just obeying the law in China, they're fighting the US government before giving up non-identifying information about search terms, they could've fought this one, too. They just chose not to.