Well, that's what you get when you stick to crufted designs and try to keep them at all costs although there are known better archtectures. It's just like code: it gets unmaintainable over time.
Ah. Ok. So then -- do these "known better archtectures [sic]" have no bugs then? Significantly fewer bugs? Are the bugs less severe? And how do they compare to the Intel/AMD architectures in terms of speed? I can assure you that I can make a chip that is 100% bug free -- it's also going to run somewhere in the vicinity of the original 8008.
Frankly, I doubt you know all that much about the real ISA that Intel or AMD execute on their cores. The x86 instructions are never executed -- they're translated into an internal only ISA that doesn't look anything even vaguely like the x86 ISA.
I'm so sick and tired of all these kids out of college whining about the x86 ISA. And yeah, I was there once too. But know what? That decreipt, horrible, ghastly API has outlasted every single competitor, has been upgraded from 8-bits to 64-bits without losing backwards compatibility, and runs far, far faster than every chip that's tried to take away the title. And costs less. Intel's proven the doom 'n' gloom wrong everytime -- including with their latest transition off the Netburst architecture. AMD has as well (I give Intel props because for decades they were the only real designers for the x86 ISA; AMD is pretty much responsible for the latest incarnation as x86-64 though).
If you look at any of the modern chip architectures then none of them fall nicely and neatly into "CISC" or "RISC". The Power architecture is awfully CISC like in some ways. The x86 (the classic CISC) doesn't use a complex ISA internally, it has pipelining, branch prediction, caching, etc. -- all classic RISC subsystems that were never supposed to work on CISC. Everyone is multi-core now (to various extents).
The x86 architecture isn't going anywhere. If anything Apple's move should've reinforced this concept -- the fact of the matter is that Intel spends more in R&D than every other (general purpose) chip maker on the planet. Combined. And sells their product for less. That kind of R&D budget makes up for a lot of paper shortcomings.
it's still missing a standard format for multiple genres
Untrue. Both V2.3 and V2.4 allow for multiple genres -- the V2.3 standard is a bit ambiguous here -- if you don't include the parenthesized V1 genre number identifier then it's unclear how to list multiple genres (I favor the iTunes method of space delimiting them; others prefer NULL delimiting). The V2.4 standard is explicit -- NULLs between genres (which, of course, iTunes doesn't follow; but their V2.4 implementation is horribly broken anyway).
I'm not sufficiently familiar w/ V2.2 to make any statements on it. And, of course, V1 doesn't allow for multiple genres at all. But if you're stuck with V1 then you've got bigger issues.
V1 tags are exactly 256 bytes and are stored at the end. So yes, you can always add/change/delete a V1 tag without rewriting the entire file.
V2 tags are variable length and are at the start of the file. But unless you're using an archaic version then V2 tags support padding, and the standard recommends padding to 2K or 4K total. You have to rewrite the file to add or remove the tag entirely, but as long as you don't exceed the pad length you do not have to rewrite the entire file to change or add a few tags.
The real issue with ID3V2 is that the specs are rather poor, the implementations vary greatly in quality (iTunes has a craptacular implementation of V2.4), and it's difficult to change between versions (since V2.3 and V2.4, the two most common, are very different in some important details -- the biggest being UTF16 vs UTF8 in text tags).
typing http:/// is NOT a stupid idea. As another respondent already stated, HTTPS and FTP are also quite common.
So what? That's hardly an excuse. If I go to www.google.com then the browser should be smart enough to open port 80 and connect. If the admin actually wanted it to be https, then they can redirect me easily enough. And if I connect to a site that starts with ftp then connecting to port 23 and prefixing the entire string with ftp:// is easy enough.
Having to type the URI is completely redundant for the vast majority of sites. It adds no security, and it annoys users.
If its not the site you want, just keep shuffling through the billions of HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP pages you desire.
Yeah, because saying "www.google.com" is clearly equivalent to saying "just give me a completely random site". All because you left off the URI.
I will never, ever, fucking EVER run iTunes again for library management.
My library is on a Linux box, shared via SAMBA. We both have 20GB iPods, while the total library size is (was) around 50 GB. One day my wife was updating her iPod and she clicked "Yes" to the wrong prompt and wiped out a third of the library. And yes, she's apologized profusely -- but I really don't blame her, I blame the idiotic software. If it's setup to not manage my library, it shouldn't be asking (or even thinking) about deleting files -- but it does. Every time. And it finally bit us, big time.
Fortunately I won't have to fix all the tags all over again, at least not in the same way -- I've backed up the iTunes XML file and can rip all the stuff I need out of there. It's still going to be a pain in the ass, but at least it won't make me weep.
From now on we're using Anapod Explorer. The only reason to run iTunes will be for firmware updates (and Anapod may even handle that, I dunno).
I was all excited that iTunes had an XML export facility for the library, until I saw it.
Yeah, it's an amazingly crappy XML format -- it's a wonderful example of what not to do with XML.
That said, it's in plist xml format -- if you can find a library that knows how to deal with plists (in XML), then you're set. Any decent library will transform it into something more useful. I found a decent plist parser for python that works on top of SAX. I'm still playing around with it, but it's a lot less work than reinventing the wheel.
since Apple prides itself on embracing open standards when possible, why not simply report these as bugs and presume they will be fixed
Maybe they will be.
And maybe Apple will finally properly implement the ID3V2 tag standards -- they use a non-compliant tag (TCMP is not a valid ID3V2 tag, and they use it on all "compilation" albums; there are many other tags that could be used instead and still comply with the standard) in all of their implementations and their ID3V2.4 implementation is completely fucked.
And yes, they've been asked to fix this many times and have ignored it.
Yeah, I know the ID3V2 standards are rather poorly written in some places, but Apple's implementation (at least of 2.4) is so bad it's as if they didn't even try.
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 1
Try actually reading the EISs of these RTG's sometime - you'll find the probabilities of release very carefully spelled out, and they are not zero.
Of course they're not. Except that the most likely release is during early launch failure -- basically a Challanger-like explosion -- and even then it was less than 0.3% (1 in 350 was the quote I read).
There are, of course, other failure scenarios, but they're even less likely. Even if you add them all up you don't come near a significant danger point.
Oh, and to further emphasize the point... in that most likely/most dangerous failure case above, do you know what the net impact was? That for an area up to 62 miles from the launch point the maximum radiation dosage was 80% of background (background being 2.4 mSv; so call it 2 mSv). Frankly, that's not really worth worrying about; it's not even on the chart for radiation poisoning -- even if you include background radiation.
Most of the other "failure" scenarios lead to atmospheric distribution (which would raise the background radiation for the entire planet infintessimally) or a water landing (and water is an awfully good shield against hard radiation).
Understand, I am not suggesting that we should launch every single spacecraft with RTGs, or that we could safely reduce the precautions on those we do launch. But the incessant hand wringing that's associated with the very few probes that do use RTGs is completely out of place.
All Google had to do was refuse to give their money to someone else. Let's think this situation through before applauding Google's altruistic nature.
Shrug. If Google wanted to screw everyone else they could -- by paying the extortion money.
After all, it's likely to be a fairly trivial amount of money to Google, and in return they'd be guaranteed that their VoIP and video data packets get highly prioritized.
And, more to the point, they'd ensure that anyone who wants to compete against them has to do the exact same thing. It's called creating a barrier to competition, and it's generally worth every penny in the long run because you end up with less competition, particularly from pesky startups who have nifty ideas but little or no capital. I'm sure Yahoo!, Alta Vista, etc. would've vastly preferred such a barrier, since it would mean that Google never would've managed to completely usurp all of them.
The PowerPC-derived Cell will rock for workstation and servers
And this conjecture is based on what? Certainly not any real world evidence. The Cell architecture is completely untested and a radically new design for a commodity chip. On paper it looks decent, but so did Itanium (and, technically, Itanium is quite good... except that the software has never been able to properly exploit it. Much the same may be true for Cell).
Back in the day, the same NeXT executable would run on 68040, Sparc, PA-RISC and Pentiums.
Yeah, and look at what a fantastic success story that was! I mean, we have NeXT cubes everywhere now!
Frankly, it's a drawback. Software developers have to certify their code on multiple platforms if you do that, and that's hideously expensive. Sure, you can claim that you can compile for one and it'll work on them all, but know what? That's a lie. It's always been a lie and it always will be one.
Writing cross-platform code isn't as hard now as it used to be, but it's still not trivial. Even if you're talking about different CPU architectures on the same OS. We see that at my workplace running on HP-UX when it comes to PA-RISC vs Itanium; we develop on PA-RISC, but some of our customers run on newer hardware and we cannot replicate the bugs. And this is for software that compiles on several flavors of Unix and Windows, across more CPU types than I care to list, and under at least 3 different compilers. We've already done the hard work of writing cross-platform, cross-OS code, and yet same-platform/different-CPU bugs still happen.
You throw that kind of crap at your average development house and they'll do one of two things -- only develop for the most popular configuration (thus helping to marginalize the others) or just develop for another platform that doesn't have these issues (e.g. -- Windows and x86).
If I start my own restaurant, I will not take or receive change.
If a customer chooses to give you 4 quarters instead of a dollar bill, and you refuse them, then you've just run awry of federal law. You must accept legal tender for all debts, public or private, as long as it would not be an undue burdon (e.g. -- someone paying a $100 tab in pennies would be an undue burdon, someone paying $1 in quarters or mixed change would not be).
Or maybe I could just throw it in the tip pool, and give it to them in cash later.
And how do you know how much is in the tip pool unless you sort it?
As for spending employee time counting change -- give me a break. You can get $10 machines that will sort the coins for you. For $30 they'll do the math too. You'd probably want something that is a bit heavier duty than those toys, but you can get decent automated coin sorters for just over $100. Too expensive? Bull -- if you only got a single quarter a day then it would pay for itself in 1.1 years (of course, if you only got a single quarter then you wouldn't need one now, would you?). If you had a restaurant that got any business whatsoever then a $400 coin sorter would pay for itself in a week (as opposed to throwing out all the change or equally hare-brained schemes).
As for your original point -- I can see doing away with the penny at this point, although we'd need some reasonable rounding laws to make up for it (e.g. -- not always rounding up), but not with all coins. The dollar bill is far too coarse of a monetary unit for everyday transactions.
BellSouth is stuck with technology that cannot compete on speed, so their response is to make the speed worse? Only in a monopoly telecom would that make any sense.
You're right. And Bellsouth has an effective monopoly over most of its coverage area. I'm pretty sure I know the area you live in (NW Atl?) and there they seem to have some effective competition from Comcast. But not in the area I live in (Charter cable), or where many of my friends live (Adelphia cable), or pretty much anywhere else in the Bellsouth service area.
And yes, I'd love to move to East Cobb. I just need someone to handle all the niggly little details like finding a house we'd like, selling our current house, etc. without taking up any of our time -- with a toddler and a second child due in a couple months we don't have any to spare.
Comcast is also doing an all-out assault on "the dish", which BellSouth pushes as an alternative to cable. I think Comcast is winning that battle, too.
I dunno. I compared prices a few weeks ago and DirecTV still has Comcast beat hands down. We pay less for DirecTV Plus w/ locals, HBO, 2 extra receivers (3 total), and junk fees/taxes than Comcast charges for their basic digital cable package (1 receiver, no premiums) -- and that doesn't include junk fees or taxes. Channel lineup is similar.
Sure... I'll just pay a few thousand to cut down some 60' trees blocking my LoS that are in my neighbor's yard, plus the exorbitant hardware costs all to get a service that is slower, and useless for interactive anything (ssh, VPN, games, etc).
Satellite service is viable only if there is absolutely no other option. And even then, it depends on LoS, which many people don't have (I have LoS to the main DirecTV bird, but not to any of the others; and even then it was iffy on the main bird. If some trees grow another 10-15 feet then it's gone).
And I'm in the same situation as the GP poster -- my only other option for high speed access is Charter, and if they merely sucked it would be an improvement in service.
If you are looking for libraries that you can add to your own commercial projects with impunity, I suggest looking towards LGPL code
The LGPL is very unclear in many areas, and it hasn't been seriously vetted by the FSF's lawyers. What happens if you staticly link instead of dynamicly link (the FSF states that you may then provide the non-LGPL object files used for linking as well, but that's not clear from the license wording)? What if there's code in the header files (then it's no longer just the interface -- it's object code as well, and compilers will link that directly into your object files; now it's not sufficient to allow for dynamic linking or provide the.o's for static linking)?
My company (which is, uh, rather large) has a formal policy -- only BSD/MIT licensed code. It's the only licenses that the lawyers feel comfortable with. The terminology is simple, and there's no question of whether or not it can be used without code release.
The GPLv3 was supposed to clarify things on the whole linking-to-libraries bit, but based on my reading of this first draft it has not. If anything, it's less clear for a layman.
In the simple case (dynamic linking, no functions defined in header files), then you're right -- all you have to do is publish changes to the library that you make. But one of the other caveats is that you must be able to use a later version of the LGPL library -- if that library substantially changes then you could run into problems again. Bleh.
Now all of this is only for the case where you provide executable or object code to outside parties. If all the code runs interally to your company (application service provider) then you can use GPL or LGPL code without issue since you never distribute the code externally. This is something that RMS wanted to address in v3, but, again, I don't see anything that does so. The only danger here is if at some point in the mysterious future you change business models and want to distribute a client-side application, you have to be damned sure that there's no code from a GPL or LGPL project that's snuck in (copy/paste, link, whatever) or else you'll violate the licensing.
They are far more interested now in capturing user data, or better yet claiming that computer as a zombie.
Agreed. But what's going to prevent that just because you don't have admin rights? No, I can't go snooping on other users (if any) on the system, but I can snoop your data all I want. And I can certainly setup a zombie without admin rights.
Does having admin rights make it easier? Sure does. Makes it harder to get rid of too. But not having them doesn't stop me. It doesn't even signficantly limit me for the vast majority of systems (where there's exactly one user per system). And, again, if you're the sole user of the system, you'll know the admin password and get used to typing it in when prompted. The average user (who trusts the computer, or at least fears breaking something if they don't do as requested -- always) will simply enter the admin password if prompted. And if that prompting was done on behalf of a piece of malware, then not running as admin has done absolutely nothing for you.
The average Linux user is smarter than that, but that's because Linux is largely a self-selecting community right now. I seriously question that the average OS X user is smarter than that. And if either ever becomes widespread to even a fraction of the degree that Windows has then I'll guarantee you that the average user won't be smarter than that.
People seem to forget that most of the Windows malware requires you to interact with the system to get it installed. Things like the WMF vulnerability are pretty rare now (which makes them all the more dangerous). The malware continues to spread not because people get blithely owned while surfing the net, but because they happily click on "OK" on dialog boxes, agree to EULAs that conceal nasty clauses, etc. Hell, phishing attacks are on the rise, and those require no admin privledges whatsoever and don't care about what OS you run.
But, as someone posted earlier, if Macs are 5% of the computer market, why aren't 5% of the viruses and spyware on Macs? That would be tens of thousands, not a few dozen.
For roughly the same reason that, in a society where most people are given immunizations as a child, the people who don't have the immunizations don't all get infected anyway.
The vast majority of people are running Windows, so the virus writers target that group. It's just not worth targeting the smaller groups of OS X or Linux -- there's too few machines running them to be worthwhile. If I was a virus writer then why should I bother with such a small target? Even if I infect 100% of the target systems, worldwide, then it's fewer than infecting 10% of the Windows systems worldwide (and, actually, it's probably worse than that -- you'd get roughly equal numbers with 100% vs 5-6%).
Now if the percentage of OS X or Linux systems reaches some critical threshold -- generally around 10-20% -- then it may become worth their time to target those systems. You could be reasonably assured that for any given attack you'd actually have some success.
And to return to the analogy, if a society's immunization rate falls to around 80% then you start seeing infection outbreaks again. Take a look at Great Britain for a recent example.
I was downloading some cracks with Firefox (1 virus) and then some more with Gnutella (2 additional viruses).
So you downloaded programs from an explicitly untrustworthy source, ran them, and got infected?
Wow. How surprising.
Do you generally install compiled programs on your Linux box from untrustworthy sources? If so, are you absolutely positive that you don't have multiple rootkits running on the box?
There's no substituting an OS that doesn't let the average user have administrator rights all the time
Yes, because as we all know the really valuable data on the computer is the OS and installed programs. You know, the stuff that can be replaced in a few hours.
All that user data that's completely and utterly irreplacable? Worthless. Who cares if a virus or trojan destroys it? And it obviously doesn't matter if a keylogger running in userspace sniffs out all your bank passwords and sends them to a 3rd party (what, you don't need admin privs to open a socket?!?!), because, hey, the OS itself is still secure!
The amount of real damage that a virus, worm, or trojan can do is not substantially affected by whether or not it can get administrator privledges. It may be easier to remove, but that's about it. And, frankly, if your average user runs in a lower privledged account then they're likely to get used to typing in the admin password when prompted, without even thinking about it.
And that's what it ultimately boils down to -- the user. Clueless users will get hit by crap all the time regardless of the platform. Clued users will not, again regardless of the platform. I've been using PCs for over 20 years now, most of that time on DOS or Windows (although I've also used OS/2, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and several others) and I've been hit with a virus exactly once -- and that was about 18 years ago. It infected very little too, because I was running a virus scanner that caught it quickly (back in the days when McAfee was free(ish) for personal use). Nor have I ever had to remove spyware, malware, etc. on any of my personal or work systems.
OS X has a rather high percentage of non-technical users, just as Windows does. Do you really think that they're immune to doing stupid things?
There's plugins to check weather, play games (emulation), look at traffic reports, get sports scores and highlights, and much more.
Weather? Check. Play games? Kinda. They're pretty weak ones. It's really not comparable. Traffic reports? Check. Sports scores? Check. Highlights -- depends. Much more? Check.
And that's with a stock TiVo Series2 plus a USB ethernet dongle. And I can transfer video back and forth between the TiVo and my PC or other TiVos, play music, look at slideshows, podcasts, etc. -- again, just with the stock unit and stock software. Add Galleon on your PC and you can do a good bit more.
No, TiVos are still not as capable as a self-built HTPC, but they're a hell of a lot easier to setup and use.
I'd like to see someone get a Tivo (+ lifetime subscription) and DVD player capable of upscaling for $1000
Uh... ok. 40 hour TiVo S2 - $30 (after rebate). Subscription - $300. USB2 ethernet dongle - $15.
I think I can find a decent DVD player for under $650. Really.
Or, heck, you could get a Humax 80 hour DVD recorder w/ TiVo for $90 after rebate. Even with the lifetime sub that's under $400. Admittedly, it doesn't have a scalar, but if your TV has one then it doesn't matter too much. Only Svideo/composite out, so that rather sucks though.
In which case you can buy the Toshiba 120 hour DVD recorder w/ TiVo. $150 after rebate. Add $300 for the lifetime sub, and you now have a single PVR/DVD box with component outputs. And you're under $500, much less $1000.
I hope you don't think that suggests that he should be let off the hook.
No way -- let him rot in jail for 20 years. Good riddence.
i.e. the new Patriot Act information sharing that is now expressly allowed contributed to his down fall.
Yes, but that was under PATRIOT -- what the Administration is doing is outside of PATRIOT and was not authorized in the least by it. I have issues with some (not all) of the PATRIOT act as well, but that's not what we're talking about. The PATRIOT act even calls for judicial review in most instances (and it's the ones that are outside of that purview that I have issue with).
There are strong arguments on the other side, that the administration's actions were completely legal if seldom used Presidential powers.
Thanks for the links -- I'm already familiar with the arguments in the first, but the second was interesting. And while I agree, to a limited extent, that the wiretapping of foreign nationals is legal when it comes to international communications, it is not at all clear that doing so to domestic calls is allowable -- and it's been stated (although not confirmed AFAIK) that the NSA didn't merely tap international calls, but would spider-web out from the domestic end to other domestic taps -- and that's certainly not on stable legal ground. Neither link even tried to address that either.
And keep in mind that both Congress and the Courts were informed that they were doing this.
There's some question as to exactly what Congress was informed of -- several of the senators on the intelligence committee have said that they were not informed as to the nature or scope of the program, and that if they had been aware that they would not have approved of it. Additionally, the security on it was so tight that the senators could not consult with anyone else (staff, lawyers, etc) on it, which makes it questionable that they were able to make a properly informed decision as to its legality.
As for the courts -- what court was informed of it? Certainly not FISA.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004, the most recent years for which public records are available.
Yes, and note that it's been 5645 requests over 4 years, compared to 13102 requests for the first 22 years. That's a dramatic upswing. And that's not even including the wiretaps we're discussing. That said, I can fully understand the reasons behind the increase -- we were attacked on our own soil after all. So it's entirely understandable.
That said, the FISA court is a freaking kangaroo court -- traditionally all they've done is rubber stamp the requests (which, honestly, I would expect). Heck, in 1980 they modified one request (the only pre-2000 modification) and granted additional powers that weren't requested. The current composition is made up entirely of Bush appointees, and while some of those are fairly recent, it's clear that he had a majority of the appointees in both 2003 and 2004. What that tells me is that the requests were so flimsy or outside the scope of national security that the court wouldn't just approve them. Heck, the court even publicly rebuked Ashcroft in 2002 over false information provided.
Instead of questioning the sudden restraint by FISA, I think it's more reasonable to question the warrants being requested. Particularly given that the court was doing this post-9/11 and with Bush appointed members.
The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.
That's untrue. The court denied a request in 1997. And the article in question is also wrong about the number of denials -- there were 4 requests denied
And, frankly, it's tiring. How many whistleblowers has the Administration tried to paint as paranoid, out-of-touch, vengeful, etc. now? Why is it that this Administration has so many more of them than previous ones? Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton didn't have nearly as many -- although they all had some. And they didn't try to paint every single one of them with the same brush.
Paul O'Neill. Bunnatine Greenhouse. Richard Clarke. Russell Tice. Jack Spadaro. And that's just a partial list.
Besides which, just because someone is a whistleblower because they feel that they have been wronged does not mean that their action is wrong. It may make their reason for finally calling attention to the issue less noble or just, but it doesn't change the legalities of the case in question.
For example, here's Clinton's deputy Attorney General (Jamie Gorelick) testifying before the House Permanent Select Commitee on Intelligence in 1994:
Which lead to Executive Order 12949 on Feb 9, 1995 because he was told that this was not legal, but it was allowable to fall under the jurisdiction of FISA.
In 1978 his Attorney General (Griffin B. Bell) testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two US men suspected of spying for the Vietnamese government
Which lead to the creation of FISA, because SCOTUS deemed it to be unconstitutional without both Congressional authority (the creation of FISA) and judicial review (the FISA court itself).
Neither of which is analogous to the case before us now -- we have a redux of what Carter did in 1978, except that this time it's been ongoing for over 4 years and is in direct contradiction to the SCOTUS ruling that lead to the creation of FISA in the first place.
e need to be able to immediately, and persistenly follow up on any call from the US that reaches out to those same numbers, and follow the trail of other people who are calling those people, especially from overseas. But you can't list that stuff in a warrant because you don't (and can't) know it in advance.
And you don't need to. FISA allows for warrantless wiretaps for a limited duration -- as long as they're submitted to the FISA court for approval within 72 hours. Precisely what prevented Bush and the NSA from doing that? They've already increased FISA requests by over 70% since 9/11, and out of 5645 requests only 3 have been completely denied (an additional 3 denied, but then granted upon appeal or modification). I think you'd be hard pressed to find any other court that approves 99.95% of all warrants requested over four years (and that percentage is much higher if you go over the court's entire history -- prior to 2001 there was only 1 warrant denied w/o later approval by FISA).
Disbelieve whatever the President says and believe whatever his enemies say.
How'd you get there?
The President of the United States of America has admitted, repeatedly, on approving wire taps without court approval. For over four years now, and in direct contradiction to statements he's made during the same time period.
I guess if you're a Bush supporter then you'd really like for me to disbelieve what he's saying this time. After all, if he lied about approving the wiretaps then he wouldn't be in direct contradiction of the 4th amendment and SCOTUS rulings. He'd just be lying. That's a lot better than the alternative.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
One of these wiretaps was able to stop a guy by the name of Iman Ferris who was plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.
And he reported that there was no way they could do it -- there was too much security. And, btw, where's the evidence that this guy was caught via the wiretaps in question? He was arrested by NYC police, not by federal agents. And there appears to be no information about him beyond this one CNN transcript.
There's been absolutely no explanation for why Bush couldn't use the FISA court, just as it was intended to be used. Except that, for some reason, he doesn't think the 4th amendment applies. Despite repeated US Supreme Court rulings stating exactly the opposite thing.
BTW, there's absolutely no evidence that the FISA court is obstructing the Administration's requests. Just go look at the reports yourself.
2004 -- 1758 applied for, 3 withdrawn, 1 withdrawn and re-applied for, 1754 approved, 0 denied, 94 modified (don't ask me about the discrepency; it's in the report) 2003 -- 1727 applied for, 1724 approved, 4 denied, 1 re-approved after denial, 79 modified 2002 -- 1228 applied for, 1226 approved, 2 denied, 2 appealed and approved, none listed as modified 2001 -- 932 applied for, 934 approved (2 from December 2000), 2 modified
I didn't bother looking back further than that, since it's not relevant to Bush's post-9/11 activities. Which just makes his abridgement of the 4th amendment and SCOTUS rulings that much more questionable.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's what you get when you stick to crufted designs and try to keep them at all costs although there are known better archtectures. It's just like code: it gets unmaintainable over time.
Ah. Ok. So then -- do these "known better archtectures [sic]" have no bugs then? Significantly fewer bugs? Are the bugs less severe? And how do they compare to the Intel/AMD architectures in terms of speed? I can assure you that I can make a chip that is 100% bug free -- it's also going to run somewhere in the vicinity of the original 8008.
Frankly, I doubt you know all that much about the real ISA that Intel or AMD execute on their cores. The x86 instructions are never executed -- they're translated into an internal only ISA that doesn't look anything even vaguely like the x86 ISA.
I'm so sick and tired of all these kids out of college whining about the x86 ISA. And yeah, I was there once too. But know what? That decreipt, horrible, ghastly API has outlasted every single competitor, has been upgraded from 8-bits to 64-bits without losing backwards compatibility, and runs far, far faster than every chip that's tried to take away the title. And costs less. Intel's proven the doom 'n' gloom wrong everytime -- including with their latest transition off the Netburst architecture. AMD has as well (I give Intel props because for decades they were the only real designers for the x86 ISA; AMD is pretty much responsible for the latest incarnation as x86-64 though).
If you look at any of the modern chip architectures then none of them fall nicely and neatly into "CISC" or "RISC". The Power architecture is awfully CISC like in some ways. The x86 (the classic CISC) doesn't use a complex ISA internally, it has pipelining, branch prediction, caching, etc. -- all classic RISC subsystems that were never supposed to work on CISC. Everyone is multi-core now (to various extents).
The x86 architecture isn't going anywhere. If anything Apple's move should've reinforced this concept -- the fact of the matter is that Intel spends more in R&D than every other (general purpose) chip maker on the planet. Combined. And sells their product for less. That kind of R&D budget makes up for a lot of paper shortcomings.
Welcome to the real world.
it's still missing a standard format for multiple genres
Untrue. Both V2.3 and V2.4 allow for multiple genres -- the V2.3 standard is a bit ambiguous here -- if you don't include the parenthesized V1 genre number identifier then it's unclear how to list multiple genres (I favor the iTunes method of space delimiting them; others prefer NULL delimiting). The V2.4 standard is explicit -- NULLs between genres (which, of course, iTunes doesn't follow; but their V2.4 implementation is horribly broken anyway).
I'm not sufficiently familiar w/ V2.2 to make any statements on it. And, of course, V1 doesn't allow for multiple genres at all. But if you're stuck with V1 then you've got bigger issues.
V1 tags are exactly 256 bytes and are stored at the end. So yes, you can always add/change/delete a V1 tag without rewriting the entire file.
V2 tags are variable length and are at the start of the file. But unless you're using an archaic version then V2 tags support padding, and the standard recommends padding to 2K or 4K total. You have to rewrite the file to add or remove the tag entirely, but as long as you don't exceed the pad length you do not have to rewrite the entire file to change or add a few tags.
The real issue with ID3V2 is that the specs are rather poor, the implementations vary greatly in quality (iTunes has a craptacular implementation of V2.4), and it's difficult to change between versions (since V2.3 and V2.4, the two most common, are very different in some important details -- the biggest being UTF16 vs UTF8 in text tags).
typing http:/// is NOT a stupid idea. As another respondent already stated, HTTPS and FTP are also quite common.
So what? That's hardly an excuse. If I go to www.google.com then the browser should be smart enough to open port 80 and connect. If the admin actually wanted it to be https, then they can redirect me easily enough. And if I connect to a site that starts with ftp then connecting to port 23 and prefixing the entire string with ftp:// is easy enough.
Having to type the URI is completely redundant for the vast majority of sites. It adds no security, and it annoys users.
If its not the site you want, just keep shuffling through the billions of HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP pages you desire.
Yeah, because saying "www.google.com" is clearly equivalent to saying "just give me a completely random site". All because you left off the URI.
I will never, ever, fucking EVER run iTunes again for library management.
My library is on a Linux box, shared via SAMBA. We both have 20GB iPods, while the total library size is (was) around 50 GB. One day my wife was updating her iPod and she clicked "Yes" to the wrong prompt and wiped out a third of the library. And yes, she's apologized profusely -- but I really don't blame her, I blame the idiotic software. If it's setup to not manage my library, it shouldn't be asking (or even thinking) about deleting files -- but it does. Every time. And it finally bit us, big time.
Fortunately I won't have to fix all the tags all over again, at least not in the same way -- I've backed up the iTunes XML file and can rip all the stuff I need out of there. It's still going to be a pain in the ass, but at least it won't make me weep.
From now on we're using Anapod Explorer. The only reason to run iTunes will be for firmware updates (and Anapod may even handle that, I dunno).
I was all excited that iTunes had an XML export facility for the library, until I saw it.
Yeah, it's an amazingly crappy XML format -- it's a wonderful example of what not to do with XML.
That said, it's in plist xml format -- if you can find a library that knows how to deal with plists (in XML), then you're set. Any decent library will transform it into something more useful. I found a decent plist parser for python that works on top of SAX. I'm still playing around with it, but it's a lot less work than reinventing the wheel.
since Apple prides itself on embracing open standards when possible, why not simply report these as bugs and presume they will be fixed
Maybe they will be.
And maybe Apple will finally properly implement the ID3V2 tag standards -- they use a non-compliant tag (TCMP is not a valid ID3V2 tag, and they use it on all "compilation" albums; there are many other tags that could be used instead and still comply with the standard) in all of their implementations and their ID3V2.4 implementation is completely fucked.
And yes, they've been asked to fix this many times and have ignored it.
Yeah, I know the ID3V2 standards are rather poorly written in some places, but Apple's implementation (at least of 2.4) is so bad it's as if they didn't even try.
Try actually reading the EISs of these RTG's sometime - you'll find the probabilities of release very carefully spelled out, and they are not zero.
Of course they're not. Except that the most likely release is during early launch failure -- basically a Challanger-like explosion -- and even then it was less than 0.3% (1 in 350 was the quote I read).
There are, of course, other failure scenarios, but they're even less likely. Even if you add them all up you don't come near a significant danger point.
Oh, and to further emphasize the point... in that most likely/most dangerous failure case above, do you know what the net impact was? That for an area up to 62 miles from the launch point the maximum radiation dosage was 80% of background (background being 2.4 mSv; so call it 2 mSv). Frankly, that's not really worth worrying about; it's not even on the chart for radiation poisoning -- even if you include background radiation.
Most of the other "failure" scenarios lead to atmospheric distribution (which would raise the background radiation for the entire planet infintessimally) or a water landing (and water is an awfully good shield against hard radiation).
Understand, I am not suggesting that we should launch every single spacecraft with RTGs, or that we could safely reduce the precautions on those we do launch. But the incessant hand wringing that's associated with the very few probes that do use RTGs is completely out of place.
All Google had to do was refuse to give their money to someone else. Let's think this situation through before applauding Google's altruistic nature.
Shrug. If Google wanted to screw everyone else they could -- by paying the extortion money.
After all, it's likely to be a fairly trivial amount of money to Google, and in return they'd be guaranteed that their VoIP and video data packets get highly prioritized.
And, more to the point, they'd ensure that anyone who wants to compete against them has to do the exact same thing. It's called creating a barrier to competition, and it's generally worth every penny in the long run because you end up with less competition, particularly from pesky startups who have nifty ideas but little or no capital. I'm sure Yahoo!, Alta Vista, etc. would've vastly preferred such a barrier, since it would mean that Google never would've managed to completely usurp all of them.
The PowerPC-derived Cell will rock for workstation and servers
And this conjecture is based on what? Certainly not any real world evidence. The Cell architecture is completely untested and a radically new design for a commodity chip. On paper it looks decent, but so did Itanium (and, technically, Itanium is quite good... except that the software has never been able to properly exploit it. Much the same may be true for Cell).
Back in the day, the same NeXT executable would run on 68040, Sparc, PA-RISC and Pentiums.
Yeah, and look at what a fantastic success story that was! I mean, we have NeXT cubes everywhere now!
Frankly, it's a drawback. Software developers have to certify their code on multiple platforms if you do that, and that's hideously expensive. Sure, you can claim that you can compile for one and it'll work on them all, but know what? That's a lie. It's always been a lie and it always will be one.
Writing cross-platform code isn't as hard now as it used to be, but it's still not trivial. Even if you're talking about different CPU architectures on the same OS. We see that at my workplace running on HP-UX when it comes to PA-RISC vs Itanium; we develop on PA-RISC, but some of our customers run on newer hardware and we cannot replicate the bugs. And this is for software that compiles on several flavors of Unix and Windows, across more CPU types than I care to list, and under at least 3 different compilers. We've already done the hard work of writing cross-platform, cross-OS code, and yet same-platform/different-CPU bugs still happen.
You throw that kind of crap at your average development house and they'll do one of two things -- only develop for the most popular configuration (thus helping to marginalize the others) or just develop for another platform that doesn't have these issues (e.g. -- Windows and x86).
If I start my own restaurant, I will not take or receive change.
If a customer chooses to give you 4 quarters instead of a dollar bill, and you refuse them, then you've just run awry of federal law. You must accept legal tender for all debts, public or private, as long as it would not be an undue burdon (e.g. -- someone paying a $100 tab in pennies would be an undue burdon, someone paying $1 in quarters or mixed change would not be).
Or maybe I could just throw it in the tip pool, and give it to them in cash later.
And how do you know how much is in the tip pool unless you sort it?
As for spending employee time counting change -- give me a break. You can get $10 machines that will sort the coins for you. For $30 they'll do the math too. You'd probably want something that is a bit heavier duty than those toys, but you can get decent automated coin sorters for just over $100. Too expensive? Bull -- if you only got a single quarter a day then it would pay for itself in 1.1 years (of course, if you only got a single quarter then you wouldn't need one now, would you?). If you had a restaurant that got any business whatsoever then a $400 coin sorter would pay for itself in a week (as opposed to throwing out all the change or equally hare-brained schemes).
As for your original point -- I can see doing away with the penny at this point, although we'd need some reasonable rounding laws to make up for it (e.g. -- not always rounding up), but not with all coins. The dollar bill is far too coarse of a monetary unit for everyday transactions.
BellSouth is stuck with technology that cannot compete on speed, so their response is to make the speed worse? Only in a monopoly telecom would that make any sense.
You're right. And Bellsouth has an effective monopoly over most of its coverage area. I'm pretty sure I know the area you live in (NW Atl?) and there they seem to have some effective competition from Comcast. But not in the area I live in (Charter cable), or where many of my friends live (Adelphia cable), or pretty much anywhere else in the Bellsouth service area.
And yes, I'd love to move to East Cobb. I just need someone to handle all the niggly little details like finding a house we'd like, selling our current house, etc. without taking up any of our time -- with a toddler and a second child due in a couple months we don't have any to spare.
Comcast is also doing an all-out assault on "the dish", which BellSouth pushes as an alternative to cable. I think Comcast is winning that battle, too.
I dunno. I compared prices a few weeks ago and DirecTV still has Comcast beat hands down. We pay less for DirecTV Plus w/ locals, HBO, 2 extra receivers (3 total), and junk fees/taxes than Comcast charges for their basic digital cable package (1 receiver, no premiums) -- and that doesn't include junk fees or taxes. Channel lineup is similar.
What about sattelite?
Sure... I'll just pay a few thousand to cut down some 60' trees blocking my LoS that are in my neighbor's yard, plus the exorbitant hardware costs all to get a service that is slower, and useless for interactive anything (ssh, VPN, games, etc).
Satellite service is viable only if there is absolutely no other option. And even then, it depends on LoS, which many people don't have (I have LoS to the main DirecTV bird, but not to any of the others; and even then it was iffy on the main bird. If some trees grow another 10-15 feet then it's gone).
And I'm in the same situation as the GP poster -- my only other option for high speed access is Charter, and if they merely sucked it would be an improvement in service.
If you are looking for libraries that you can add to your own commercial projects with impunity, I suggest looking towards LGPL code
.o's for static linking)?
The LGPL is very unclear in many areas, and it hasn't been seriously vetted by the FSF's lawyers. What happens if you staticly link instead of dynamicly link (the FSF states that you may then provide the non-LGPL object files used for linking as well, but that's not clear from the license wording)? What if there's code in the header files (then it's no longer just the interface -- it's object code as well, and compilers will link that directly into your object files; now it's not sufficient to allow for dynamic linking or provide the
My company (which is, uh, rather large) has a formal policy -- only BSD/MIT licensed code. It's the only licenses that the lawyers feel comfortable with. The terminology is simple, and there's no question of whether or not it can be used without code release.
The GPLv3 was supposed to clarify things on the whole linking-to-libraries bit, but based on my reading of this first draft it has not. If anything, it's less clear for a layman.
In the simple case (dynamic linking, no functions defined in header files), then you're right -- all you have to do is publish changes to the library that you make. But one of the other caveats is that you must be able to use a later version of the LGPL library -- if that library substantially changes then you could run into problems again. Bleh.
Now all of this is only for the case where you provide executable or object code to outside parties. If all the code runs interally to your company (application service provider) then you can use GPL or LGPL code without issue since you never distribute the code externally. This is something that RMS wanted to address in v3, but, again, I don't see anything that does so. The only danger here is if at some point in the mysterious future you change business models and want to distribute a client-side application, you have to be damned sure that there's no code from a GPL or LGPL project that's snuck in (copy/paste, link, whatever) or else you'll violate the licensing.
They are far more interested now in capturing user data, or better yet claiming that computer as a zombie.
Agreed. But what's going to prevent that just because you don't have admin rights? No, I can't go snooping on other users (if any) on the system, but I can snoop your data all I want. And I can certainly setup a zombie without admin rights.
Does having admin rights make it easier? Sure does. Makes it harder to get rid of too. But not having them doesn't stop me. It doesn't even signficantly limit me for the vast majority of systems (where there's exactly one user per system). And, again, if you're the sole user of the system, you'll know the admin password and get used to typing it in when prompted. The average user (who trusts the computer, or at least fears breaking something if they don't do as requested -- always) will simply enter the admin password if prompted. And if that prompting was done on behalf of a piece of malware, then not running as admin has done absolutely nothing for you.
The average Linux user is smarter than that, but that's because Linux is largely a self-selecting community right now. I seriously question that the average OS X user is smarter than that. And if either ever becomes widespread to even a fraction of the degree that Windows has then I'll guarantee you that the average user won't be smarter than that.
People seem to forget that most of the Windows malware requires you to interact with the system to get it installed. Things like the WMF vulnerability are pretty rare now (which makes them all the more dangerous). The malware continues to spread not because people get blithely owned while surfing the net, but because they happily click on "OK" on dialog boxes, agree to EULAs that conceal nasty clauses, etc. Hell, phishing attacks are on the rise, and those require no admin privledges whatsoever and don't care about what OS you run.
It always boils down to the user.
But, as someone posted earlier, if Macs are 5% of the computer market, why aren't 5% of the viruses and spyware on Macs? That would be tens of thousands, not a few dozen.
For roughly the same reason that, in a society where most people are given immunizations as a child, the people who don't have the immunizations don't all get infected anyway.
The vast majority of people are running Windows, so the virus writers target that group. It's just not worth targeting the smaller groups of OS X or Linux -- there's too few machines running them to be worthwhile. If I was a virus writer then why should I bother with such a small target? Even if I infect 100% of the target systems, worldwide, then it's fewer than infecting 10% of the Windows systems worldwide (and, actually, it's probably worse than that -- you'd get roughly equal numbers with 100% vs 5-6%).
Now if the percentage of OS X or Linux systems reaches some critical threshold -- generally around 10-20% -- then it may become worth their time to target those systems. You could be reasonably assured that for any given attack you'd actually have some success.
And to return to the analogy, if a society's immunization rate falls to around 80% then you start seeing infection outbreaks again. Take a look at Great Britain for a recent example.
I was downloading some cracks with Firefox (1 virus) and then some more with Gnutella (2 additional viruses).
So you downloaded programs from an explicitly untrustworthy source, ran them, and got infected?
Wow. How surprising.
Do you generally install compiled programs on your Linux box from untrustworthy sources? If so, are you absolutely positive that you don't have multiple rootkits running on the box?
There's no substituting an OS that doesn't let the average user have administrator rights all the time
Yes, because as we all know the really valuable data on the computer is the OS and installed programs. You know, the stuff that can be replaced in a few hours.
All that user data that's completely and utterly irreplacable? Worthless. Who cares if a virus or trojan destroys it? And it obviously doesn't matter if a keylogger running in userspace sniffs out all your bank passwords and sends them to a 3rd party (what, you don't need admin privs to open a socket?!?!), because, hey, the OS itself is still secure!
The amount of real damage that a virus, worm, or trojan can do is not substantially affected by whether or not it can get administrator privledges. It may be easier to remove, but that's about it. And, frankly, if your average user runs in a lower privledged account then they're likely to get used to typing in the admin password when prompted, without even thinking about it.
And that's what it ultimately boils down to -- the user. Clueless users will get hit by crap all the time regardless of the platform. Clued users will not, again regardless of the platform. I've been using PCs for over 20 years now, most of that time on DOS or Windows (although I've also used OS/2, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and several others) and I've been hit with a virus exactly once -- and that was about 18 years ago. It infected very little too, because I was running a virus scanner that caught it quickly (back in the days when McAfee was free(ish) for personal use). Nor have I ever had to remove spyware, malware, etc. on any of my personal or work systems.
OS X has a rather high percentage of non-technical users, just as Windows does. Do you really think that they're immune to doing stupid things?
There's plugins to check weather, play games (emulation), look at traffic reports, get sports scores and highlights, and much more.
Weather? Check.
Play games? Kinda. They're pretty weak ones. It's really not comparable.
Traffic reports? Check.
Sports scores? Check. Highlights -- depends.
Much more? Check.
And that's with a stock TiVo Series2 plus a USB ethernet dongle. And I can transfer video back and forth between the TiVo and my PC or other TiVos, play music, look at slideshows, podcasts, etc. -- again, just with the stock unit and stock software. Add Galleon on your PC and you can do a good bit more.
No, TiVos are still not as capable as a self-built HTPC, but they're a hell of a lot easier to setup and use.
I'd like to see someone get a Tivo (+ lifetime subscription) and DVD player capable of upscaling for $1000
Uh... ok. 40 hour TiVo S2 - $30 (after rebate). Subscription - $300. USB2 ethernet dongle - $15.
I think I can find a decent DVD player for under $650. Really.
Or, heck, you could get a Humax 80 hour DVD recorder w/ TiVo for $90 after rebate. Even with the lifetime sub that's under $400. Admittedly, it doesn't have a scalar, but if your TV has one then it doesn't matter too much. Only Svideo/composite out, so that rather sucks though.
In which case you can buy the Toshiba 120 hour DVD recorder w/ TiVo. $150 after rebate. Add $300 for the lifetime sub, and you now have a single PVR/DVD box with component outputs. And you're under $500, much less $1000.
I hope you don't think that suggests that he should be let off the hook.
No way -- let him rot in jail for 20 years. Good riddence.
i.e. the new Patriot Act information sharing that is now expressly allowed contributed to his down fall.
Yes, but that was under PATRIOT -- what the Administration is doing is outside of PATRIOT and was not authorized in the least by it. I have issues with some (not all) of the PATRIOT act as well, but that's not what we're talking about. The PATRIOT act even calls for judicial review in most instances (and it's the ones that are outside of that purview that I have issue with).
There are strong arguments on the other side, that the administration's actions were completely legal if seldom used Presidential powers.
Thanks for the links -- I'm already familiar with the arguments in the first, but the second was interesting. And while I agree, to a limited extent, that the wiretapping of foreign nationals is legal when it comes to international communications, it is not at all clear that doing so to domestic calls is allowable -- and it's been stated (although not confirmed AFAIK) that the NSA didn't merely tap international calls, but would spider-web out from the domestic end to other domestic taps -- and that's certainly not on stable legal ground. Neither link even tried to address that either.
And keep in mind that both Congress and the Courts were informed that they were doing this.
There's some question as to exactly what Congress was informed of -- several of the senators on the intelligence committee have said that they were not informed as to the nature or scope of the program, and that if they had been aware that they would not have approved of it. Additionally, the security on it was so tight that the senators could not consult with anyone else (staff, lawyers, etc) on it, which makes it questionable that they were able to make a properly informed decision as to its legality.
As for the courts -- what court was informed of it? Certainly not FISA.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004, the most recent years for which public records are available.
Yes, and note that it's been 5645 requests over 4 years, compared to 13102 requests for the first 22 years. That's a dramatic upswing. And that's not even including the wiretaps we're discussing. That said, I can fully understand the reasons behind the increase -- we were attacked on our own soil after all. So it's entirely understandable.
That said, the FISA court is a freaking kangaroo court -- traditionally all they've done is rubber stamp the requests (which, honestly, I would expect). Heck, in 1980 they modified one request (the only pre-2000 modification) and granted additional powers that weren't requested. The current composition is made up entirely of Bush appointees, and while some of those are fairly recent, it's clear that he had a majority of the appointees in both 2003 and 2004. What that tells me is that the requests were so flimsy or outside the scope of national security that the court wouldn't just approve them. Heck, the court even publicly rebuked Ashcroft in 2002 over false information provided.
Instead of questioning the sudden restraint by FISA, I think it's more reasonable to question the warrants being requested. Particularly given that the court was doing this post-9/11 and with Bush appointed members.
The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.
That's untrue. The court denied a request in 1997. And the article in question is also wrong about the number of denials -- there were 4 requests denied
I did, and you're still non-sensical.
And, frankly, it's tiring. How many whistleblowers has the Administration tried to paint as paranoid, out-of-touch, vengeful, etc. now? Why is it that this Administration has so many more of them than previous ones? Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton didn't have nearly as many -- although they all had some. And they didn't try to paint every single one of them with the same brush.
Paul O'Neill. Bunnatine Greenhouse. Richard Clarke. Russell Tice. Jack Spadaro. And that's just a partial list.
Besides which, just because someone is a whistleblower because they feel that they have been wronged does not mean that their action is wrong. It may make their reason for finally calling attention to the issue less noble or just, but it doesn't change the legalities of the case in question.
For example, here's Clinton's deputy Attorney General (Jamie Gorelick) testifying before the House Permanent Select Commitee on Intelligence in 1994:
Which lead to Executive Order 12949 on Feb 9, 1995 because he was told that this was not legal, but it was allowable to fall under the jurisdiction of FISA.
In 1978 his Attorney General (Griffin B. Bell) testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two US men suspected of spying for the Vietnamese government
Which lead to the creation of FISA, because SCOTUS deemed it to be unconstitutional without both Congressional authority (the creation of FISA) and judicial review (the FISA court itself).
Neither of which is analogous to the case before us now -- we have a redux of what Carter did in 1978, except that this time it's been ongoing for over 4 years and is in direct contradiction to the SCOTUS ruling that lead to the creation of FISA in the first place.
e need to be able to immediately, and persistenly follow up on any call from the US that reaches out to those same numbers, and follow the trail of other people who are calling those people, especially from overseas. But you can't list that stuff in a warrant because you don't (and can't) know it in advance.
And you don't need to. FISA allows for warrantless wiretaps for a limited duration -- as long as they're submitted to the FISA court for approval within 72 hours. Precisely what prevented Bush and the NSA from doing that? They've already increased FISA requests by over 70% since 9/11, and out of 5645 requests only 3 have been completely denied (an additional 3 denied, but then granted upon appeal or modification). I think you'd be hard pressed to find any other court that approves 99.95% of all warrants requested over four years (and that percentage is much higher if you go over the court's entire history -- prior to 2001 there was only 1 warrant denied w/o later approval by FISA).
Disbelieve whatever the President says and believe whatever his enemies say.
How'd you get there?
The President of the United States of America has admitted, repeatedly, on approving wire taps without court approval. For over four years now, and in direct contradiction to statements he's made during the same time period.
I guess if you're a Bush supporter then you'd really like for me to disbelieve what he's saying this time. After all, if he lied about approving the wiretaps then he wouldn't be in direct contradiction of the 4th amendment and SCOTUS rulings. He'd just be lying. That's a lot better than the alternative.
Sadly, I don't think he was lying.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Also known as the 4th amendment.
One of these wiretaps was able to stop a guy by the name of Iman Ferris who was plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.
And he reported that there was no way they could do it -- there was too much security. And, btw, where's the evidence that this guy was caught via the wiretaps in question? He was arrested by NYC police, not by federal agents. And there appears to be no information about him beyond this one CNN transcript.
There's been absolutely no explanation for why Bush couldn't use the FISA court, just as it was intended to be used. Except that, for some reason, he doesn't think the 4th amendment applies. Despite repeated US Supreme Court rulings stating exactly the opposite thing.
BTW, there's absolutely no evidence that the FISA court is obstructing the Administration's requests. Just go look at the reports yourself.
2004 -- 1758 applied for, 3 withdrawn, 1 withdrawn and re-applied for, 1754 approved, 0 denied, 94 modified (don't ask me about the discrepency; it's in the report)
2003 -- 1727 applied for, 1724 approved, 4 denied, 1 re-approved after denial, 79 modified
2002 -- 1228 applied for, 1226 approved, 2 denied, 2 appealed and approved, none listed as modified
2001 -- 932 applied for, 934 approved (2 from December 2000), 2 modified
I didn't bother looking back further than that, since it's not relevant to Bush's post-9/11 activities. Which just makes his abridgement of the 4th amendment and SCOTUS rulings that much more questionable.