As long as Democratic politicians can get the shit kicked out of them in elections for being "soft on crime" or "soft on terrorists", there is not going to be any serious civil libertarian constituency in Congress, even if liberal citizens are all for it.
There will always be a few anomalous libertarian-flavored Republicans, but they'll never be a majority, because the force that makes conservative politics electorally viable is not libertarianism (as much as we all might want it to be) it's cultural resentment of liberal values.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978. Prior to that, there were no legal checks on government surveillance. I assume every president was doing it from the moment the equipment was invented.
After everything that's happened in the last 3 years...all the Wall Street flimflammers who wrecked the economy and got away with millions...you still think it's only government offices that are filled with shoddy work and bad incentives?
TFA says nothing about Obama's actual position on warrantless wiretapping. As far as I can tell from reading the (poorly written) article, it's a bit of procedural legal fluff whose signifance is never explained. Obama may or may not be an asshole, but no evidence has been presented here.
Obama voted against telecom amnesty; McCain voted for it. So you can't claim we don't have a clear choice in November (assuming Clinton's campaign continues to implode.)
The House already passed a no-immunity version of the bill, I believe. It's the Senate, where there are a number of very conservative Democrats who frequently cross over, that has been doing the most to support the Bush police-state agenda lately.
If more people like you who care about privacy issues get out there and put pressure on those wavering Democratic senators who can't quite recall who they answer to, we might actually be able to stop things like this. It's the only way it ever happens.
I don't know if this bears out, but intuitively, talking to a passenger seems safer because they are going to be sensitive to what is happening in the car. They may allow the conversation to naturally pause in moments where the driver needs to concentrate, for example.
We don't need highbrow game criticism for the games we play. When enough games are created that support highbrow criticism, *then* you will get highbrow critics to discuss them. Until then, you will have lowbrow enthusiasts, which is fine.
Most single player games have always been based on the idea that the player can overcome seemingly insurmountable odds because the enemy is stupid. Most of the time, if it's important that the enemy be realistically smart, then it will be a multiplayer game.
Based on the article, it sounds like this is executive policy cooked up by Bush's Homeland Security apparatus, not legislation. So I wouldn't be in too big a hurry to assume the Democrats have a hand in it. It would be pretty uncharacteristic of them to pursue something like this on their own initiative. Their idea of "little symbolic acts to make us look tough on security" seems to revolve around things like "More body armor for the troops!" and "Better pensions for veterans!"
I just patented a scheme whereby a company abusively patents anything it can possibly think of in order to squeeze money out of nothing! Pay up, Cisco!
1. Actually, Severe Tire Damage has 24 songs.
2. Factory Showroom has 14 songs, but it has much longer songs than any other album.
3. Long Tall Weekend has 15 songs, but they wanted to keep it short so it would download reasonably quickly.
4. Their next (children's) album, No!, will have 17 songs.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as Democratic politicians can get the shit kicked out of them in elections for being "soft on crime" or "soft on terrorists", there is not going to be any serious civil libertarian constituency in Congress, even if liberal citizens are all for it.
There will always be a few anomalous libertarian-flavored Republicans, but they'll never be a majority, because the force that makes conservative politics electorally viable is not libertarianism (as much as we all might want it to be) it's cultural resentment of liberal values.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978. Prior to that, there were no legal checks on government surveillance. I assume every president was doing it from the moment the equipment was invented.
After everything that's happened in the last 3 years...all the Wall Street flimflammers who wrecked the economy and got away with millions...you still think it's only government offices that are filled with shoddy work and bad incentives?
Sure, but it probably means he shouldn't be writing climatology reports for the EPA.
Now the terrorists know the location of the tiny exhaust pipe that leads all the way to the central core.
TFA says nothing about Obama's actual position on warrantless wiretapping. As far as I can tell from reading the (poorly written) article, it's a bit of procedural legal fluff whose signifance is never explained. Obama may or may not be an asshole, but no evidence has been presented here.
Obama voted against telecom amnesty; McCain voted for it. So you can't claim we don't have a clear choice in November (assuming Clinton's campaign continues to implode.)
The House already passed a no-immunity version of the bill, I believe. It's the Senate, where there are a number of very conservative Democrats who frequently cross over, that has been doing the most to support the Bush police-state agenda lately.
If more people like you who care about privacy issues get out there and put pressure on those wavering Democratic senators who can't quite recall who they answer to, we might actually be able to stop things like this. It's the only way it ever happens.
Also, much like The Lord of the Rings, each of the two films will consist of 2 hours of actual footage and 1 hour of slow-motion instant replays.
If there's a Windows machine on your network, the icon for it in the Finder "Shared" bar is a monitor with the Blue Screen of Death visible on it.
You mean patience is a place where if you hang around too long you're likely to get mugged?
It has a "Z" in it!
I don't know if this bears out, but intuitively, talking to a passenger seems safer because they are going to be sensitive to what is happening in the car. They may allow the conversation to naturally pause in moments where the driver needs to concentrate, for example.
We're talking avout New York City. "Going there" to buy groceries means walking.
Only if you do it in a country where abortion is illegal.
We don't need highbrow game criticism for the games we play. When enough games are created that support highbrow criticism, *then* you will get highbrow critics to discuss them. Until then, you will have lowbrow enthusiasts, which is fine.
Most single player games have always been based on the idea that the player can overcome seemingly insurmountable odds because the enemy is stupid. Most of the time, if it's important that the enemy be realistically smart, then it will be a multiplayer game.
I don't see why the Wii gets so much innuendo compared to the other consoles.
"Playstation 3" sounds like a deep space brothel.
"X-Box 360" sounds like getting gang-raped by guys who ejaculate Mountain Dew.
Come on, people.
Based on the article, it sounds like this is executive policy cooked up by Bush's Homeland Security apparatus, not legislation. So I wouldn't be in too big a hurry to assume the Democrats have a hand in it. It would be pretty uncharacteristic of them to pursue something like this on their own initiative. Their idea of "little symbolic acts to make us look tough on security" seems to revolve around things like "More body armor for the troops!" and "Better pensions for veterans!"
I just patented a scheme whereby a company abusively patents anything it can possibly think of in order to squeeze money out of nothing! Pay up, Cisco!
What do you do when *all* the candidates are getting bribed?
Not at my school! Ah, the joys of free tuition! ;)
1. Actually, Severe Tire Damage has 24 songs. 2. Factory Showroom has 14 songs, but it has much longer songs than any other album. 3. Long Tall Weekend has 15 songs, but they wanted to keep it short so it would download reasonably quickly. 4. Their next (children's) album, No!, will have 17 songs.