Hey, did you know one of the base tenements of the Communist movement is to get people to question the validity of Democracy? Indeed... if we continuously question and re-examine and wonder about the legitimacy of our system, one day someone will say, "hey, ya know that communist idea with a benevolent dictator doesnt sound like such a bad idea after all... i mean, i don't control who runs my nation anyway, might as well just set someone in office and be done with it!"
Redundant systems, geographically dispersed disaster recovery sites... solves that problem. Doesn't solve the system administrator problem, who most likely sysadmins both the primary and disaster recovery sites.
Well, it goes deeper than just doing restores. Medco Health is a provider of prescription benefits management and a mail order pharmacy (see their website). It's likely that the result of a 2 or even 3 day outage of these systems would have affected their ability to deliver drugs to customers and the ability of brick-n-mortar pharmacies to process prescriptions. So, yes, while a recovery plan was most likely in place, you can't explain to the family of someone who died that they couldn't get their prescription due to the inability to process their prescription card.
Yes, but in this case, we are talking about dead people.
The result of the bomb on the server infrastructure would have caused patients to not have their life-saving prescriptions delivered thus putting their health at risk. So, if it had gone off, it is possible there could have been deaths due to his actions.
That only works under the promiscuous browser brings home a little key logger and shares it with the rest of the apps on the system. Then your little "secure browser" isn't really that secure, now is it?
Of course, there are ways to protect your machine from such things, like one of those anti-virus / internet security suite... but then using such a thing would also get rid of that requirement of having to use two separate browsers. And we certainly don't want our friends to think we're uncool by only using one browser!
Google will track wherever you go via GPS. Google can then sell advertising to companies that you walk by. The more people that walk by a business, the more they can charge for advertising. Then, when you walk within 500 feet of that business, they'll send you some text message telling you of said business's latest deals. You clear the message, and in another 300' you get another text message from another business with their lunch specials.
Then, of course, google will have you use your "google logon" with your cellphone, too. So when you go do Internet searches on your PC, it will cater the results to where you go and where you've been. "Hey, I noticed you're looking for anal plugs... there was a good shop with a buy one get one on your route to work".
Of course, google will also use that GPS data to notify businesses in your local area what you're searching for and what you buy from their competitors.
Then Google founders will use all that extra cash to buy an EVEN BIGGER private jet to go play around the world and burn more fuel while hypocritically telling us that we need to reduce our fuel consumption to save the environment.
Of similar interest, living in New Jersey, there have been much debate about the high childhood cancer rate amongst children born in and around Toms River, NJ. There was even a settlement from the case, and some dye company who was dumping chemicals paid a settlement (without admitting liability). However, the study done by the State of New Jersey concluded that there is no single factor that caused the higher than usual cancer rates, so like radiation, we don't really know all the reasons that people get affected by various things.
I believe our bodies, based on our genetics, and even environmental factors, are more or less able to deal with different types of "pollutions". Some people may be able to handle higher levels of radiation than others, some may be able to deal with higher level of chemicals than others, etc. Just as some of us can stand colder weather, hotter water, or those who have higher pain thresholds.
Sounds exactly like the global warming theory... wipe away the data that questions the theory, discredit scientists who bring up the data, and claim your Nobel prize!
Start by adding a cronjob that crashes the machine every 2.5 hours. Second thing to do is to install some spyware. Finally, you want to buy her a more-than-one-button mouse.
I'm not normally one to disagree with Bruce, but...
All security analysis, whether physical or electronic, starts with looking at patterns. An IDS is a perfect example, it looks for patterns and reports on them. Guess what, Bruce? IDS have false positives, a lot of them. It takes a trained security professional to analyze what the IDS thinks is an alert and determine whether it's a real threat.
Eventually someone came up with IDS systems that analyze your normal IDS traffic, and start to alert on things that aren't normal. For example, if you have a link you only see SSH connections on, and all of a sudden there are FTPs, it will alert. Again, a trained security professional looks at the alert and decides if it's a real threat.
The IDS system is analogous to the people on the street reporting strange events, except the people on the street have more intelligence than a typical IDS system (for example, I've never seen this guy (FTP) in my neighborhood, but someone just moved in across the street, ah yes he just unlocked the door there, must be the new owner). People know what is unusual, what doesn't fit into their neighborhood, more so than IDS systems.
And the police officer is analogous to the security professional. A person (IDS) reports an event to me. I take in as much information as I can, and determine whether it's a real threat. If I don't have enough information, I get it. If I can't, I continue to monitor the activity. If it looks threatening, I escalate it.
However, Bruce, when you say that police shouldn't rely on the individuals on the street to help with security, you're like saying I should take down my IDS systems. It's a ridiculous statement. You say it's amateurish? Well, without individuals on the street calling in things they think is unusual, then police don't know someone is unusual. Just like an IDS system, if it doesn't tell me something is anomalous, I don't know whether to go in and check it.
The simple fact is that because people didn't report the unusual behavior of many of the 9/11 attackers, e.g. taking flight lessons that only focused on flying, getting pulled over without licenses, getting pulled over with illegal immigration statuses.... BECAUSE no one reported that activity, they went and hijacked 4 aircraft and killed 3000 people.
Specifically, Bruce... when you say we've opened up the war on the unusual, this is EXACTLY what more modern IDS/IPS systems do, they don't look at signatures, they look at UNUSUAL TRAFFIC. When it finds UNUSUAL TRAFFIC it REPORTS IT to you, then you INVESTIGATE IT, you QUESTION THE PEOPLE INVOLVED, and if they did something against policy you REMOVE THEM FROM THEIR JOBS. YES BRUCE, THIS IS WHAT YOU DO.
Also, on another rant. What's YOUR solution, Bruce? You tell us how NOT to do it, but you have no solutions yourself. Oh wait, you do... you tell us we should do EXACTLY what you rant against:
We don't want people to never report anything. A store clerk's tip led to the unraveling of a plot to attack Fort Dix last May, and in March an alert Southern California woman foiled a kidnapping by calling the police about a suspicious man carting around a person-sized crate. But these incidents only reinforce the need to realistically asses, not automatically escalate, citizen tips. In criminal matters, law enforcement is experienced in separating legitimate tips from unsubstantiated fears, and allocating resources accordingly; we should expect no less from them when it comes to terrorism.
Yes, I can agree that some people blow shit out of proportion, this happens everyday and is part of the human nature (especially for those that love drama). But that doesn't mean we should stop this activity, law enforcement just needs to become better at detecting the actual threats and escalating incidents at the same time fine-tuning their "IDS" systems to what is real threats. This isn't something that will happen overnight, but doesn't mean we should stop it completely!
No. Comcast incurs costs for aiding investigations, therefore they need to recover those costs somehow. You can't expect them to just bite the bullet on the overhead of maintaining the systems needed to wiretap someone's internet connection or VOIP phone, dealing with the FBI, etc etc. It doesn't seem to me that Comcast is significantly altering their bottom line by charging a pittance $1000 for this, seems more like a cost of implementing and maintaining.
It's common practice for organizations to estimate the cost of an investigation post-facto in order to bill back the government. Comcast probably has a certain large percentage of such investigations that they figured it would easier to define an up front cost estimate other than generating that post-facto cost analysis.
First, the Kyoto Protocol, and any treaty, needs to be ratified by Congress, not the President (read up on the Constitution). The President, however, needs to sort of say, "yeah this is something we'll look at". So, why haven't we looked at Kyoto?
Well, quoting Wikipedia...
The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
Not to mention, Bush has made his statement about Kyoto with a valid criticism...
This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto... America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change... Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."[69]
Of course, since that quote was made, China became the #1 CO2 emitter.
Meanwhile, is it better to sign a treaty you can not support or not sign one you know you can't? Nations like Germany can't seem to follow the Kyoto requirements. So, they are failing in their part of the Treaty.
A big part of this debate has to do with many factors.
1) The general dislike for the current administration (whether applicable or not, it's still there). 2) The big question of whether national security trumps personal privacy. 3) How much personal privacy is given up in the interest of national security. 4) Just what information was gathered by the surveillance program.
The first issue we'll just not discuss, since it's really irrelevant in the overall discussion. Basically, if your decision to NOT allow this type of surveillance is based solely on the fact it's Bush in the Whitehouse, then you are being irrational.
Third and fourth, just how much is too much? Well, surveillance in this program was more interested in envelope information such as from where the call is coming from and where it is going to. Phone numbers, without any information attached to them, is basically public record. I could pick up my phone and make a call to a random number right now, that's public information.
Now, who you call is another story. Should the phone companies be tracking this information at all? Well, yes, they use it for billing. Who called who and for how long determines how much they charge you, or at the very least how much it costs them for you to make that phone call. They need this information to run their business. Now the question is, who does this information belong to? You? The telephone company? Well, both! You need this information, possibly, for your own personal information. However, as mentioned, the telco needs it for billing. Since you're using their services, they have the right to this information.
With that in mind, the telco has the right to use that information as they wish, no matter what any Terms of Service say, because you agree to their service and as part of that service, they need to gather said information in order to get you to pay for that service. So, in essence, the telco has every right to provide this information to the federal gov't if they want to (whether it's in their own best interest or not).
So now the question is, should the FCC investigate this activity? Well, technically they could, but the question is whether it's worth it. The question is whether the NSA broke any law under FISA (pointing back to the first link of Clinton's executive order) allows this type of surveillance. But that's not up to the FCC to decide, but for the court to decide. So, is the Congress suing the administration in order to obtain this information? Because that's the only way to properly obtain all the necessary information. Ask your congressman. Because I bet you the Democrats would lose that one in Federal court and they know it. Which is why they chose to argue this one in the court of public opinion.
They also said no one could fly, that flight was just wishful thinking, and I'm sure they had a million "scientific" reasons for it. I think someone in 1900 would have thought it scientifically impossible to have mobile devices that emulated telephones that allowed us to talk to someone while driving our cars.
I guess my point is, unless we strive for the great achievements, then then we will be limited to minor improvements. Some of the most useful things came from "thinking big".. such as the Microwave. Maybe we'll never get a 30 year battery, but who knows what will come out of it's research, not just related to batteries.
Only the atomic bomb and the Internet? Wow, your history is really limited. The internet would have never come to be if it wasn't for this thing called the transistor. In fact, the transistor is probably the biggest invention in the 20th century changing everything about everything. Even other inventions before the invention of the transistor were significantly changed with the transistor, e.g. flight (lead to space flight), mass production (lead to automated, robot-based assembly lines), automobiles (computerized engine management systems, airbag systems)... and I can keep going.
So when is she going to rule that I can purchase automatic weapons, ya know, under that pesky second amendment, because ya know, that current ban is unconstitutional? Oh, that's right, she won't.
A liberal federal judge, appointed by B.J. Clinton, has ruled a couple Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional. And this just in.... the sky is blue and scientists have concluded that dinosaurs are extinct. Back to you, Diane.
Hey, if you don't believe in God because "you can't see him/her/it" then you can't believe in a parallel universe because, hey, you can't see it. Nor can you believe in dark matter/energy./troll.
He was born and raised in Canada; after obtaining his first PhD in Pharmacy and obtaining a job and living in Canada, he was ineligible for the state-run healthcare system. After he obtained his second PhD, he was still ineligibe. He moved to the U.S. 2 years after obtaining his second PhD. He was not able to obtain health insurance in the Canadian system prior to moving to the U.S. Since moving to the U.S., he does not have need for the Canadian health care system since his health care coverage in the U.S. is "far better than anything he would have received in Canada"... and that notice to his former colleagues have resulted in 4 of them moving to NJ since his move 2 years ago.
My "snide" comments aside, maybe I didn't make myself clear. However, with him being an individual who obtained 2 PhDs, I don't think he's ignorant of the way the Canadian healthcare system works (especially after working within the system for several years).
Have a friend who moved from Alberta ways to New Jersey. He was a pharmacist and went back to school to become a chemical scientist.... all in Canada. He moved to New Jersey to work with a pharma. Anyway, he says when he was in Canada, he wasn't eligible for the Canadian healthcare package.. because of a combination of his pay and his position. So, I guess you don't "American-style two tier healthcare"... you want another type of two tier system that excludes the well off and educated.
The reason so many people (not just geeks) end up moving to a Libertarian point of view (and therefore a Federalist point of view) is simply because the Libertarian believe in limited government and relying on individuals and small communities to determine what is best for the way they live.
People, well primarily leftists, complain about the "bad" influence that the "right wing" has over the United States, whether true or not, they believe there is an influence and they don't like it. On the other hand, that "right wing" believes the lefties have a "bad" influence over the country.
In both cases, both the hard-core ring wingers and the hard-core left wingers are the major voices that cause the most stir. Both try to espouse their views on the rest of the nation, both try to be the guys who claim the "moral high ground" when it comes to issues. (And don't tell me left doesn't, with legislative moves like socialized welfare, social security and socialized medicine all with the guise of "helping all Americans").
Those who find themselves not impressed by either side of the argument find themselves somewhat lost and uninvolved in the political discussion. They tend to stick with a political party because either they've been part of the same party for years or because they take on the same political party their parents were.
Libertarians (and federalists), on the other hand, offer a new vision where the federal government provides the very basic services to the nation and let's the states or even the local communities decide how they want to run their localities. Should there be socialized medicine? Maybe in Wisconsin, but not Nebraska. Should the federal government force Nebraska to institute socialized medicine? No, that's their choice. Nebraskans feel they have a different situation than those in Wisconsin and that providing their own healthcare is the best way for themselves to live. (This is hypothetical). The point is, libertarians believe you can still live in the best country of the world, but not be forced into a social situation you do not like.
We can go on all day with examples, but another would be abortion. Another hypothetical example is... New York is okay with abortion, Ohio says its illegal. So, there will be people who chose to live in Ohio and there will be people who chose to live in New York. This is not a morality or political discussion, this is simply about letting people believe what they WANT to believe and leaving them alone about it.
For years the big trend was to "steal" Microsoft software... was your copy of Windows 98 legit? I don't think so! (who would actually pay for that shit software?) In any case, it's time for payback... how do YOU like someone violating YOUR copyrights and using YOUR software without YOUR permission? Not to pleasant, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, did you know one of the base tenements of the Communist movement is to get people to question the validity of Democracy? Indeed... if we continuously question and re-examine and wonder about the legitimacy of our system, one day someone will say, "hey, ya know that communist idea with a benevolent dictator doesnt sound like such a bad idea after all... i mean, i don't control who runs my nation anyway, might as well just set someone in office and be done with it!"
Yeah, you are all sheeple...
Redundant systems, geographically dispersed disaster recovery sites... solves that problem. Doesn't solve the system administrator problem, who most likely sysadmins both the primary and disaster recovery sites.
Well, it goes deeper than just doing restores. Medco Health is a provider of prescription benefits management and a mail order pharmacy (see their website). It's likely that the result of a 2 or even 3 day outage of these systems would have affected their ability to deliver drugs to customers and the ability of brick-n-mortar pharmacies to process prescriptions. So, yes, while a recovery plan was most likely in place, you can't explain to the family of someone who died that they couldn't get their prescription due to the inability to process their prescription card.
Yes, but in this case, we are talking about dead people.
The result of the bomb on the server infrastructure would have caused patients to not have their life-saving prescriptions delivered thus putting their health at risk. So, if it had gone off, it is possible there could have been deaths due to his actions.
That only works under the promiscuous browser brings home a little key logger and shares it with the rest of the apps on the system. Then your little "secure browser" isn't really that secure, now is it?
Of course, there are ways to protect your machine from such things, like one of those anti-virus / internet security suite... but then using such a thing would also get rid of that requirement of having to use two separate browsers. And we certainly don't want our friends to think we're uncool by only using one browser!
Yes, a cellphone revolution... in advertising....
Google will track wherever you go via GPS. Google can then sell advertising to companies that you walk by. The more people that walk by a business, the more they can charge for advertising. Then, when you walk within 500 feet of that business, they'll send you some text message telling you of said business's latest deals. You clear the message, and in another 300' you get another text message from another business with their lunch specials.
Then, of course, google will have you use your "google logon" with your cellphone, too. So when you go do Internet searches on your PC, it will cater the results to where you go and where you've been. "Hey, I noticed you're looking for anal plugs... there was a good shop with a buy one get one on your route to work".
Of course, google will also use that GPS data to notify businesses in your local area what you're searching for and what you buy from their competitors.
Then Google founders will use all that extra cash to buy an EVEN BIGGER private jet to go play around the world and burn more fuel while hypocritically telling us that we need to reduce our fuel consumption to save the environment.
For every force, there is an equal and opposite force...
So the exploded battery broke his ribs and spine, but couldn't muster enough force to rip the shirt pocket? Give me a break.
Of similar interest, living in New Jersey, there have been much debate about the high childhood cancer rate amongst children born in and around Toms River, NJ. There was even a settlement from the case, and some dye company who was dumping chemicals paid a settlement (without admitting liability). However, the study done by the State of New Jersey concluded that there is no single factor that caused the higher than usual cancer rates, so like radiation, we don't really know all the reasons that people get affected by various things.
I believe our bodies, based on our genetics, and even environmental factors, are more or less able to deal with different types of "pollutions". Some people may be able to handle higher levels of radiation than others, some may be able to deal with higher level of chemicals than others, etc. Just as some of us can stand colder weather, hotter water, or those who have higher pain thresholds.
Sounds exactly like the global warming theory... wipe away the data that questions the theory, discredit scientists who bring up the data, and claim your Nobel prize!
Yes,
Start by adding a cronjob that crashes the machine every 2.5 hours.
Second thing to do is to install some spyware.
Finally, you want to buy her a more-than-one-button mouse.
Good luck!
My post is not empty, it does have some text in it. I suspect that slashdot has chosen to censor my comment.
Finally something that will prove the stupidity of that man-made global warming theory and remove it from the liberal religion!
All security analysis, whether physical or electronic, starts with looking at patterns. An IDS is a perfect example, it looks for patterns and reports on them. Guess what, Bruce? IDS have false positives, a lot of them. It takes a trained security professional to analyze what the IDS thinks is an alert and determine whether it's a real threat.
Eventually someone came up with IDS systems that analyze your normal IDS traffic, and start to alert on things that aren't normal. For example, if you have a link you only see SSH connections on, and all of a sudden there are FTPs, it will alert. Again, a trained security professional looks at the alert and decides if it's a real threat.
The IDS system is analogous to the people on the street reporting strange events, except the people on the street have more intelligence than a typical IDS system (for example, I've never seen this guy (FTP) in my neighborhood, but someone just moved in across the street, ah yes he just unlocked the door there, must be the new owner). People know what is unusual, what doesn't fit into their neighborhood, more so than IDS systems.
And the police officer is analogous to the security professional. A person (IDS) reports an event to me. I take in as much information as I can, and determine whether it's a real threat. If I don't have enough information, I get it. If I can't, I continue to monitor the activity. If it looks threatening, I escalate it.
However, Bruce, when you say that police shouldn't rely on the individuals on the street to help with security, you're like saying I should take down my IDS systems. It's a ridiculous statement. You say it's amateurish? Well, without individuals on the street calling in things they think is unusual, then police don't know someone is unusual. Just like an IDS system, if it doesn't tell me something is anomalous, I don't know whether to go in and check it.
The simple fact is that because people didn't report the unusual behavior of many of the 9/11 attackers, e.g. taking flight lessons that only focused on flying, getting pulled over without licenses, getting pulled over with illegal immigration statuses.... BECAUSE no one reported that activity, they went and hijacked 4 aircraft and killed 3000 people.
Specifically, Bruce... when you say we've opened up the war on the unusual, this is EXACTLY what more modern IDS/IPS systems do, they don't look at signatures, they look at UNUSUAL TRAFFIC. When it finds UNUSUAL TRAFFIC it REPORTS IT to you, then you INVESTIGATE IT, you QUESTION THE PEOPLE INVOLVED, and if they did something against policy you REMOVE THEM FROM THEIR JOBS. YES BRUCE, THIS IS WHAT YOU DO.
Also, on another rant. What's YOUR solution, Bruce? You tell us how NOT to do it, but you have no solutions yourself. Oh wait, you do... you tell us we should do EXACTLY what you rant against:
Yes, I can agree that some people blow shit out of proportion, this happens everyday and is part of the human nature (especially for those that love drama). But that doesn't mean we should stop this activity, law enforcement just needs to become better at detecting the actual threats and escalating incidents at the same time fine-tuning their "IDS" systems to what is real threats. This isn't something that will happen overnight, but doesn't mean we should stop it completely!
No. Comcast incurs costs for aiding investigations, therefore they need to recover those costs somehow. You can't expect them to just bite the bullet on the overhead of maintaining the systems needed to wiretap someone's internet connection or VOIP phone, dealing with the FBI, etc etc. It doesn't seem to me that Comcast is significantly altering their bottom line by charging a pittance $1000 for this, seems more like a cost of implementing and maintaining.
It's common practice for organizations to estimate the cost of an investigation post-facto in order to bill back the government. Comcast probably has a certain large percentage of such investigations that they figured it would easier to define an up front cost estimate other than generating that post-facto cost analysis.
First, the Kyoto Protocol, and any treaty, needs to be ratified by Congress, not the President (read up on the Constitution). The President, however, needs to sort of say, "yeah this is something we'll look at". So, why haven't we looked at Kyoto?
Well, quoting Wikipedia...
Not to mention, Bush has made his statement about Kyoto with a valid criticism...
Of course, since that quote was made, China became the #1 CO2 emitter.
Meanwhile, is it better to sign a treaty you can not support or not sign one you know you can't? Nations like Germany can't seem to follow the Kyoto requirements. So, they are failing in their part of the Treaty.
At the same time, Bush has pushed for more funding of alternative fuel automobiles and nuclear power plants.
So stop being a partisen fucktard who only reads sound bites off of MoveOn.org and Media Matters and repeats them until you turn blue. Get a clue.
A big part of this debate has to do with many factors.
1) The general dislike for the current administration (whether applicable or not, it's still there).
2) The big question of whether national security trumps personal privacy.
3) How much personal privacy is given up in the interest of national security.
4) Just what information was gathered by the surveillance program.
The first issue we'll just not discuss, since it's really irrelevant in the overall discussion. Basically, if your decision to NOT allow this type of surveillance is based solely on the fact it's Bush in the Whitehouse, then you are being irrational.
Second, can national security trump personal privacy and if so, how much personal privacy? History shows that, in the United States, during times of war or national crisis, personal privacy gets trumped by national security for what was deemed at the time as being for the public good. For example, Bill Clinton issued an executive order on February 9, 1995 allowing the attorney general to conduct warrantless searches in the interest of national security. Likewise, during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt interned Japanese-Americans to prevent them from spying or otherwise being a nuisance.
Third and fourth, just how much is too much? Well, surveillance in this program was more interested in envelope information such as from where the call is coming from and where it is going to. Phone numbers, without any information attached to them, is basically public record. I could pick up my phone and make a call to a random number right now, that's public information.
Now, who you call is another story. Should the phone companies be tracking this information at all? Well, yes, they use it for billing. Who called who and for how long determines how much they charge you, or at the very least how much it costs them for you to make that phone call. They need this information to run their business. Now the question is, who does this information belong to? You? The telephone company? Well, both! You need this information, possibly, for your own personal information. However, as mentioned, the telco needs it for billing. Since you're using their services, they have the right to this information.
With that in mind, the telco has the right to use that information as they wish, no matter what any Terms of Service say, because you agree to their service and as part of that service, they need to gather said information in order to get you to pay for that service. So, in essence, the telco has every right to provide this information to the federal gov't if they want to (whether it's in their own best interest or not).
So now the question is, should the FCC investigate this activity? Well, technically they could, but the question is whether it's worth it. The question is whether the NSA broke any law under FISA (pointing back to the first link of Clinton's executive order) allows this type of surveillance. But that's not up to the FCC to decide, but for the court to decide. So, is the Congress suing the administration in order to obtain this information? Because that's the only way to properly obtain all the necessary information. Ask your congressman. Because I bet you the Democrats would lose that one in Federal court and they know it. Which is why they chose to argue this one in the court of public opinion.
They also said no one could fly, that flight was just wishful thinking, and I'm sure they had a million "scientific" reasons for it. I think someone in 1900 would have thought it scientifically impossible to have mobile devices that emulated telephones that allowed us to talk to someone while driving our cars.
I guess my point is, unless we strive for the great achievements, then then we will be limited to minor improvements. Some of the most useful things came from "thinking big".. such as the Microwave. Maybe we'll never get a 30 year battery, but who knows what will come out of it's research, not just related to batteries.
Only the atomic bomb and the Internet? Wow, your history is really limited. The internet would have never come to be if it wasn't for this thing called the transistor. In fact, the transistor is probably the biggest invention in the 20th century changing everything about everything. Even other inventions before the invention of the transistor were significantly changed with the transistor, e.g. flight (lead to space flight), mass production (lead to automated, robot-based assembly lines), automobiles (computerized engine management systems, airbag systems)... and I can keep going.
So when is she going to rule that I can purchase automatic weapons, ya know, under that pesky second amendment, because ya know, that current ban is unconstitutional? Oh, that's right, she won't.
A liberal federal judge, appointed by B.J. Clinton, has ruled a couple Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional. And this just in.... the sky is blue and scientists have concluded that dinosaurs are extinct. Back to you, Diane.
Hey, if you don't believe in God because "you can't see him/her/it" then you can't believe in a parallel universe because, hey, you can't see it. Nor can you believe in dark matter/energy. /troll.
He was born and raised in Canada; after obtaining his first PhD in Pharmacy and obtaining a job and living in Canada, he was ineligible for the state-run healthcare system. After he obtained his second PhD, he was still ineligibe. He moved to the U.S. 2 years after obtaining his second PhD. He was not able to obtain health insurance in the Canadian system prior to moving to the U.S. Since moving to the U.S., he does not have need for the Canadian health care system since his health care coverage in the U.S. is "far better than anything he would have received in Canada"... and that notice to his former colleagues have resulted in 4 of them moving to NJ since his move 2 years ago.
My "snide" comments aside, maybe I didn't make myself clear. However, with him being an individual who obtained 2 PhDs, I don't think he's ignorant of the way the Canadian healthcare system works (especially after working within the system for several years).
Have a friend who moved from Alberta ways to New Jersey. He was a pharmacist and went back to school to become a chemical scientist.... all in Canada. He moved to New Jersey to work with a pharma. Anyway, he says when he was in Canada, he wasn't eligible for the Canadian healthcare package.. because of a combination of his pay and his position. So, I guess you don't "American-style two tier healthcare"... you want another type of two tier system that excludes the well off and educated.
The reason so many people (not just geeks) end up moving to a Libertarian point of view (and therefore a Federalist point of view) is simply because the Libertarian believe in limited government and relying on individuals and small communities to determine what is best for the way they live.
People, well primarily leftists, complain about the "bad" influence that the "right wing" has over the United States, whether true or not, they believe there is an influence and they don't like it. On the other hand, that "right wing" believes the lefties have a "bad" influence over the country.
In both cases, both the hard-core ring wingers and the hard-core left wingers are the major voices that cause the most stir. Both try to espouse their views on the rest of the nation, both try to be the guys who claim the "moral high ground" when it comes to issues. (And don't tell me left doesn't, with legislative moves like socialized welfare, social security and socialized medicine all with the guise of "helping all Americans").
Those who find themselves not impressed by either side of the argument find themselves somewhat lost and uninvolved in the political discussion. They tend to stick with a political party because either they've been part of the same party for years or because they take on the same political party their parents were.
Libertarians (and federalists), on the other hand, offer a new vision where the federal government provides the very basic services to the nation and let's the states or even the local communities decide how they want to run their localities. Should there be socialized medicine? Maybe in Wisconsin, but not Nebraska. Should the federal government force Nebraska to institute socialized medicine? No, that's their choice. Nebraskans feel they have a different situation than those in Wisconsin and that providing their own healthcare is the best way for themselves to live. (This is hypothetical). The point is, libertarians believe you can still live in the best country of the world, but not be forced into a social situation you do not like.
We can go on all day with examples, but another would be abortion. Another hypothetical example is... New York is okay with abortion, Ohio says its illegal. So, there will be people who chose to live in Ohio and there will be people who chose to live in New York. This is not a morality or political discussion, this is simply about letting people believe what they WANT to believe and leaving them alone about it.
For years the big trend was to "steal" Microsoft software... was your copy of Windows 98 legit? I don't think so! (who would actually pay for that shit software?) In any case, it's time for payback... how do YOU like someone violating YOUR copyrights and using YOUR software without YOUR permission? Not to pleasant, eh?