The problem isn't with when the police have a warrant, it is when they DON'T have one.
You know, like with the boxes attached to cell phone trunk points that allow the FBI to record any phone call. SUPPOSEDLY they need a warrant, but I've had several telco CO techs tell me there is no method for checking that. The FBI guy shows up, punches in numbers to his black box and they pick up the tape later. No one checks.
Even if they asked for a warrant, they aren't qualified to tell if one is fake or not. Hell, a Japanese language insurance form may do the trick.
Consider, for example, the following vote count with three candidates {A,B,C}:
8: A,B
7: C,B
5: B
B doesn't win because B shouldn't WIN! More people didn't want B than did! So why should be win? The above logic doesn't make any sense to me.
No, you had 13 people who didn't want C AT ALL, and 12 who didn't want A AT ALL. But EVERYONE could live with B. Most (13) people preferred him over C and most (12) preferred him over A. Where as only 8 people preferred A over B and 7 preferred C over B.
Think of group 1 voting for Bush, and then Mickey Mouse -- ANYONE but Kerry.
Think of group 2 voting for Kerry, and then Mickey Mouse -- ANYONE but Bush.
Think of group 3 voting for ANYONE BUT BUSH OR KERRY.:-)
As a Kerry/Bush supporter, would you rather see Bush/Kerry in, or Michael Badnarik? He isn't Bush/Kerry and odds are Congress would stifle most of what he does but at least Bush wouldn't get re-elected and Kerry wouldn't get in!
Because many of the GMs have been architected to not self-reproduce. No seeds after 1 or 2 generations. Thus, you buy EVERYTHING from Monsanto or you grow nothing at all.
What happens if Monsanto has a production problem and can't produce any more wheat? What if the genetic modifications they made produce immediately sterile product down the line (i.e. -- won't grow at all)?
GM *CAN* be good, but there hasn't been enough study to determine how these things react down the line.
Case in point, Vioxx. Yes, it is a drug and not a GM product, but the premise is the same. FDA approved, clinically tested and on the market for YEARS. Oops! It increases your risks of heart attack so much we have to pull it! We didn't notice that in our rush-to-get-to-market testing. So sorry! Here, try THESE drugs that went through the same rush-to-get-to-market testing. They're good. We promise!
After looking at everything with the Iraq war, I don't believe President Bush lied about the reasons.
Look at it this way.
1. Saddam Hussein DID HAVE WMD. He used them several times against the Kurds and the Iranians. He advertised his hunt for them and announced it to the world when get got them. This is not in question. He could never prove he actually got rid of them and played shell games with the inspectors for YEARS.
2. He was a known, proven supporter of suicide bombers and terrorists. He paid thousands of $$ to the families of successful suicide bombers in Israel.
3. Crazies (terrorists) proved that they were willing to kill massive amounts of civilian people on 9/11/2001.
4. The President was given intelligence that said there were credible connections between the crazies and Saddam Hussein. The CIA, NSA and the like are supposed to be some of the best in the world. It isn't up to G.W. to second guess what he is given. He has tons of people to double-check things. It is the job of THOSE people to make sure the intel is good and accurate. The President MUST ASSUME that he is being given good intel. He has neither the time, resources nor expertiese to do it himself.
From THIS PERSPECTIVE, we had just been attacked by crazies. Those crazies proved they were willing to kill as many as possible. Those crazies had prior contacts with a regieme that not only had WMDs but had USED THEM in the past -- and on their own people! The crazies wanted said WMDs.
This constitues a grave threat to the security and welfare of the United States and fully justifies UNILATERAL ACTION by the U.S. against Iraq. It is vastly easier to take out the available supply of WMDs than it is the demand.
Now, it looks like the intel was cooked and bad. However, that is NOT THE FAULT NOR RESPONSIBILITY of the President. He acted on what he considered to be the best information at the time.
One benefit of this is Libya's surrendering of their chemical and biological weapons. Programs we didn't think were anywhere near as advanced as they were! This would NOT HAVE HAPPENED under your Kerry Whitehouse, non-invaded Iraq situation.
* * *
As far as dooming the economy -- you are vastly over simplifying. The Clinton boom was based on fraud, deceit and a house of cards. The economy was doomed when that collapsed. There isn't jack shit *any* President could have done to stop this. You can make a good case for the Clinton administration's "let the good times roll" and "don't rock the boat" attitudes exacerbated this.
Congress has much more influence on spending and the economy than the President does.
Uhhh....those little yellow 20s are a major part of the digial anti-counterfeiting measures!
The pattern of the "0"s is something you'll see on Euros, Pounds and many other currencies. This allows software to easily recognize one pattern, at almost any angle, and not have to have separate code for each country's currency.
"It's simpler than you might think. All compliant notes bear a pattern of five tiny circles. On the Euro, the circles appear in a constellation of stars; on the British £20 note, they're disguised as musical notation. On the new $US20 note, the pattern is hidden in the zeros of a repeated background pattern of the number 20. Imaging software or devices detect the pattern and won't play ball."
Check it out at http://www.listener.co.nz/default,1412.sm
I'm sorry, but the world will NOT end within the next four years if GWB gets re-elected. This is the same fear-mongering that Hollywood liberals espoused in 2000. Things aren't great, but the world did not end. This too shall pass.
What could be more important is your vote for a 3rd party candidate. Why? Because it could help confer "major party" status and thus effect a long term change.
Over the long term, having more choice than Republocrats is more important.
-Charles
This has been known on Slashdot for some time.
on
The Google News Dilemma
·
· Score: 5, Funny
1. Create some cool web portal things 2. Drive traffic to it 3. ?? 4. Profit!
Google, like the rest of the world, is still stuck on figuring out #3.:-)
1. My back yard, surrounded by the 7' privacy fence is not public yet open to scrutiny by these types of devices.
2. Define "public". How about in your car, parked in a public street? Not in many locations. I remember a legal case in NYC where a couple was arrested for having sex in their car "in public". The courts ruled that the closed doors on the car constituted a "reasonable expectation of privacy" so "public" indecency laws didn't apply.
How about "Illegal search and seizure". Yeah, no seizure here but a picture that good might constitute "illegal search".
But some of the most obvious things aren't being considered here. Do you think they'd stop at watching us, when they could plausibly listen too? We've all seen the spy supply catalogs that use laser microphones, that measure the vibrations in a pane of glass, haven't we? I'm wondering if they have one precise enough to aim at a residence or office window, and listen in. They might only be able to capture a minute or so, before the angle became wrong, but still...
I strongly doubt it, not from satellites, anyway. The angle would almost ALWAYS be wrong. Not to mention being able to aim a laser that precisely from the sat AND bounce it back off a medium designed to be tranparent, with enough strength to read it, etc.
Not cost effective at all, unless it was a permanent location they wanted to bug -- like an embassy or federal building. Even then, there are easier and more cost effective ways.
They are actually 3rd party products that distribute Microsoft DLLs as part of the runtime code. The argument is that these companies need permission from MS, who should then have a master list of who asked for permission and why.
Okay, "natural spot" was probably an incorrect term. "Natural rhythm" or "natural cycle" is more along the lines of what I meant.
You're talking in overall, big-picture language. This is correct as a theoretical model, but doesn't take into account the human factor.
The human factor is the relative short-term pain associated with displaced industry in A. People in A may be able to purchase more of the subsidized product, but not those people displaced by the subsidization effects -- they have no extra money because they are out of work.
New skills, training and jobs take time. Human nature is such that those people will bitch, whine and fight the change for quite some time. This prolongs their suffering and their transition.
Depending on the size of the industry displaced, the benefits of cheaper products may not outweigh the economic impact of a large group of unemployed people, many of who are living off the State.
Most people don't realize how brutal capitalism can be. When they find out first hand, by getting laid off or going bankrupt, they apply as much political pressure as they can to artificially alleviate their pain.
Most, if not ALL HDTV recorders for PCs support only over-the-air broadcasts, and not QAM encoded. Cable and Satellite use QAM encoding, meaning you aren't going to record unless you have an antenna.
I forget the last step -- where company B then jacks the price through the roof because they are a monopoly.
Voters, the people, in China have little or nothing to do with gov't policy. (And China is only one example -- not to be picking on just them. Japan & rice is just as bad if not worse.)
The problem lies with A. THEY see that as wrong because now their steel industry is gone because of dumping.
The would would be up in arms if we dumped everything below cost, crushing lots of local little economies.
The biggest issue is that it is always short term, giving exaggeration to the "booms and busts" of capitalism that Engles vilified in "Das Kapital". It never gives the free market a chance to find its natural spot.
Re:Shouldn't this be...
on
Security Alert
·
· Score: -1, Troll
HELLO! This is Slashdot! Just count yourself lucky the article isn't a dupe.
Besides, what better way to show off the burnished baby-shit brown color scheme of the IT section?
The obvious difference from today is that today if significant number of people do not want the land to be auctioned off from the state, they have an option of electing people who are against such auctioning.
Or getting together and buying it themselves, sort of like the Nature Conservancy. (See original post.) Instead of getting together in groups to tell others what they can and can't do with their land.
Unfortunately, what the LP (of which I am a member) seems to gloss over, is that the Constitution mandates certain restrictions on trade. Specifically, Copyright and Patents and government issued and backed monopolies on certain goods, methods and properties.
Also, it is quite difficult for "free trade" unless ALL parties participate. We can't have free trade with the likes of China, because of massive subsidation. Not to mention other, less developed markets would not be able to trade "freely" with us because until those markets develop (with gov't subsidation) they would be crushed out of existence.
"Free" isn't going to be "fair", though there is no law in nature about "fair". The bigger guy almost always wins.
Get a grip. Yes, some would be auctioned off for their natural resources. How is this different from today? Montana has been the bitch of the mining industry since day 1, and now we're talking about drilling in ANWR. Oh, how the gov't protected us there!
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't with when the police have a warrant, it is when they DON'T have one.
You know, like with the boxes attached to cell phone trunk points that allow the FBI to record any phone call. SUPPOSEDLY they need a warrant, but I've had several telco CO techs tell me there is no method for checking that. The FBI guy shows up, punches in numbers to his black box and they pick up the tape later. No one checks.
Even if they asked for a warrant, they aren't qualified to tell if one is fake or not. Hell, a Japanese language insurance form may do the trick.
-Charles
No hypocracy involved at all. (Not by me, anyway. The gov't, though...)
And, just for clarity, many of the WMDs were also sold to him by France and the Russians.
"Our Guy Saddam" == Not a threat to the U.S., keeping the Iranian nutcases contained.
"Not Our Guy Saddam" == Threat to the U.S., the Iranians are much lower on our list now.
While we frown upon the use of WMDs, we take more direct action when the target is ourselves. It is called "self interest" and "self preservation".
No, I knew that. Duh! What more proof do you need that he had WMD -- we had the RECEIPTS!
This changes things how?
Consider, for example, the following vote count with three candidates {A,B,C}:
:-)
8: A,B
7: C,B
5: B
B doesn't win because B shouldn't WIN! More people didn't want B than did! So why should be win? The above logic doesn't make any sense to me.
No, you had 13 people who didn't want C AT ALL, and 12 who didn't want A AT ALL. But EVERYONE could live with B. Most (13) people preferred him over C and most (12) preferred him over A. Where as only 8 people preferred A over B and 7 preferred C over B.
Think of group 1 voting for Bush, and then Mickey Mouse -- ANYONE but Kerry.
Think of group 2 voting for Kerry, and then Mickey Mouse -- ANYONE but Bush.
Think of group 3 voting for ANYONE BUT BUSH OR KERRY.
As a Kerry/Bush supporter, would you rather see Bush/Kerry in, or Michael Badnarik? He isn't Bush/Kerry and odds are Congress would stifle most of what he does but at least Bush wouldn't get re-elected and Kerry wouldn't get in!
So? Why is that bad?
Because many of the GMs have been architected to not self-reproduce. No seeds after 1 or 2 generations. Thus, you buy EVERYTHING from Monsanto or you grow nothing at all.
What happens if Monsanto has a production problem and can't produce any more wheat? What if the genetic modifications they made produce immediately sterile product down the line (i.e. -- won't grow at all)?
GM *CAN* be good, but there hasn't been enough study to determine how these things react down the line.
Case in point, Vioxx. Yes, it is a drug and not a GM product, but the premise is the same. FDA approved, clinically tested and on the market for YEARS. Oops! It increases your risks of heart attack so much we have to pull it! We didn't notice that in our rush-to-get-to-market testing. So sorry! Here, try THESE drugs that went through the same rush-to-get-to-market testing. They're good. We promise!
After looking at everything with the Iraq war, I don't believe President Bush lied about the reasons.
Look at it this way.
1. Saddam Hussein DID HAVE WMD. He used them several times against the Kurds and the Iranians. He advertised his hunt for them and announced it to the world when get got them. This is not in question. He could never prove he actually got rid of them and played shell games with the inspectors for YEARS.
2. He was a known, proven supporter of suicide bombers and terrorists. He paid thousands of $$ to the families of successful suicide bombers in Israel.
3. Crazies (terrorists) proved that they were willing to kill massive amounts of civilian people on 9/11/2001.
4. The President was given intelligence that said there were credible connections between the crazies and Saddam Hussein. The CIA, NSA and the like are supposed to be some of the best in the world. It isn't up to G.W. to second guess what he is given. He has tons of people to double-check things. It is the job of THOSE people to make sure the intel is good and accurate. The President MUST ASSUME that he is being given good intel. He has neither the time, resources nor expertiese to do it himself.
From THIS PERSPECTIVE, we had just been attacked by crazies. Those crazies proved they were willing to kill as many as possible. Those crazies had prior contacts with a regieme that not only had WMDs but had USED THEM in the past -- and on their own people! The crazies wanted said WMDs.
This constitues a grave threat to the security and welfare of the United States and fully justifies UNILATERAL ACTION by the U.S. against Iraq. It is vastly easier to take out the available supply of WMDs than it is the demand.
Now, it looks like the intel was cooked and bad. However, that is NOT THE FAULT NOR RESPONSIBILITY of the President. He acted on what he considered to be the best information at the time.
One benefit of this is Libya's surrendering of their chemical and biological weapons. Programs we didn't think were anywhere near as advanced as they were! This would NOT HAVE HAPPENED under your Kerry Whitehouse, non-invaded Iraq situation.
* * *
As far as dooming the economy -- you are vastly over simplifying. The Clinton boom was based on fraud, deceit and a house of cards. The economy was doomed when that collapsed. There isn't jack shit *any* President could have done to stop this. You can make a good case for the Clinton administration's "let the good times roll" and "don't rock the boat" attitudes exacerbated this.
Congress has much more influence on spending and the economy than the President does.
-Charles
If you were screwed for life, you wouldn't need the pr0n!
Uhhh....those little yellow 20s are a major part of the digial anti-counterfeiting measures!
The pattern of the "0"s is something you'll see on Euros, Pounds and many other currencies. This allows software to easily recognize one pattern, at almost any angle, and not have to have separate code for each country's currency.
"It's simpler than you might think. All compliant notes bear a pattern of five tiny circles. On the Euro, the circles appear in a constellation of stars; on the British £20 note, they're disguised as musical notation. On the new $US20 note, the pattern is hidden in the zeros of a repeated background pattern of the number 20. Imaging software or devices detect the pattern and won't play ball."
Check it out at http://www.listener.co.nz/default,1412.sm
-Charles
Wrong.
I'm sorry, but the world will NOT end within the next four years if GWB gets re-elected. This is the same fear-mongering that Hollywood liberals espoused in 2000. Things aren't great, but the world did not end. This too shall pass.
What could be more important is your vote for a 3rd party candidate. Why? Because it could help confer "major party" status and thus effect a long term change.
Over the long term, having more choice than Republocrats is more important.
-Charles
1. Create some cool web portal things
:-)
2. Drive traffic to it
3. ??
4. Profit!
Google, like the rest of the world, is still stuck on figuring out #3.
-Charles
1. My back yard, surrounded by the 7' privacy fence is not public yet open to scrutiny by these types of devices.
2. Define "public". How about in your car, parked in a public street? Not in many locations. I remember a legal case in NYC where a couple was arrested for having sex in their car "in public". The courts ruled that the closed doors on the car constituted a "reasonable expectation of privacy" so "public" indecency laws didn't apply.
How about "Illegal search and seizure". Yeah, no seizure here but a picture that good might constitute "illegal search".
-Charles
But some of the most obvious things aren't being considered here. Do you think they'd stop at watching us, when they could plausibly listen too? We've all seen the spy supply catalogs that use laser microphones, that measure the vibrations in a pane of glass, haven't we? I'm wondering if they have one precise enough to aim at a residence or office window, and listen in. They might only be able to capture a minute or so, before the angle became wrong, but still...
I strongly doubt it, not from satellites, anyway. The angle would almost ALWAYS be wrong. Not to mention being able to aim a laser that precisely from the sat AND bounce it back off a medium designed to be tranparent, with enough strength to read it, etc.
Not cost effective at all, unless it was a permanent location they wanted to bug -- like an embassy or federal building. Even then, there are easier and more cost effective ways.
They are actually 3rd party products that distribute Microsoft DLLs as part of the runtime code. The argument is that these companies need permission from MS, who should then have a master list of who asked for permission and why.
And in Northern Idaho we call that "most of Northern Idaho". :-)
Okay, "natural spot" was probably an incorrect term. "Natural rhythm" or "natural cycle" is more along the lines of what I meant.
You're talking in overall, big-picture language. This is correct as a theoretical model, but doesn't take into account the human factor.
The human factor is the relative short-term pain associated with displaced industry in A. People in A may be able to purchase more of the subsidized product, but not those people displaced by the subsidization effects -- they have no extra money because they are out of work.
New skills, training and jobs take time. Human nature is such that those people will bitch, whine and fight the change for quite some time. This prolongs their suffering and their transition.
Depending on the size of the industry displaced, the benefits of cheaper products may not outweigh the economic impact of a large group of unemployed people, many of who are living off the State.
Most people don't realize how brutal capitalism can be. When they find out first hand, by getting laid off or going bankrupt, they apply as much political pressure as they can to artificially alleviate their pain.
This is just reality and isn't going to go away.
Most, if not ALL HDTV recorders for PCs support only over-the-air broadcasts, and not QAM encoded. Cable and Satellite use QAM encoding, meaning you aren't going to record unless you have an antenna.
I forget the last step -- where company B then jacks the price through the roof because they are a monopoly.
Voters, the people, in China have little or nothing to do with gov't policy. (And China is only one example -- not to be picking on just them. Japan & rice is just as bad if not worse.)
The problem lies with A. THEY see that as wrong because now their steel industry is gone because of dumping.
The would would be up in arms if we dumped everything below cost, crushing lots of local little economies.
The biggest issue is that it is always short term, giving exaggeration to the "booms and busts" of capitalism that Engles vilified in "Das Kapital". It never gives the free market a chance to find its natural spot.
HELLO! This is Slashdot! Just count yourself lucky the article isn't a dupe.
Besides, what better way to show off the burnished baby-shit brown color scheme of the IT section?
Except this is the real world.
Country A has free trade on steel. They process, refine and sell steel.
Country B subsidizes steel. They process, refine and sell it less than A can.
Buyers flock to B. B, being backed by a government w/cash in the bank, takes the loss for 5 years.
A goes broke and out of business, because they don't have the bankroll that a country-backed business does.
A is now free to do something other than process, refine and sell steel, since they can't pay for the factory, electricity or labor.
Welcome to "free" trade with a subsidized partner!
Who is Andew Sullivan? Don't you people check links? Pretend it is "speak like a pirate day" and put that "r" back in there!
The obvious difference from today is that today if significant number of people do not want the land to be auctioned off from the state, they have an option of electing people who are against such auctioning.
Or getting together and buying it themselves, sort of like the Nature Conservancy. (See original post.) Instead of getting together in groups to tell others what they can and can't do with their land.
Unfortunately, what the LP (of which I am a member) seems to gloss over, is that the Constitution mandates certain restrictions on trade. Specifically, Copyright and Patents and government issued and backed monopolies on certain goods, methods and properties.
Also, it is quite difficult for "free trade" unless ALL parties participate. We can't have free trade with the likes of China, because of massive subsidation. Not to mention other, less developed markets would not be able to trade "freely" with us because until those markets develop (with gov't subsidation) they would be crushed out of existence.
"Free" isn't going to be "fair", though there is no law in nature about "fair". The bigger guy almost always wins.
Nope. That is a policy of *government*. He is talking about *individuals* or *private groups* doing such things.
NOT sending the Army or Marines in to kill foreign leaders. You and your buds getting some guns & training and doing it yourself.
The Free State Project (http://http://freestateproject.org/) is not officially associated with the Libertarian Party.
Like the Nature Conservancy?
Get a grip. Yes, some would be auctioned off for their natural resources. How is this different from today? Montana has been the bitch of the mining industry since day 1, and now we're talking about drilling in ANWR. Oh, how the gov't protected us there!
-Charles