So the problem is less of one in creating, say, a Viagra tablet for drug research, but rather purchasing bottles of Viagra to do research on other health effects.
Did they try a going to a pharmacy? See above where I don't get it what the problem is.
I realize this is a radical position, but yes, I would say that.
And this is why you shouldn't be taken seriously. You don't care who you hurt with the secondary effects of the policy changes you advocate. A serious person would take the whole picture into account.
You don't get to run an economy when you have no water, or a population that can't get food. It goes without saying, the economy operates within the environment.
Water and food are "scarce" resources. Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources. It's a whole (social) scientific discipline that predicts behavior and the results. I realize it's harder to understand than doomsday, but you might want to look into it.
What are these guys talking about? If you want something that's patented, you go and buy it at the store. How does that interfere with research? I don't get it. What am I missing?
When they say they had trouble "acquiring patented technologies" to use in their research, what do they mean? Examples please.
(I RTFA and skimmed the linked articles. It's a survey. I saw no examples of what they meant when they said they couldn't acquire patented technologies.)
Has it occured to you that Lovelock et al use grandiose, sweeping language because of this reason - that people don't pay much attention to real science on a day-to-day basis?
Getting attention isn't the objective of science and the methods of getting attention are almost always anti-scientific.
Right. The blind guy who lives next to me saves a fortune on light bulbs.
So nevermind serious, objective thought on things then. I guess longer growing seasons over large land areas isn't a benefit. I guess milder winters aren't a benefit. More energy for plants to grow can't be helpful. Longer seasons for shipping, shorter hibernation cycles for animals, more vegetation, etc. Nevermind taking the benefits into account and coming up with more sensible net effect analysis.
Also, nevermind the cost to the economy of any changes to mitigate global warming. It gets in the way of advocacy.
Exactly, what are these folks not seeing when it comes to denying global warming?
One thing I'm see right now is the eagerness to believe in global warming. You're so eager in fact, that you're claiming one year's weather in your local area as evidence of it. One year's weather isn't the "climate", and Southern Ontario isn't "global".
Maybe if the global warming proponents would try to be scientists rather than advocates, more people would take them seriously. Stop pimping it so much.
That goes for science in general, BTW. Stop issuing press releases if you want to be taken seriously. Stop making doomsday claims in the summary of your report if you want to be taken seriously. Real honest science doesn't make good press.
When are we going to see the possible benefits of global warming mentioned? Longer growing seasons for vast areas of Asia, North America, and Europe are an example. If there are negative effects of global warming, they are at least partially balanced by the positive effects -- mild winters in Ontario is a good example.
Though cutting emissions and other human sources of greenhouse gasses will definatly not hurt.
Except for the people who lose their jobs as a result. Or people who die in auto accidents because they have too small of a car to protect them in a crash. Or people who have a lower standard of living because they have to pay for all the extra environmental costs that may or may not be necessary. Etc, etc, etc.
Nope. It's legal or not regardless of the fact that it's necessary.
I think it's legal. The Bush Administration thinks it's legal. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the legality one way or the other. The Congress doesn't have a say in the matter, other than funding the NSA or not.
It'll probably be decided in court in a few years. The only result of that decision will be which side gets to say "see, I told you so".
Is the capability to instantly begin tapping with 72 hours to get a retroactive judicially-reviewed warrant--from a rubberstamp court no less--an insuffient solution for addressing terrorist threats?
Yes.
Mm'k. How?
Read your 4th Amendment. A warrant is for a known individual. You can't get a warrant to listen to "whoever".
When terrorist calls whoever in the USA, you can't listen to that side of the conversation without a warrant. But you'll get one later, right? What if you never find out who "whoever" is? Then you can never get a warrant. But you already listened to the conversation. What's the purpose of getting a warrant after you listened to the conversation again?
You can't get a warrant after the fact for something you couldn't get a warrant for beforehand.
It's a ridiculous situation, and you know it (because it's obvious).
We have a de-facto declaration of war. We're at war. Signals intelligence is part of fighting a war. The president is in charge of warmaking, and he's therefore empowered to conduct signals intelligence by Article 2.
If you don't like it, go to court or call your congressman, or try to get a constitutional amendment passed.
Is the capability to instantly begin tapping with 72 hours to get a retroactive judicially-reviewed warrant--from a rubberstamp court no less--an insuffient solution for addressing terrorist threats?
Yes.
If so, then wouldn't it be better for the executive branch to request some changes to that law than to disregard it?
No. There's a responsibility to prevent terror attacks, which means you have to act now, not wait months or years to get a law passed -- a law that your legal advisors tell you isn't even necessary.
They concluded that their actions were within the law. That's the last word until there's a ruling otherwise. We'll see if that happens. I'm betting they'll be proven correct.
Had they really wanted to prevent the 9/11 attacks they would've dropped their passive-aggressive stance against governments across the world decades ago.
Who is this they that could have done this thing decades ago?
Lots of stuff here. Not much of it practical. Please explain the historical effectiveness of these schemes. When did they work? When did one nation acting peaceful make their enemy stop attacking?
See, everyone wishes you were right. But you're not.
And I'm still waiting to hear about the big gift the world was going to give the USA if we'd only be more like France. What's our reward?
If it's "fewer terrorist attacks", I think I'll stick to supporting a policy that involves killing terrorists while helping friendly nations.
Because you're framing the question incorrectly. You think it is about wiretapping.. it is not. It is about the executive branch bypassing the system of checks and balances.
Dear Mrs. Smith,
I'm sorry your family died in that terrorist attack. We could easily have found out about it and prevented it, but not without bypassing the system of checks and balances. We decided to work within the system. I'm sure your dead children would agree that we did the right thing.
It's about due process vs. the responsibility to protect the USA from terrorist attacks. You guys don't seem to be interested in the latter though.
If I have the responsibility to protect the USA, I'm going to do what I can to accomplish that, right up to (but not over) the edge of what I can do legally. Because I'd have to be responsible to obey the law too.
Any other course of action would be irresponsible.
What an apologistic cop-out. My point is that it wasn't even attempted.
Why should it be? It's a lot of effort that doesn't actually accomplish anything useful.
"Ok. The 3000 people died yesterday. I need to start a working group to devise a system of courts to oversee some new intelligence-gathering. Then we need to get a consistutional amendment passed. We need to get started now so we can start monitoring terrorist phone calls in 5 or 10 years.
We could do it today and stop the next terrorist attack which could be coming at any time, but someone might complain about the lack of oversight."
Slashdot Mirror
So the problem is less of one in creating, say, a Viagra tablet for drug research, but rather purchasing bottles of Viagra to do research on other health effects.
Did they try a going to a pharmacy? See above where I don't get it what the problem is.
I realize this is a radical position, but yes, I would say that.
And this is why you shouldn't be taken seriously. You don't care who you hurt with the secondary effects of the policy changes you advocate. A serious person would take the whole picture into account.
You don't get to run an economy when you have no water, or a population that can't get food. It goes without saying, the economy operates within the environment.
Water and food are "scarce" resources. Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources. It's a whole (social) scientific discipline that predicts behavior and the results. I realize it's harder to understand than doomsday, but you might want to look into it.
What are these guys talking about? If you want something that's patented, you go and buy it at the store. How does that interfere with research? I don't get it. What am I missing?
When they say they had trouble "acquiring patented technologies" to use in their research, what do they mean? Examples please.
(I RTFA and skimmed the linked articles. It's a survey. I saw no examples of what they meant when they said they couldn't acquire patented technologies.)
Has it occured to you that Lovelock et al use grandiose, sweeping language because of this reason - that people don't pay much attention to real science on a day-to-day basis?
Getting attention isn't the objective of science and the methods of getting attention are almost always anti-scientific.
Right. The blind guy who lives next to me saves a fortune on light bulbs.
So nevermind serious, objective thought on things then. I guess longer growing seasons over large land areas isn't a benefit. I guess milder winters aren't a benefit. More energy for plants to grow can't be helpful. Longer seasons for shipping, shorter hibernation cycles for animals, more vegetation, etc. Nevermind taking the benefits into account and coming up with more sensible net effect analysis.
Also, nevermind the cost to the economy of any changes to mitigate global warming. It gets in the way of advocacy.
take a look at germany, for example
Germany's unemployment rate is over 10 percent vs. 4.9% in the USA.
Exactly, what are these folks not seeing when it comes to denying global warming?
One thing I'm see right now is the eagerness to believe in global warming. You're so eager in fact, that you're claiming one year's weather in your local area as evidence of it. One year's weather isn't the "climate", and Southern Ontario isn't "global".
Maybe if the global warming proponents would try to be scientists rather than advocates, more people would take them seriously. Stop pimping it so much.
That goes for science in general, BTW. Stop issuing press releases if you want to be taken seriously. Stop making doomsday claims in the summary of your report if you want to be taken seriously. Real honest science doesn't make good press.
When are we going to see the possible benefits of global warming mentioned? Longer growing seasons for vast areas of Asia, North America, and Europe are an example. If there are negative effects of global warming, they are at least partially balanced by the positive effects -- mild winters in Ontario is a good example.
Though cutting emissions and other human sources of greenhouse gasses will definatly not hurt.
Except for the people who lose their jobs as a result. Or people who die in auto accidents because they have too small of a car to protect them in a crash. Or people who have a lower standard of living because they have to pay for all the extra environmental costs that may or may not be necessary. Etc, etc, etc.
It definitely doesn't hurt, except when it does.
I like Joust. 1982's finest
why would he avoid getting the FISA permits, even after the fact?
You don't know what a warrant is.
link
still doesn't make it legal now, does it?
Nope. It's legal or not regardless of the fact that it's necessary.
I think it's legal. The Bush Administration thinks it's legal. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the legality one way or the other. The Congress doesn't have a say in the matter, other than funding the NSA or not.
It'll probably be decided in court in a few years. The only result of that decision will be which side gets to say "see, I told you so".
Nothing stopped this Administration from obtaining warrants, nothing stopped this Administration from getting warrants after the fact.
link
This after-the-fact warrant talking-point you guys have is pure fantasy. You don't know what a warrant is, and you don't know what the process is.
link
link
And, for the third f'ing time, the FISA doesn't allow this in what particular way(s)?
link
Is the capability to instantly begin tapping with 72 hours to get a retroactive judicially-reviewed warrant--from a rubberstamp court no less--an insuffient solution for addressing terrorist threats?
Yes.
Mm'k. How?
Read your 4th Amendment. A warrant is for a known individual. You can't get a warrant to listen to "whoever".
When terrorist calls whoever in the USA, you can't listen to that side of the conversation without a warrant. But you'll get one later, right? What if you never find out who "whoever" is? Then you can never get a warrant. But you already listened to the conversation. What's the purpose of getting a warrant after you listened to the conversation again?
You can't get a warrant after the fact for something you couldn't get a warrant for beforehand.
It's a ridiculous situation, and you know it (because it's obvious).
We have a de-facto declaration of war. We're at war. Signals intelligence is part of fighting a war. The president is in charge of warmaking, and he's therefore empowered to conduct signals intelligence by Article 2.
If you don't like it, go to court or call your congressman, or try to get a constitutional amendment passed.
So their conclusions should not be reviewed by other branches of government and oversight is unnecessary and inappropriate?
I'm sure that will happen someday. Probably this year.
Meanwhile, we have the safety benefit of hearing the content terrorist phone calls.
Congress can't just take away (or even limit) a constitutional power from the executive. Anything in FISA that does that is unconstitutional.
The power in question is the war-making power, which the constitution grants to the executive branch. FISA can't limit that.
Is the capability to instantly begin tapping with 72 hours to get a retroactive judicially-reviewed warrant--from a rubberstamp court no less--an insuffient solution for addressing terrorist threats?
Yes.
If so, then wouldn't it be better for the executive branch to request some changes to that law than to disregard it?
No. There's a responsibility to prevent terror attacks, which means you have to act now, not wait months or years to get a law passed -- a law that your legal advisors tell you isn't even necessary.
They concluded that their actions were within the law. That's the last word until there's a ruling otherwise. We'll see if that happens. I'm betting they'll be proven correct.
Had they really wanted to prevent the 9/11 attacks they would've dropped their passive-aggressive stance against governments across the world decades ago.
Who is this they that could have done this thing decades ago?
Because warrants can be obtained up to 72 hours after the fact, there is no "speed" or "imminent threat" issue.
Wrong. You don't understand what a warrant is, and you don't know what the process is.
Lots of stuff here. Not much of it practical. Please explain the historical effectiveness of these schemes. When did they work? When did one nation acting peaceful make their enemy stop attacking?
See, everyone wishes you were right. But you're not.
And I'm still waiting to hear about the big gift the world was going to give the USA if we'd only be more like France. What's our reward?
If it's "fewer terrorist attacks", I think I'll stick to supporting a policy that involves killing terrorists while helping friendly nations.
Because you're framing the question incorrectly. You think it is about wiretapping.. it is not. It is about the executive branch bypassing the system of checks and balances.
Dear Mrs. Smith,
I'm sorry your family died in that terrorist attack. We could easily have found out about it and prevented it, but not without bypassing the system of checks and balances. We decided to work within the system. I'm sure your dead children would agree that we did the right thing.
Warmest regards,
President Russ Feingold
Um ... we did. And Bush deliberately circumvented the system. That's the point.
Which constitutional amendment was that? The 53rd? I can never remember my imaginary constitional law.
it is about due process
It's about due process vs. the responsibility to protect the USA from terrorist attacks. You guys don't seem to be interested in the latter though.
If I have the responsibility to protect the USA, I'm going to do what I can to accomplish that, right up to (but not over) the edge of what I can do legally. Because I'd have to be responsible to obey the law too.
Any other course of action would be irresponsible.
What an apologistic cop-out. My point is that it wasn't even attempted.
Why should it be? It's a lot of effort that doesn't actually accomplish anything useful.
"Ok. The 3000 people died yesterday. I need to start a working group to devise a system of courts to oversee some new intelligence-gathering. Then we need to get a consistutional amendment passed. We need to get started now so we can start monitoring terrorist phone calls in 5 or 10 years.
We could do it today and stop the next terrorist attack which could be coming at any time, but someone might complain about the lack of oversight."