The person that needs their arm twisted to come to Computer Science doesn't want to do it. There is nothing wrong with trying to expose young men or women in high school to CS to try to gain their interest but if you need to practically sell them a bridge of false expectations then that is really wrong. Whatever geekiness associated with CS will not be removed my CMU putting a bunch of women on their website. A lot of CS requires someone who can just plain knock out code at some point. You cannot turn intro programming classes into a survey of the possibilities of computers. Eventually someone has to take programming class and if they do not have the IT then they don't have IT.
I used to tutor intro CS programming classes and I can't tell you how many people washed out of CS after the first CS110 class in Java and decided to do MSIS business major. There is a danger in watering down CS if people have an allergy to programming and are being socially promoted so Brown and CMU can quotes higher females in CS stats. I am not going to get into what real CS majors think about MSIS majors.
At the end of the day you haven't changed the cubicle setup of many CS jobs. I think the less inclined my make it through but won't get the jobs they have the "education" for because the bottom line has still not changed.
How is it that CS is really failing because there are not enough female perspectives. You just cannot say that cause it sounds good. I am not sure where computers aren't doing what they are programmed to do because a women wasn't consulted.
And lastly, I have run into a few people with CS degrees who don't really know CS, men and women. They somehow made it through without really learning, I am sure that is in every major but CS you just need to be able to do it at the end of the day or your coworkers will right away know you can't hang.
I would like to end on an analogy even though we have been told not to. Trying to convince women that programming is not important to CS is like trying to convince people anatomy is not important to medicine because anatomy is wall some people can't make it over.
I don't claim the Bush Administration has anything to do with this particular case. Someone else pointed out that people will now use this guy's awakening as justification for the whole Sciavo involvement of the government. I believe there is something basically wrong with opposing pulling the plug and at the same time opposing taking measures that may be the best hope someone will get off the machines such as stem cell research.
Lastly this specific case would have turned out the same no matter who was in office but I believe an Al Gore or John Kerry wouldn't oppose stem cell research which could be years ahead of where it is today due to the fact that Bush has blocked all federal funding to any research using new cell lines.
On this case no politician is to be taken to task as far as I know, but on the bigger issues around directives, stem cells and vegetative states there is alot to be done. Two days ago I was reading about the Sciavo case and some politicians out west have proposed a law that would deny a spouse the right to pull the plug if they were guilty of adultery, I mean what is that, too much politics in personal medical matters and not enough leadership on healthcare and positive research.
19 years for all basic purposes equals a permanent vegetative state. The idea that anyone should wait 20 years for the slim chance, which may decrease every year, that someone will come back from being a vegetable is rediculous. Americans have to admit that there are some extremes that we shouldn't take. I hear in Europe under some of their universal health care plans that patients know for certain illness that would be an extreme drain on resources the government will not cover them so that those resources can be used most efficiently for the rest of society. In a system in which WE DO have limited resources I think many people would trade getting some primary care to keep them out of the hospital verse one guy getting 20 years to MAYBE get better.
If this guy is some independently wealthy guy than he and his family can wait 100 years. But lets not hold pretend 19 years is even a reasonable time to wait even if you knew for sure he could come back but at way less than 100%.
A guy barely conscious was able over 19 years to have is brain do some drastic rewiring because he had some working parts. Now enter stem cells where his neuroscientist might know the damaged areas and can inject cells that will differentiate and repair the damage in a shorter time than 19 years, he might have woken up in time for the 2000 election. But lets not forget the point that you have to have something to work with. We can not allow the Schiavo zealots to say "hey, if that guy woke up then she could have woken up". No more arm-chair physicians giving their expert opinions.
This kind of highlights the hypocrosy of the Bush Administration. They have a culture of life that won't let a brain dead women die. But at the same time not allowing research to go forward that could have major benefits for many diseases or injuries. Spinal cord injuries, Alzheimers, etc are the cases in which stem cells could have the greatest and most visible benefit.
Its ashame that in the US we spend alot of time talking about solutions while real solutions never get enacted.
What basically amounts to a single or double blind investigation does not mean it is LEGAL. How does 'encrypting' someone's personal information while you are investigating them without a warrant or probable cause amount to a legal search. If the search or investigation is legal you do not need to hide/encrypt the personal details of the person you are tracking. The fact that they were hiding the details from themselves until they came up with proof of something amounts to some bad version of pre-crime.
The whole encryption thing is supposed to be some kind of warm-blanket for law enforcement to cuddle us with. They are under the belief if someone is not physically or directly tracking you and they know your contact information then there is no invasion of privacy.
What I get from the details of the program when they were conducting it was that the NSA was trolling through untold number of emails and phone calls and then playing 7-degrees of Kevin Bacon. Then if they find or think there is some kind of association then they unencrypt the personal information.
The fact of the matter is if the search is legal there is no need for this double blind encryption because you have followed the law and followed the leads to their conclusion. On the other hand if it is ILLEGAL then there is no amount of blinding or encryption that can launder it into a legal investigation.
First of all the Homeland Security Department was set up how long ago. They are NOW just getting around to this securing the infrastructure issue. They plan to meet about 4 times a year but 15 days notice is too much time for an emergency. Are we to believe our government and businesses are suddenly in response mode and will make a major infrastructure change in less than 2 weeks. The dept took 2 years to just set up these meetings. The airports, ports and chemical/power plants are still not secure but they need secret meetings to discuss the issue. Well I guess 60 Minutes and the like are unpatriotic, they have done shows about the ports, chemical/power and nuclear being unsecured months ago.
What I really don't like is "such and such cannot be disclosed because...". Their justification is always the terrorists will hear or read it and then they will attack. These secret meetings are always necessary to protect us, even though nothing is actually being done. I could go along with this if I actually saw that the government was responsive to issues. But the containers are still not being checked and the chemical plants have open gates. I FEEL SECURE. So the secrecy is bullshit.
Homeland Security and FEMA could not respond to Katrina with warning but now all of a sudden we are to believe their emergency meetings will be more than an exercise in beauracracy.
Lastly is does stink of coverup when businesses get to meet with government outside of the public's view. There is a bigger chance the dept will be setting up "protection from liability" for companies than it will be setting up actual protection from attack at these meetings.
In theory there is no situation or issue the government could not use the red herring or secrecy for security. We need to hold people accountable and not just keep writing blank checks and given open license hoping someone will fall onto the right decision. That is the only way we can really be secure. It should be obvious their first defense of a choice is alway to play on your fear.
By that I mean since when did a government agency have enforceable power against companies, and if it did when did it actually use it. The EPA can basically send strongly worded letter and try to embarass companies. The FDA cannot do much to Drug companies except in the extreme cases. It seems congress only allows such agencies any power not when it is for the public good but when it has to do with some "moral" debate, not practical debates. The congress just strips the agencies of any enforcement power over companies. But the FCC seems to be a special case.
FCC can do so much in the extreme because it allows politicians to decide what is decent. It takes years and year for the EPA to even hold a company accountable for a violation and even then they just ignore it because they know congress has taken the teeth out of it. Marijuana is categorized as having no medical value to make keep illegal and tobacco is not listed in the 5 categories for drugs so the FDA cannot regulate it. Add to that the political handling of the Morning after pill and the abortion pill being held up indefinitely for non-medical reasons.
Are we now expecting some US government determined business ethics for US companies? When did that start?
I see the reason why people are talking about Google, Yahoo, M$ and Cisco dealings in China. BUT it is sort of limited in scope. Why are the Republicans and Congress focusing on technology companies' business practices only. It is just another easy political game. US companies do billions of dollars of business in China and the congress is concerned that US tech companies are following the authorities of China on what they are allowed to do in their country. Could a foreign company operative in the US that did not follow restrictions that the US has laid out? So why do we expect US companies to go to China and operate in a way in which the government would not allow them, China could just pull the plug. The US likes the idea of the internet being another venue to expand the US culture around the world, the same way movies and tv already do; but not necessarily spreading freedom.
The US government only agitates in this when a government is in power that they do not agree with. I doubt they are asking for more real freedom in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Egypt. I wont get into all that right now.
I actually wish a deeper debate on US company ethics and practices around the world. Why are we jumping on Google. Have you seen what Walmart is doing in China; check out the Walmart movie. We should be discussing the "race to the bottom" mentallity occuring now by US companies. We should be asking what US oil companies are doing in Africa, clothing companies in East Asia, companies in Mexico and Central America. We should be talking about humane work conditions, fair wages, end to police state enforced sweatshops.
The tech companies pose a problem because they are actually undermining US policy toward China by allowing China to weed out Western influences. But the Republicans or Congress as a whole don't seem to care about the race to the bottom happening all over the world.
I remember watching a show on something like the Learning Channel awhile back that stated that what we now consider the magnetic North Pole is actually the magnetic South Pole. And that this has been the case almost since the last Ice Age or the last pole reversal.
If that is the case then in reality the magnetic north is the magnetic south, and the magnetic south is the magnetic north.
If the "magnetic north pole" is drifting and possibly heading for a pole reversal then we would actually be setting the poles right for the first time in recorded history.
It was one thing for the government to take are freedoms using systems that didn't cost you a dime because they were already in place. Now that the government is trying to make you pay to have your rights subverted people will rebel. This is a real cost people will be able to see. Although I don't think colleges have the lobbying power, they have an aversion to maintaining a staff solely for the purpose of that one day the FBI needs that one wire tap. Schools are expected to pay up front millions of dollars for a few taps.
People will find the idea of a wire tap IT staff very troublesome and dangerous. Will the school want to employ such a staff? To justify the need for such a staff the FBI would want to keep them busy with constant taps. Possibly those secret taps without disclosure to the public.
Some times I sit back and think do these conservative or Republican or ultra-patriotic Americans believe the crap they say in the vain of never saying anything against US policy.
"Turning the Internet over to countries with problematic human-rights records, muted free-speech laws, and questionable taxation practices will prevent the Internet from remaining the thriving medium it has become today"
The US has one of the most REGRESSIVE tax systems in the developed world, tax cuts to the wealthy with giveaways to companies that do not pay taxes while public programs get cut like HUD. Plus I guess we can forget the whole firehoses and attack dogs thing since that was in the past, no human-rights issues there. Prisons for profit filled up with minorities as street-sweeping by the police, yadda yadda. And for free-speech, in the US it isn't free and it has already been bought by those who own all the major media outlets.
We don't want to turn over internet speech over to the Chinese but do we want to turn it over to the US Christian Right. They exchange the idea of censoring ideas from the west for censoring sexual material. I'm sure the very moral people can make that choice easily but have we put them in charge of our speech.
If the people who actually built the internet we making the decisions of its future I would be OK with that, but I cannot turn it over to politicians or companies that have bought up all the votes to do whatever they want.
Brazil and Uganda both had broke or were planning to break patents on HIV drugs because they believed the prices where too high. Since the companies who patents were in trouble were US companies the US government filed with the WTO to have sanctions against both countries. yadda yadda...
But I wonder what will happen since it is Taiwan. They are America's sweetheart against China. Plus Roche is not a US company. Will the US government pressure Roche not to file against Taiwan the way the US filed against Brazil and Uganda. Will the US use their power in the WTO to stop any motions.
The question is will the US government be hypocritical and protect their baby against the evils the WTO does?
They thing if they go after the girl this will send a chilling effect on music downloading. Wrong. What is will do is show how heavy handed they are. They probably think when people start questioning there extreme response they can just say "well if the mother took responsibility we wouldn't need to go after the daughter".
Their cases against kids, disabled people or senior citizens will do more against their case than anything the CRIMINAL downloading all the music could do.
If I had an easy way to watch that 15 yr old Star Trek episode I would watch it. The digital VCR has given people a new ability they didn't have 5 years ago. People are now changing there viewing habits because of it. It they just remove all the features everyone bought it for what does it become.
TiVo as a last ditch effort have cast their lot with the content makers. WHAT HAPPENED TO TIME SHIFTING. This whole 7 day limit defeats the purpose. I still have a TiVO Series 1 with shows I recorded back in 2001 on it. People are buying the TiVo outright, why are they acting as if you are renting it. If a PVR in you cable box did this that would be understandable but not this.
There is now going to be network and movie people telling TiVo what you can and can't record, even the non-pay-per-view stuff. Their revenue is from the customers and maybe some of the adds I hear they add, but mostly the customers.
The company seems to forget that the consumer has the right to time shift shows. They seem to be of the opinion that if they pander to the content makers enough there will be some kind of windfall for them. I cannot see what TiVo is getting for screwing the customers. The company does not require the permission of the content makers to allow the customer the function in the product they bought to record their show or movie. Does your VCR ask permission before it records a show, why should a digital VCR.
Soon you won't be able to record LIVE events or season premieres. The market is wide open now for a company that would make a PVR that can get its channel guide from free sources on the internet that is not crippled about which shows can be recorded, is there a company brave enough. An HD TiVo is no longer relevant if the TiVo is more crippled than a paraplegic.
It seems like the Democratic party is searching for a MORAL issue to parade in front of the voters. The Republicans used Gay Marriage as a wedge issue for the election and a way of saying that they are somehow the MORAL party of America. It just looks like Hilary Clinton and the Democrats are using a easy to fight issue to get some MORAL capital. As usual when politicians can't or don't want to talk about real issues they go after easy targets like TV/Movie/video violence/sex/etc or music. There is little risk in this for them right now. They need to take the Republicans head on, you aren't going to get more Born Again votes then they are just by saying I outlawed adult themed games to minors, it isn't really a wedge issue.
Who is really going to fight this. I mean they are just ratcheting up laws and fines for things that are already technically illegal. The industry SELF-POLICING Mature rating on video games makes it 'illegal' to sell to minors. Most stores already ask for ID when buying M rated games. So why do we need to add fines and penalties. Are there gangs of minors just buying up the store of all the M rated games without IDs. I mean who's money are they spending. How many kids not in high school with a job can afford on their own, without their parents to buy a $50 or $60 game.
HIV can be used to prove evolution. In college level genetic classes they always like to show how the microcosm of HIV infection can show evolution in a shorter time period than hundreds or thousands of years. HIV as a virus technically is not ALIVE but the infection shows genetic drift, differential survival based on the pressure cause by someones immune system.......etc.
Many of the proponents of Intelligent Design(ID) are claiming somehow that a religious based unprovable theory should somehow be given equal or greater time than evolution. ID is just a creation of this whole new conservative agenda to fight science with pseudoscience. They used to just call science they didn't like BAD SCIENCE, but the mileage on that is running out so they need a more permanent solution. If they can find scientists that will write papers then everytime someone argues the science behind evolution or global warming they can just quote some paper that combats that idea and since it was published somewhere it MUST be just science.
Their claim is that to be FAIR evolution cannot be taught without teaching other theories. That SOUNDS fine until you see one theory has evidence behind it and has not been disproven yet, and the ID theory is just a belief with a good press agent. So the compromise is to teach both or neither. That is only a compromise for the ID crowd because they do not want evolution taught so both options are a win for them, no evolution teaching or teaching evolution with this big ID distractor beside it. The issue was the same with putting a sticker on textbooks saying evolution is a theory. That is already in the name, Theory of Evolution. But they just want to keep casting doubt by amplifying the word thoery over the actual science.
It is not a compromise to lump something like evolution that has stood the test of time with some propaganda that was created just to undermine it without any backing except itself. It is pretty foolish to try and use the scientific method to prove an omnipotent being(religion) is the basis for everything and not science.
Religion belongs in the religious buildings like church or synagogue or mosque, the school if for EDUCATION, not religious bombardment, that is what sunday school if for. It is sad that a pluerality or even a majority of Christians in the US believe what the Republicans are telling them and that is they have the numbers so therefore the government is a tool for them to enforce their opinions on others, nevermind common sense or the constitution.
Porn is a billion dollar industry that millions of Americans indulge in. The huge majority have nothing to do with child porn. And those into child porn are heavy into adult porn, they like children, not adult porn. One is not tied to the other.
This is just a way for a politician to get more money somehow. Why should law abiding adults engaging in legal adult porn be responsible for child porn. Also how much money do they need anyway. The FBI is alreasy responsible for investigating that.
Isn't there a treaty which says no one can own any property in outspace in our solar system. Therefore since she does not own the comet she cannot claim damage to it no matter what NASA did to it. Plus since when can citizens of one country sue another country without showing actual damage. And once again since it is not her comet.
And my final point is she can go F*** herself. How come she didn't sue when the Mars rover was violating Mars' surface.
Technically that is correct but we all know banks and such that operate over multiple state lines will just move to the all in one federal card for identification for people without that particular state ID. Want to open an new account at BankofAmerica, "where is you Real ID card", want to get a cell phone, "where is you Real ID card".
It has also been said that you will not be allowed to ride Amtrak which is federal, without one, or fly in commercial aircrafts either. I'll be really f****** annoyed if I can't get on a plane unless I put all my data in some database for soem facists to peek at or some hacker to get at since it will be centralized.
I do or have paid taxes. I support the funding of NASA. Bush made a big press conference about going to Mars and all of a sudden he is cutting NASA's budget. Private citizens shouldn't have to pay a separate fee to keep things the government shouldn't be cutting.
SEC. 2.
The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
It looks as though even if you were to get around the stupid exact copy language it wouldn't matter, the other pieces of the legislation are severable so they still apply.
Isn't there something illegal about banning software that isn't a virus and causes damage, if there isn't it should be. The software that falls under this wide net would include basically anything that get send a file, email attachments, some IM, ftp, sftp, web browser. If the internet was left up to the business men it would have died long ago.
They police have the right to look in on suspicious activity but they do not have the right to harass you indefinitely. Police departments have been sued for harassment for pulling the same people over and over again for DWB.
If the guy new his car was BUGGED then he sure would not have been driving with drugs in his car. And bugging should require a warrant.
I think this all stems from the erosion of right following the Patriot Act. Law enforcement now have this large umbrella to act under, they have now begun to move into non-terrorist fields and abusing rights. Any attempt to abridge law enforcement is looked upon as aiding the evil-doers.
We are being asked to give up freedom for protection; you know the rest. Are we still able to question law enforcement about their activities.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
The 4th amendment protects you from intrusion by the government without just cause or a warrant. I remember in some states where police whould pull people over and start searching their cars. Courts moved to say that a car is a person's effects and therefore protected. So now they just couldn't go through your car just because they wanted. If a car is protected how can attaching a device and using GPS not be an invasion. It almost seems like he is saying if you use some kind of freeware tool then you can do anything with it. It is the act that is in question, not the tool.
The error of some people's argument in that GPS is everywhere or free, and driving on a public road means no privacy. If that is so they can just be old fashioned and follow you in your car without attaching anything to the car. The judge is sort of mistaken in saying they could have followed him therefore the GPS is the same thing. He is ignoring that the police trespassed on his property to put the device on his car. Law enforcement can not break the law to enforce the law. If something is illegal, just because technology makes it easier to do does not make it no longer illegal; illegality is not based on the ease of commiting the act. It is the job of the police to do the due dilligence, or whatever, to catch the criminal. Not make up a cheap PRECRIME division and catch you once you have done something.
Someone mentioned that GPS trackers usually need to be attached to the car power therefore they actually had to open or enter his car to attach it. That argument is not necessary since the fact that they altered his car without his consent for the purpose of tracking him without his consent.
There was some dumbass who said that the license was state property therefore they had the right to place anything the want behind that. It is either right or wrong for them to trespass on his property, only an idiot waste the time trying to divide the car up into discreet pieces where the law changes.
Using the judge's logic it is OK to commit a crime, or in his opinion for the cops to commit any crime for their purpose of building a case if they can commit it in a way that is less or not noticable at all.
As long as there are multiple ways to get some form of information they could get it anyway they want and then say we would have gotten the info some other way but we took a short cut.
Slashdot Mirror
The person that needs their arm twisted to come to Computer Science doesn't want to do it. There is nothing wrong with trying to expose young men or women in high school to CS to try to gain their interest but if you need to practically sell them a bridge of false expectations then that is really wrong. Whatever geekiness associated with CS will not be removed my CMU putting a bunch of women on their website. A lot of CS requires someone who can just plain knock out code at some point. You cannot turn intro programming classes into a survey of the possibilities of computers. Eventually someone has to take programming class and if they do not have the IT then they don't have IT.
I used to tutor intro CS programming classes and I can't tell you how many people washed out of CS after the first CS110 class in Java and decided to do MSIS business major. There is a danger in watering down CS if people have an allergy to programming and are being socially promoted so Brown and CMU can quotes higher females in CS stats. I am not going to get into what real CS majors think about MSIS majors.
At the end of the day you haven't changed the cubicle setup of many CS jobs. I think the less inclined my make it through but won't get the jobs they have the "education" for because the bottom line has still not changed.
How is it that CS is really failing because there are not enough female perspectives. You just cannot say that cause it sounds good. I am not sure where computers aren't doing what they are programmed to do because a women wasn't consulted.
And lastly, I have run into a few people with CS degrees who don't really know CS, men and women. They somehow made it through without really learning, I am sure that is in every major but CS you just need to be able to do it at the end of the day or your coworkers will right away know you can't hang.
I would like to end on an analogy even though we have been told not to. Trying to convince women that programming is not important to CS is like trying to convince people anatomy is not important to medicine because anatomy is wall some people can't make it over.
I don't claim the Bush Administration has anything to do with this particular case. Someone else pointed out that people will now use this guy's awakening as justification for the whole Sciavo involvement of the government. I believe there is something basically wrong with opposing pulling the plug and at the same time opposing taking measures that may be the best hope someone will get off the machines such as stem cell research.
Lastly this specific case would have turned out the same no matter who was in office but I believe an Al Gore or John Kerry wouldn't oppose stem cell research which could be years ahead of where it is today due to the fact that Bush has blocked all federal funding to any research using new cell lines.
On this case no politician is to be taken to task as far as I know, but on the bigger issues around directives, stem cells and vegetative states there is alot to be done. Two days ago I was reading about the Sciavo case and some politicians out west have proposed a law that would deny a spouse the right to pull the plug if they were guilty of adultery, I mean what is that, too much politics in personal medical matters and not enough leadership on healthcare and positive research.
19 years for all basic purposes equals a permanent vegetative state. The idea that anyone should wait 20 years for the slim chance, which may decrease every year, that someone will come back from being a vegetable is rediculous. Americans have to admit that there are some extremes that we shouldn't take. I hear in Europe under some of their universal health care plans that patients know for certain illness that would be an extreme drain on resources the government will not cover them so that those resources can be used most efficiently for the rest of society. In a system in which WE DO have limited resources I think many people would trade getting some primary care to keep them out of the hospital verse one guy getting 20 years to MAYBE get better.
If this guy is some independently wealthy guy than he and his family can wait 100 years. But lets not hold pretend 19 years is even a reasonable time to wait even if you knew for sure he could come back but at way less than 100%.
At minimal there should be a two census rule.
A guy barely conscious was able over 19 years to have is brain do some drastic rewiring because he had some working parts. Now enter stem cells where his neuroscientist might know the damaged areas and can inject cells that will differentiate and repair the damage in a shorter time than 19 years, he might have woken up in time for the 2000 election. But lets not forget the point that you have to have something to work with. We can not allow the Schiavo zealots to say "hey, if that guy woke up then she could have woken up". No more arm-chair physicians giving their expert opinions.
This kind of highlights the hypocrosy of the Bush Administration. They have a culture of life that won't let a brain dead women die. But at the same time not allowing research to go forward that could have major benefits for many diseases or injuries. Spinal cord injuries, Alzheimers, etc are the cases in which stem cells could have the greatest and most visible benefit.
Its ashame that in the US we spend alot of time talking about solutions while real solutions never get enacted.
What basically amounts to a single or double blind investigation does not mean it is LEGAL. How does 'encrypting' someone's personal information while you are investigating them without a warrant or probable cause amount to a legal search. If the search or investigation is legal you do not need to hide/encrypt the personal details of the person you are tracking. The fact that they were hiding the details from themselves until they came up with proof of something amounts to some bad version of pre-crime.
The whole encryption thing is supposed to be some kind of warm-blanket for law enforcement to cuddle us with. They are under the belief if someone is not physically or directly tracking you and they know your contact information then there is no invasion of privacy.
What I get from the details of the program when they were conducting it was that the NSA was trolling through untold number of emails and phone calls and then playing 7-degrees of Kevin Bacon. Then if they find or think there is some kind of association then they unencrypt the personal information.
The fact of the matter is if the search is legal there is no need for this double blind encryption because you have followed the law and followed the leads to their conclusion. On the other hand if it is ILLEGAL then there is no amount of blinding or encryption that can launder it into a legal investigation.
First of all the Homeland Security Department was set up how long ago. They are NOW just getting around to this securing the infrastructure issue. They plan to meet about 4 times a year but 15 days notice is too much time for an emergency. Are we to believe our government and businesses are suddenly in response mode and will make a major infrastructure change in less than 2 weeks. The dept took 2 years to just set up these meetings. The airports, ports and chemical/power plants are still not secure but they need secret meetings to discuss the issue. Well I guess 60 Minutes and the like are unpatriotic, they have done shows about the ports, chemical/power and nuclear being unsecured months ago.
...". Their justification is always the terrorists will hear or read it and then they will attack. These secret meetings are always necessary to protect us, even though nothing is actually being done. I could go along with this if I actually saw that the government was responsive to issues. But the containers are still not being checked and the chemical plants have open gates. I FEEL SECURE. So the secrecy is bullshit.
What I really don't like is "such and such cannot be disclosed because
Homeland Security and FEMA could not respond to Katrina with warning but now all of a sudden we are to believe their emergency meetings will be more than an exercise in beauracracy.
Lastly is does stink of coverup when businesses get to meet with government outside of the public's view. There is a bigger chance the dept will be setting up "protection from liability" for companies than it will be setting up actual protection from attack at these meetings.
In theory there is no situation or issue the government could not use the red herring or secrecy for security. We need to hold people accountable and not just keep writing blank checks and given open license hoping someone will fall onto the right decision. That is the only way we can really be secure. It should be obvious their first defense of a choice is alway to play on your fear.
By that I mean since when did a government agency have enforceable power against companies, and if it did when did it actually use it. The EPA can basically send strongly worded letter and try to embarass companies. The FDA cannot do much to Drug companies except in the extreme cases. It seems congress only allows such agencies any power not when it is for the public good but when it has to do with some "moral" debate, not practical debates. The congress just strips the agencies of any enforcement power over companies. But the FCC seems to be a special case.
FCC can do so much in the extreme because it allows politicians to decide what is decent. It takes years and year for the EPA to even hold a company accountable for a violation and even then they just ignore it because they know congress has taken the teeth out of it. Marijuana is categorized as having no medical value to make keep illegal and tobacco is not listed in the 5 categories for drugs so the FDA cannot regulate it. Add to that the political handling of the Morning after pill and the abortion pill being held up indefinitely for non-medical reasons.
Are we now expecting some US government determined business ethics for US companies? When did that start?
I see the reason why people are talking about Google, Yahoo, M$ and Cisco dealings in China. BUT it is sort of limited in scope. Why are the Republicans and Congress focusing on technology companies' business practices only. It is just another easy political game. US companies do billions of dollars of business in China and the congress is concerned that US tech companies are following the authorities of China on what they are allowed to do in their country. Could a foreign company operative in the US that did not follow restrictions that the US has laid out? So why do we expect US companies to go to China and operate in a way in which the government would not allow them, China could just pull the plug. The US likes the idea of the internet being another venue to expand the US culture around the world, the same way movies and tv already do; but not necessarily spreading freedom.
The US government only agitates in this when a government is in power that they do not agree with. I doubt they are asking for more real freedom in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Egypt. I wont get into all that right now.
I actually wish a deeper debate on US company ethics and practices around the world. Why are we jumping on Google. Have you seen what Walmart is doing in China; check out the Walmart movie. We should be discussing the "race to the bottom" mentallity occuring now by US companies. We should be asking what US oil companies are doing in Africa, clothing companies in East Asia, companies in Mexico and Central America. We should be talking about humane work conditions, fair wages, end to police state enforced sweatshops.
The tech companies pose a problem because they are actually undermining US policy toward China by allowing China to weed out Western influences. But the Republicans or Congress as a whole don't seem to care about the race to the bottom happening all over the world.
I remember watching a show on something like the Learning Channel awhile back that stated that what we now consider the magnetic North Pole is actually the magnetic South Pole. And that this has been the case almost since the last Ice Age or the last pole reversal.
If that is the case then in reality the magnetic north is the magnetic south, and the magnetic south is the magnetic north.
If the "magnetic north pole" is drifting and possibly heading for a pole reversal then we would actually be setting the poles right for the first time in recorded history.
It was one thing for the government to take are freedoms using systems that didn't cost you a dime because they were already in place. Now that the government is trying to make you pay to have your rights subverted people will rebel. This is a real cost people will be able to see. Although I don't think colleges have the lobbying power, they have an aversion to maintaining a staff solely for the purpose of that one day the FBI needs that one wire tap. Schools are expected to pay up front millions of dollars for a few taps.
People will find the idea of a wire tap IT staff very troublesome and dangerous. Will the school want to employ such a staff? To justify the need for such a staff the FBI would want to keep them busy with constant taps. Possibly those secret taps without disclosure to the public.
Some times I sit back and think do these conservative or Republican or ultra-patriotic Americans believe the crap they say in the vain of never saying anything against US policy.
"Turning the Internet over to countries with problematic human-rights records, muted free-speech laws, and questionable taxation practices will prevent the Internet from remaining the thriving medium it has become today"
The US has one of the most REGRESSIVE tax systems in the developed world, tax cuts to the wealthy with giveaways to companies that do not pay taxes while public programs get cut like HUD. Plus I guess we can forget the whole firehoses and attack dogs thing since that was in the past, no human-rights issues there. Prisons for profit filled up with minorities as street-sweeping by the police, yadda yadda.
And for free-speech, in the US it isn't free and it has already been bought by those who own all the major media outlets.
We don't want to turn over internet speech over to the Chinese but do we want to turn it over to the US Christian Right. They exchange the idea of censoring ideas from the west for censoring sexual material. I'm sure the very moral people can make that choice easily but have we put them in charge of our speech.
If the people who actually built the internet we making the decisions of its future I would be OK with that, but I cannot turn it over to politicians or companies that have bought up all the votes to do whatever they want.
Brazil and Uganda both had broke or were planning to break patents on HIV drugs because they believed the prices where too high. Since the companies who patents were in trouble were US companies the US government filed with the WTO to have sanctions against both countries. yadda yadda ...
But I wonder what will happen since it is Taiwan. They are America's sweetheart against China. Plus Roche is not a US company. Will the US government pressure Roche not to file against Taiwan the way the US filed against Brazil and Uganda. Will the US use their power in the WTO to stop any motions.
The question is will the US government be hypocritical and protect their baby against the evils the WTO does?
They thing if they go after the girl this will send a chilling effect on music downloading. Wrong. What is will do is show how heavy handed they are. They probably think when people start questioning there extreme response they can just say "well if the mother took responsibility we wouldn't need to go after the daughter".
Their cases against kids, disabled people or senior citizens will do more against their case than anything the CRIMINAL downloading all the music could do.
If I had an easy way to watch that 15 yr old Star Trek episode I would watch it. The digital VCR has given people a new ability they didn't have 5 years ago. People are now changing there viewing habits because of it. It they just remove all the features everyone bought it for what does it become.
I saw this coming2 85033
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=135231&cid=11
TiVo as a last ditch effort have cast their lot with the content makers. WHAT HAPPENED TO TIME SHIFTING. This whole 7 day limit defeats the purpose. I still have a TiVO Series 1 with shows I recorded back in 2001 on it. People are buying the TiVo outright, why are they acting as if you are renting it. If a PVR in you cable box did this that would be understandable but not this.
There is now going to be network and movie people telling TiVo what you can and can't record, even the non-pay-per-view stuff. Their revenue is from the customers and maybe some of the adds I hear they add, but mostly the customers.
The company seems to forget that the consumer has the right to time shift shows. They seem to be of the opinion that if they pander to the content makers enough there will be some kind of windfall for them. I cannot see what TiVo is getting for screwing the customers. The company does not require the permission of the content makers to allow the customer the function in the product they bought to record their show or movie. Does your VCR ask permission before it records a show, why should a digital VCR.
Soon you won't be able to record LIVE events or season premieres.
The market is wide open now for a company that would make a PVR that can get its channel guide from free sources on the internet that is not crippled about which shows can be recorded, is there a company brave enough.
An HD TiVo is no longer relevant if the TiVo is more crippled than a paraplegic.
It seems like the Democratic party is searching for a MORAL issue to parade in front of the voters. The Republicans used Gay Marriage as a wedge issue for the election and a way of saying that they are somehow the MORAL party of America.
It just looks like Hilary Clinton and the Democrats are using a easy to fight issue to get some MORAL capital. As usual when politicians can't or don't want to talk about real issues they go after easy targets like TV/Movie/video violence/sex/etc or music. There is little risk in this for them right now. They need to take the Republicans head on, you aren't going to get more Born Again votes then they are just by saying I outlawed adult themed games to minors, it isn't really a wedge issue.
Who is really going to fight this. I mean they are just ratcheting up laws and fines for things that are already technically illegal. The industry SELF-POLICING Mature rating on video games makes it 'illegal' to sell to minors. Most stores already ask for ID when buying M rated games. So why do we need to add fines and penalties. Are there gangs of minors just buying up the store of all the M rated games without IDs. I mean who's money are they spending. How many kids not in high school with a job can afford on their own, without their parents to buy a $50 or $60 game.
HIV can be used to prove evolution. In college level genetic classes they always like to show how the microcosm of HIV infection can show evolution in a shorter time period than hundreds or thousands of years. HIV as a virus technically is not ALIVE but the infection shows genetic drift, differential survival based on the pressure cause by someones immune system .......etc.
Many of the proponents of Intelligent Design(ID) are claiming somehow that a religious based unprovable theory should somehow be given equal or greater time than evolution. ID is just a creation of this whole new conservative agenda to fight science with pseudoscience. They used to just call science they didn't like BAD SCIENCE, but the mileage on that is running out so they need a more permanent solution. If they can find scientists that will write papers then everytime someone argues the science behind evolution or global warming they can just quote some paper that combats that idea and since it was published somewhere it MUST be just science.
Their claim is that to be FAIR evolution cannot be taught without teaching other theories. That SOUNDS fine until you see one theory has evidence behind it and has not been disproven yet, and the ID theory is just a belief with a good press agent. So the compromise is to teach both or neither. That is only a compromise for the ID crowd because they do not want evolution taught so both options are a win for them, no evolution teaching or teaching evolution with this big ID distractor beside it. The issue was the same with putting a sticker on textbooks saying evolution is a theory. That is already in the name, Theory of Evolution. But they just want to keep casting doubt by amplifying the word thoery over the actual science.
It is not a compromise to lump something like evolution that has stood the test of time with some propaganda that was created just to undermine it without any backing except itself. It is pretty foolish to try and use the scientific method to prove an omnipotent being(religion) is the basis for everything and not science.
Religion belongs in the religious buildings like church or synagogue or mosque, the school if for EDUCATION, not religious bombardment, that is what sunday school if for.
It is sad that a pluerality or even a majority of Christians in the US believe what the Republicans are telling them and that is they have the numbers so therefore the government is a tool for them to enforce their opinions on others, nevermind common sense or the constitution.
Porn is a billion dollar industry that millions of Americans indulge in. The huge majority have nothing to do with child porn. And those into child porn are heavy into adult porn, they like children, not adult porn. One is not tied to the other.
This is just a way for a politician to get more money somehow. Why should law abiding adults engaging in legal adult porn be responsible for child porn. Also how much money do they need anyway. The FBI is alreasy responsible for investigating that.
Isn't there a treaty which says no one can own any property in outspace in our solar system. Therefore since she does not own the comet she cannot claim damage to it no matter what NASA did to it. Plus since when can citizens of one country sue another country without showing actual damage. And once again since it is not her comet.
And my final point is she can go F*** herself. How come she didn't sue when the Mars rover was violating Mars' surface.
Technically that is correct but we all know banks and such that operate over multiple state lines will just move to the all in one federal card for identification for people without that particular state ID. Want to open an new account at BankofAmerica, "where is you Real ID card", want to get a cell phone, "where is you Real ID card".
It has also been said that you will not be allowed to ride Amtrak which is federal, without one, or fly in commercial aircrafts either. I'll be really f****** annoyed if I can't get on a plane unless I put all my data in some database for soem facists to peek at or some hacker to get at since it will be centralized.
I do or have paid taxes. I support the funding of NASA. Bush made a big press conference about going to Mars and all of a sudden he is cutting NASA's budget. Private citizens shouldn't have to pay a separate fee to keep things the government shouldn't be cutting.
They must have seen the trailer for next weeks' 24 and got scared it would really come true.
SEC. 2.
The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this
act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not
affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application.
It looks as though even if you were to get around the stupid exact copy language it wouldn't matter, the other pieces of the legislation are severable so they still apply.
Isn't there something illegal about banning software that isn't a virus and causes damage, if there isn't it should be. The software that falls under this wide net would include basically anything that get send a file, email attachments, some IM, ftp, sftp, web browser. If the internet was left up to the business men it would have died long ago.
They police have the right to look in on suspicious activity but they do not have the right to harass you indefinitely. Police departments have been sued for harassment for pulling the same people over and over again for DWB.
If the guy new his car was BUGGED then he sure would not have been driving with drugs in his car. And bugging should require a warrant.
I think this all stems from the erosion of right following the Patriot Act. Law enforcement now have this large umbrella to act under, they have now begun to move into non-terrorist fields and abusing rights. Any attempt to abridge law enforcement is looked upon as aiding the evil-doers.
We are being asked to give up freedom for protection; you know the rest. Are we still able to question law enforcement about their activities.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...
The 4th amendment protects you from intrusion by the government without just cause or a warrant. I remember in some states where police whould pull people over and start searching their cars. Courts moved to say that a car is a person's effects and therefore protected. So now they just couldn't go through your car just because they wanted. If a car is protected how can attaching a device and using GPS not be an invasion. It almost seems like he is saying if you use some kind of freeware tool then you can do anything with it. It is the act that is in question, not the tool.
The error of some people's argument in that GPS is everywhere or free, and driving on a public road means no privacy. If that is so they can just be old fashioned and follow you in your car without attaching anything to the car. The judge is sort of mistaken in saying they could have followed him therefore the GPS is the same thing. He is ignoring that the police trespassed on his property to put the device on his car. Law enforcement can not break the law to enforce the law. If something is illegal, just because technology makes it easier to do does not make it no longer illegal; illegality is not based on the ease of commiting the act. It is the job of the police to do the due dilligence, or whatever, to catch the criminal. Not make up a cheap PRECRIME division and catch you once you have done something.
Someone mentioned that GPS trackers usually need to be attached to the car power therefore they actually had to open or enter his car to attach it. That argument is not necessary since the fact that they altered his car without his consent for the purpose of tracking him without his consent.
There was some dumbass who said that the license was state property therefore they had the right to place anything the want behind that. It is either right or wrong for them to trespass on his property, only an idiot waste the time trying to divide the car up into discreet pieces where the law changes.
Using the judge's logic it is OK to commit a crime, or in his opinion for the cops to commit any crime for their purpose of building a case if they can commit it in a way that is less or not noticable at all.
As long as there are multiple ways to get some form of information they could get it anyway they want and then say we would have gotten the info some other way but we took a short cut.