If Congress does NOT oppose these actions, Bush will have successfully established a precedent of violating the law simply because "he feels like it". This would transform GW Bush into a dictator. GW Bush could decide to cancel the next election because of "terrorist threats".
Unless of course a precedent has already been set. (Not trolling here... it surprised me as much at you)
Interestingly, Drudge is headlining that Clinton and Carter both issued similar orders under different circumstances. The linked articles lack any real detail at all... (and note that there must be a bias here since both listed are Dems) so it is hard to draw parallels but I wouldn't be surprised if there is more prescident here than we may think... I for one will be sure to follow up on this in the coming days.
I can assure you I am significantly more informed about this subject than you are. Regardless, you need to learn that reading has nothing to do with being knowledgeable.
I you want me to "read up" on Echeleon, fine. Here are some other google searches for you as well:
and when you succeed in overwhelming the surveillance system and a dirty bomb goes off in a major city you will be complicit. How will that make you feel? Are tens of thousands of lives worth losing the right to make international calls freely with known terrorist networks (that is the limit of scope of the most recent NSA revelations).
If such systems as Echelon exist, they do serve a useful purpose albeit they may have the possibility of infringing our rights. How about we instead focus our energies to make sure they are used appropriately following due processes of law instead of trying to render them completely "ineffective" even for the worst cases for which they were designed.
I think you are wrong... I run XP home on my home pc and only use it from a limited account. I can not complete and install without running the setup program as admin and there are many directories I can not acccess with switching accounts. Most setup programs fail if you try to install them from a limited account - others automaticly pop up a dialog box asking for the admin password to continue.
It sounds to me that you are running a limited account that may have once been an admin account or that you have given yourself rwx access to various directories.
Hmmm... one of the guys in my squadron put a "Intel Pentium III Inside" sticker on the back of my flight helmet. I had "outed" myself as a nerd long before so I left it... it's still there.
There is a current stable release? That's funny, on all three of my usual machines, firefox still leaks memory like a sieve if I leave multiple tabs open for longer than a day or so and PDFs frequently crash the app. Don't get me wrong, I prefer Firefox over any other browser, but I still have use IE for a few things and at least when IE crashes, it doesn't bring down every other instance of the same program with it (firefox does).
Just out of curiosity, would you have a problem with Number 3 (or even 2) if it required something akin to a search warrant to sift through (and then only for the car in the warrant?)
I think you took my post entirely too literally. I was simply being expedient and not pedantic. My point was highlighting the difference between formualting hypotheses from evidence and from verifying hypotheses with experiment. I am truly sorry if you won't forgive me for using "monkey" to mean "lower primate" but I'll stand by my guns that humans are indeed a higher species than any other primate.
Yet evolution allows predictions that are testable. Such as the fact that chimps and humans share 96% of their DNA.
I believe in evolution, (the full-blown kind, not the ID kind) yey I am going to have to disagree with you here. I have yet to hear of a single testable facet of evolution. The example you give, that chimps and humans share a large portion of their DNA is consistent with evolution. But that is not the same thing as a repeatable test not is it predictive. No one has ever conducted an "evolution experiment" whereby the input was some lower life form and the output was a higher life form. We can observer similiar phenomena such as selectively breeding animals to enhance certain traits and we can and have observed minor variations in species as they react to changes in their environment. These are both evidence of evolution, but neither is a prediction or an experiment. I could always propose some exotic other mechanism (such as perhaps monkeys evolved from humans) which may be less likely to be consistent with other pieces of evidence, but is similarly not "disprovable" by any test until someone actually observes a monkey evolve into an human.
My argument also holds incidently for general relativity, newtonian gravity, or the Ptolemeic model of the solar system. All were at one time or another believed to be consistent with all the evidence, but we still don't know even if GR is the actual mechanism of gravity...it just seems to be the most accurate (hence the term theory of relativity.
Gee, I hope that isn't true because I got it on the first roll...well, at least I figured out the logic, I actually entered the wrong number because of an arithmetic error. Guess I am dumb.
No offense, but you cleary have incomplete knowledge about international maritime law. What you are missing is a key piece of info known as innocent passage(UN Convention on Law of the Sea, Articles 17-28). This right allows ships to pass through territorial waters for the purpose of accessing international waters. It is even extended to warships, provided they take additional steps to appear more "neutral" (for instance, aircraft carriers may not launch/recover aircraft and submarines must be surfaced). This right is exercised on a daily basis through the straits of Hormuz, and Bosporus, amoung others.
Looking back to the 50's, in real dollars NASA's budget has been increasing pretty much throughout except for from 66-71 or so. I could really throw my karma to the wind and point out that the budget under Bush jr has increased consistently in both then and 1996-constant dollars, and that it appears Clinton and Nixon seem to be the only two presidents who presided over a continuous decrease in NASA budget (constant 1996 dollars).
Of course, the article is about cuts at JPL and I am talking about NASA's budget... but I feel perfectly comfortable with a slight redirect like that given that the majority of posts (and most space-related threads on slashdot) schitzophrenically vacillate between "we need more money for human space exploration" and "human exploration budget is raiding scientific space research".
Slashdot Mirror
or you could just find the torrent...
Was that supposed to be a pun?
You must be new here.
Unless of course a precedent has already been set. (Not trolling here... it surprised me as much at you)
Interestingly, Drudge is headlining that Clinton and Carter both issued similar orders under different circumstances. The linked articles lack any real detail at all... (and note that there must be a bias here since both listed are Dems) so it is hard to draw parallels but I wouldn't be surprised if there is more prescident here than we may think... I for one will be sure to follow up on this in the coming days.
I you want me to "read up" on Echeleon, fine. Here are some other google searches for you as well:
ahref=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1& q=abominable+snowman&spell=1rel=url2html-23792http ://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&q=abominab le+snowman&spell=1>
ahref=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=loch+ne ss+monster&btnG=Google+Searchrel=url2html-23792htt p://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=loch+ness+monste r&btnG=Google+Search>
ahref=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ufo&btn G=Google+Searchrel=url2html-23792http://www.google .com/search?hl=en&q=ufo&btnG=Google+Search>
Just because you can google it, doesn't make it true.
If such systems as Echelon exist, they do serve a useful purpose albeit they may have the possibility of infringing our rights. How about we instead focus our energies to make sure they are used appropriately following due processes of law instead of trying to render them completely "ineffective" even for the worst cases for which they were designed.
It sounds to me that you are running a limited account that may have once been an admin account or that you have given yourself rwx access to various directories.
Duh... of course it is the same danger... or haven't you seen this informative expose
Hmmm... one of the guys in my squadron put a "Intel Pentium III Inside" sticker on the back of my flight helmet. I had "outed" myself as a nerd long before so I left it... it's still there.
Don't you mean that there are 11 types of people?
There is a current stable release? That's funny, on all three of my usual machines, firefox still leaks memory like a sieve if I leave multiple tabs open for longer than a day or so and PDFs frequently crash the app. Don't get me wrong, I prefer Firefox over any other browser, but I still have use IE for a few things and at least when IE crashes, it doesn't bring down every other instance of the same program with it (firefox does).
Just out of curiosity, would you have a problem with Number 3 (or even 2) if it required something akin to a search warrant to sift through (and then only for the car in the warrant?)
Let me rephrase that and bounce it back at you:
"So because it has possible misuses, does that mean we should ignore the goods?"
Why can't we simply place controls (procedural and techinical) so that we get the goods and minimize the bads?
I think you took my post entirely too literally. I was simply being expedient and not pedantic. My point was highlighting the difference between formualting hypotheses from evidence and from verifying hypotheses with experiment. I am truly sorry if you won't forgive me for using "monkey" to mean "lower primate" but I'll stand by my guns that humans are indeed a higher species than any other primate.
I believe in evolution, (the full-blown kind, not the ID kind) yey I am going to have to disagree with you here. I have yet to hear of a single testable facet of evolution. The example you give, that chimps and humans share a large portion of their DNA is consistent with evolution. But that is not the same thing as a repeatable test not is it predictive. No one has ever conducted an "evolution experiment" whereby the input was some lower life form and the output was a higher life form. We can observer similiar phenomena such as selectively breeding animals to enhance certain traits and we can and have observed minor variations in species as they react to changes in their environment. These are both evidence of evolution, but neither is a prediction or an experiment. I could always propose some exotic other mechanism (such as perhaps monkeys evolved from humans) which may be less likely to be consistent with other pieces of evidence, but is similarly not "disprovable" by any test until someone actually observes a monkey evolve into an human.
My argument also holds incidently for general relativity, newtonian gravity, or the Ptolemeic model of the solar system. All were at one time or another believed to be consistent with all the evidence, but we still don't know even if GR is the actual mechanism of gravity...it just seems to be the most accurate (hence the term theory of relativity.
Thanks!!! thats a much nicer reply than the guy who called me an asshole for naming a child Xander (short for Alexander by the way).
Weird... my wife and I were looking at a baby book last night and just decided on Xander if we get a boy. What are the odds? (p.s. not 50-50)
Sounds like you need a "European Carry-all"
depends on the definition of "with"
Gee, I hope that isn't true because I got it on the first roll...well, at least I figured out the logic, I actually entered the wrong number because of an arithmetic error. Guess I am dumb.
arrange them in a 3-d 4-surface pyramid.
No offense, but you cleary have incomplete knowledge about international maritime law. What you are missing is a key piece of info known as innocent passage(UN Convention on Law of the Sea, Articles 17-28). This right allows ships to pass through territorial waters for the purpose of accessing international waters. It is even extended to warships, provided they take additional steps to appear more "neutral" (for instance, aircraft carriers may not launch/recover aircraft and submarines must be surfaced). This right is exercised on a daily basis through the straits of Hormuz, and Bosporus, amoung others.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/107493main_FY_06_budget_su mm.pdf
Looking back to the 50's, in real dollars NASA's budget has been increasing pretty much throughout except for from 66-71 or so. I could really throw my karma to the wind and point out that the budget under Bush jr has increased consistently in both then and 1996-constant dollars, and that it appears Clinton and Nixon seem to be the only two presidents who presided over a continuous decrease in NASA budget (constant 1996 dollars).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
Of course, the article is about cuts at JPL and I am talking about NASA's budget... but I feel perfectly comfortable with a slight redirect like that given that the majority of posts (and most space-related threads on slashdot) schitzophrenically vacillate between "we need more money for human space exploration" and "human exploration budget is raiding scientific space research".
Sense of humor - get one.