The theory behind reducing profit levels still holds true
Actually it doesn't. By reducing supply, you make the remaining horn (that rangers can't cut off humanely) that much more valuable. It drives more people to try and poach because now it's worth even more. Oh and the horns grow back in 18-24 months, so you have to de-horn the animals repeatedly.
I was there talking to the actual safari guides. It's what happens.
And the 'future revenue stream'? Seriously? They kill the rhino to get the horn in the first place...you can't exactly take it off them without doing so, or are you so dense to think the poachers would have tranquilizers and be 'nice' about it?
Yep, for a while over in Africa they cut the horns off rhino's to stop poachers. The result? The poachers still spent days tracking an animal only to find out it didn't have a horn - so they killed it anyway out of spite.
You know who else did that? George Washington. He commanded people to KILL armies of the government and probably killed some himself.
St. Augustine said 'an unjust law is not law at all.' In other words, an unjust law would be a law, that takes away ones freedom, or causes harm, or basically just causes chaos.
I can see there is certainly a difference in the implementation, but the net result is the same. Gov't choosing one side of an equation to apply it's force.
I'm wildly in favor of taxing things we want to reduce or eliminate. I just don't think there's a significant difference between them.
Hell, taxing CO2 is more 'free market' than subsidizing chosen 'winners':) Good luck getting the GOP and Libertarians to agree though!:)
Yes, and under this new era, they could start looking at everybody he had called in the last 7 years and out them as well. Hope you don't 'look' gay...
In the abstract of 'keep you safe' most people will be in favor of that. Ask the nuanced question of 'in light of the IRS targeted profiling, are you in favor of the government tracking phone calls?' and you might get a different answer. I mean, if we have a Tea Party group clearly causing trouble, we really should see if anyone 'subversive' has been calling them or being called by them.
Or in three words:
Kevin. Bacon. Game.
We can tie you to a terrorist in just 7 links. Good enough for a nice stern interrogation?
The question was why the FISA courts and such are secret. The point being that you can't talk openly about your plans to apprehend someone (or hoover up their communication) because any one who found themselves the subject of such surveillance would then change their behaviors.
It's not that Bin Laden would need access/encryption/etc because if it's 'public' then he just has to read the paper.
If you read in the paper than someone was planning to raid your house...wouldn't you likely move or prepare a defense?
Agreed. Good to see someone with a reasonable reply:) The results and even logic by which representatives come to a decision should be public, but the process can be harmed if people play to the cameras all the time.
And you think everybody running to the press every 5 minutes is going to get things done any better? Look at all the 'gang of #'s that have worked in Congress. You take away the spotlight or dim it somewhat and now people can behave a little more reasonably than they might in wide open session.
Ideally everything of final decision is public, but sometimes its better not to see the sausage being made.
Slow down Hoss. The point is that some things need to be done in secret, not that we did or didn't have Bin Laden's info. The point is we couldn't tell him what we were doing ahead of time because he wouldn't have been home to catch.
Because telling Bin Laden the date and time we were coming for him probably isn't a good idea?
Some things must be secret. A perfectly open democracy wouldn't get a lot done - just look at Congress and ask yourself why a lot of the stuff that *does* get done is primarily negotiated in closed rooms.
There needs to be a balance and I fully agree that balance is wildly off after 9/11. Too many judges aren't telling the Gov't to f'off when they play the 'national secrets' card. Congress is *supposed* to have oversight of the FISA court, but as noted above, grandstanding on all sides renders that pretty ineffective.
Uh, the claim is that copies are maintained forever in databases. My actual experience says differently. Everybody else does seem to believe they are stored...so the question is where does that belief come from? i.e. a source for the claim.
And this is also very fertile ground for ACLU and such organizations to be involved - if they are keeping records forever, it likely would be challenged...and there'd be a record of it somewhere win or lose.
Slashdot Mirror
The horns grow back in 12-18 months. So trying to find and capture and tranq every rhino every 1-2 years isn't going to be viable anyway.
The theory behind reducing profit levels still holds true
Actually it doesn't. By reducing supply, you make the remaining horn (that rangers can't cut off humanely) that much more valuable. It drives more people to try and poach because now it's worth even more. Oh and the horns grow back in 18-24 months, so you have to de-horn the animals repeatedly.
The horns are used for carvings too, but interesting assuming it works as described.
Go check rhino populations...it isn't helping.
I was there talking to the actual safari guides. It's what happens.
And the 'future revenue stream'? Seriously? They kill the rhino to get the horn in the first place...you can't exactly take it off them without doing so, or are you so dense to think the poachers would have tranquilizers and be 'nice' about it?
Yep, for a while over in Africa they cut the horns off rhino's to stop poachers. The result? The poachers still spent days tracking an animal only to find out it didn't have a horn - so they killed it anyway out of spite.
Ron/Rand Paul are looney tunes. But like broken clocks they are occasionally right. In their case it's 'Liberty'O'Clock.
I completely agree and am amazed at how many people don't know the history of unchecked gov't surveillance even just in the US.
The sticky wicket question though, is even if they say they stopped it at some point in the future, how do we know they actually stopped it?
Indeed. This law already has been abused. 'Limited National Security Letter' usage? abused
You know who else did that? George Washington. He commanded people to KILL armies of the government and probably killed some himself.
St. Augustine said 'an unjust law is not law at all.' In other words, an unjust law would be a law, that takes away ones freedom, or causes harm, or basically just causes chaos.
Seems to fit this crap to a T.
putting a gun to the head of one your children's heads
This is Slashdot....
And of course never communicate with your parents since it's highly unlikely they'll be capable of following the same protocols :)
I think that the regular postal mail is still protected from the NSA.
Yeah, for the moment, that we know of... Of course Lindsay Graham (R) is quite ok with doing just that linky
ok, but shipping takes a few days...
I can see there is certainly a difference in the implementation, but the net result is the same. Gov't choosing one side of an equation to apply it's force.
:) Good luck getting the GOP and Libertarians to agree though! :)
I'm wildly in favor of taxing things we want to reduce or eliminate. I just don't think there's a significant difference between them.
Hell, taxing CO2 is more 'free market' than subsidizing chosen 'winners'
Taxing Losers is still Picking Winners.
Now, carbon taxation I would argue isn't about picking winners or losers. It's taxing a pollution source for the damage it causes.
Yes, and under this new era, they could start looking at everybody he had called in the last 7 years and out them as well. Hope you don't 'look' gay...
In the abstract of 'keep you safe' most people will be in favor of that. Ask the nuanced question of 'in light of the IRS targeted profiling, are you in favor of the government tracking phone calls?' and you might get a different answer. I mean, if we have a Tea Party group clearly causing trouble, we really should see if anyone 'subversive' has been calling them or being called by them.
Or in three words:
Kevin. Bacon. Game.
We can tie you to a terrorist in just 7 links. Good enough for a nice stern interrogation?
The question was why the FISA courts and such are secret. The point being that you can't talk openly about your plans to apprehend someone (or hoover up their communication) because any one who found themselves the subject of such surveillance would then change their behaviors.
It's not that Bin Laden would need access/encryption/etc because if it's 'public' then he just has to read the paper.
If you read in the paper than someone was planning to raid your house...wouldn't you likely move or prepare a defense?
Agreed. Good to see someone with a reasonable reply :) The results and even logic by which representatives come to a decision should be public, but the process can be harmed if people play to the cameras all the time.
And you think everybody running to the press every 5 minutes is going to get things done any better? Look at all the 'gang of #'s that have worked in Congress. You take away the spotlight or dim it somewhat and now people can behave a little more reasonably than they might in wide open session.
Ideally everything of final decision is public, but sometimes its better not to see the sausage being made.
Slow down Hoss. The point is that some things need to be done in secret, not that we did or didn't have Bin Laden's info. The point is we couldn't tell him what we were doing ahead of time because he wouldn't have been home to catch.
Because telling Bin Laden the date and time we were coming for him probably isn't a good idea?
Some things must be secret. A perfectly open democracy wouldn't get a lot done - just look at Congress and ask yourself why a lot of the stuff that *does* get done is primarily negotiated in closed rooms.
There needs to be a balance and I fully agree that balance is wildly off after 9/11. Too many judges aren't telling the Gov't to f'off when they play the 'national secrets' card. Congress is *supposed* to have oversight of the FISA court, but as noted above, grandstanding on all sides renders that pretty ineffective.
eh, a fair point :)
Uh, the claim is that copies are maintained forever in databases. My actual experience says differently. Everybody else does seem to believe they are stored...so the question is where does that belief come from? i.e. a source for the claim.
And this is also very fertile ground for ACLU and such organizations to be involved - if they are keeping records forever, it likely would be challenged...and there'd be a record of it somewhere win or lose.