We never should have stayed in Iraq, we should have taken a left turn and over ran Iran. We would have been home by Christmas. Airdrop beer into key areas and the Marines will kill anyone between them and their suds.
Everyone still acts shocked about the war. If you had paid attention you would remember Bush referencing the Axis of Evil. He did exactly what he said he would do. It wasn't a con job. He told everyone from the start what he was gonna do. Iraq, having been under a previous cease fire agreement that they repeatedly violated, was just the easiest to start sumthin wit, after Afghanistan of course. Sadaam was one of if not the largest supporter of terrorism back when he ruled Iraq. Now it's Iran. If Bush had balls, he'd take on Iran before leaving office.
For the slashdot crowd, it's the money spent on the war that matters the most, then it's the reputation of the US in the world (haha), then maybe those poor Iraqi casualties (over-inflated, of course) and to top it off, it was all our fault to begin with. Sad, pathetic, basement dwellers.
So... you're voting for McCain? Obama is going to add lots and lots of programs. Take a look at his home state and you should have a better idea of the future if he gets elected.
The French and others have an entirely different concept of justice that doesn't give a rats ass about individual rights but instead seeks to arrive at the truth. I'm not advocating the French justice system, I'm just pointing out that there are others and that the societies that use them haven't crashed and burned.
The US justice system is a mess and has only been getting worse. DAs act like Monty Hall. Punishment doesn't even come close to fitting the crime. Aggravated assault is more harshly punished then murder, so if you attack someone with a weapon, make sure you kill them. Sentences are too long and jails are too soft. We don't even pretend to rehabilitate, which is why sentences were increased and while in jail, criminals just become better at not getting caught. Borrow a page from the Japanese and have them pound rocks while subsisting on fish heads and rice.
I'm not a sucker and I'm not lining up to buy one of these things. What I am saying is that you and your ilk have loose bowel syndrome which has spread to you brain case.
Maybe it is hokum and maybe five years from now you'll have one of these in your car. You posting that it is crap on slashdot does nothing to prove your position. You are basing all of your opinions on a single source of data.
There was a story not long ago about a lamp design that was to be powered by gravity. Everyone lined up to call bs on the design. And they were right. But, they also failed to recognize that the designer was counting on improvements in LED technology and also power generation.
They also failed to recognize that the designer was actually doing something clever, by using gravity to produce a uniform power source. I think that's a pretty neat idea. There are lots of power sources that aren't uniform, such as wind and solar. Maybe using gravity to produce a uniform electrical output would reduce the need for expensive transformers and batteries. You could store weight on a pole and when you need power, let the weights drop. It sounds crazy, but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work. It might turn out to be less efficient in some ways, but the idea is sound.
If anything, it is the Free Software movement that has attempted to redefine Open Source as something other then open source. Words have meanings, and FOSS != open source, not for most people on the street. A judge or jury is going to have a much easier time making the connection to the availability of source code as open source, then showing them the 10 or 9 commandments of the FOSS movement.
Microsoft is no more guilty of misusing this term then Sun, IBM, Apple or any other large software company. They all use fine print to limit customers and leverage their proprietary code. I would think that Apple is the most egregious party when it comes to making an ill gotten buck off of FOSS. IBM and Sun actually give back some of their work to the community.
Maybe a better term for 'Open Source' would be 'Open Development' or maybe we should just recognize that there are lots of different licenses and stop crying when someone doesn't use the one we like.
"Six months of road testing in a diesel-powered Mercedes-Benz automobile showed an increase from 32 miles per gallon to 38 mpg, a 20 percent boost, and a 12-15 percent gain in city driving."
But, but, but some asshole on Slashdot said it was snake oil, so the guy must be a scammer. Oh, and mythbusters did a show about people selling devices like this and they were scams, therefore this must be a scam as well.
Seriously folks, the guy isn't trying to sell you his device or asking you to invest in his company. Unless I'm missing something besides the huge scientific chips on your shoulders, where's the scam.
"The small device consists of an electrically charged tube that can be attached to the fuel line of a car's engine near the fuel injector. With the use of a power supply from the vehicle's battery, the device creates an electric field that thins fuel, or reduces its viscosity, so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine. That leads to more efficient and cleaner combustion than a standard fuel injector."
It's sad when so many slashdotters line up to shit on another persons hard work. It proves how unscientific the average slashdotter is. Repeat the experiments and prove him wrong or shut the fuck up.
Compile early and often Save often Backup your work area
I've done it myself but always regret writing a ton of code and then waiting to save it or compile it. Also, make sure your work is getting backed up on a regular basis. Disk errors always seem to occur when you haven't done a backup for a long time.
It sounds like you are going to be working on existing code. As soon as you get access to it, build it and run it. If you have a decent debugger, run the existing stuff through it and make sure it behaves how you are expecting it to behave. Keep a separate work area for your code so when the new code breaks, you can diff it with the old code.
I just started at a new company and I had the code built and running in debug mode the first afternoon. Haven't looked back since.
To quote Arthur C Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I would also recommend "The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible." from the same source.
Turning every post about science into a bitch-fest about creationists is counter productive. I'd rather spend the time talking about what this does or doesn't do to current theory. Is it a slight miscalculation or is this going to rewrite some books?
It's like there's this group that walks around with a scientific chip on their shoulder (actually that sounds pretty cool). This same reaction occurs with the Global Warming crowd every time there is a correction to their model or it snows in May.
Evolution is such an important theory. We should teach it every year, to every kid, in every school. It is so important because it makes so many predictions about the future. Without a proper grounding in evolution, those predictions will not be imparted on the children.
Can you point out a period of time when the Earth wasn't experiencing any "drought, flooding, heating, cooling, et cetera"?
I'm a big believer in Global Warming. I'm also a big believer in Ice Ages, as in, there have been several and the last one might not be the last one. I'm not sure what the current climatological models say about that, but I would be highly dubious of a model that precludes another bout of glacierization at some point.
In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.
The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial.
I'm not saying that's bias, but maybe publishing controversial ideas that go against the grain is what peer review is all about. Unfortunately, peer review is oft used to simply maintain the current consensus, which is arguably not advancing science.
Occam's razor favors simplicity and is a great starting point for any argument.
Looking into the past we discover all kinds of climate changes affecting civilizations. Darfur is another example and like the snows of Kilmanjaro, it is not causally attached to Global Warming. Considering it's location on the globe, droughts have always been common in that area. To quote the late, great Sam Kinnison... "It's sand! Ya know what it's going to be in a 1000 years? Sand!".
A hotter earth is going to also be a wetter earth. Check your peer reviewed articles, if you doubt that.
Winners and losers, always going to have those. The Earth heating or not heating, isn't going to change that.
Your grasp of history, even recent history, is wanting. Darfur is a tragedy of politics, not global warming. In fact, the majority of famines in your and my lifetime were produced by politics. Look at a country like Somalia, where one part of the country has more then enough food for everyone, but because of politics, it is not distributed.
Really, it takes a complete miscreant to tie the tragedy of Darfur with Global Warming. Have you no shame?
The bias in the peer review process has been well documented. It's a closed system and requires payment to participate. That's consensus science at work. You need that consensus, I don't. Which is why I was on the correct side of the room in my HS biology class. If the scientific community supported by consensus something you knew to be false, would you change your mind? Because that's what you are arguing for.
It took an outsider to point out the flaws in the data on global temperatures that all of the scientists were using, not peer review. That's what happens with consensus science. They draw the graph first and then plot the data.
As far as GW deniers muddying the waters and preventing action, there is no consensus on what should be done. I don't doubt that the world is warming. It has been since the last ice age. What I doubt is that it spells doom for humanity. Humanity has always done better in warmer periods. That's historically and scientifically provable, although not supported by consensus.
Debate of any kind is helpful to science and life in general. Critics of evolution have pointed out gaps in the fossil record that have been closed. Is that not a good thing?
Critics of global warming have pointed out flaws in the data, flaws in the collection of data (urbanization around temperature measuring sites) and other things. Those are all good things.
What I don't understand is the need for consensus by otherwise rationale human beings. Does a lack of consensus diminish your beliefs? If you truly believe you are correct, then have the balls to stand up to your critics. You may be surprised to find that your own views and arguments will improve because of the criticism, like the examples I give above.
Maybe she should force the child to have a lobotomy, like the Kennedy family did to one of their kids.
For Christians and others, this is the temporal world. So, her actions make sense in that context. Forcing people to abort children because you think it is right, is fascist.
I've known kids and adults with down syndrome and you couldn't be more wrong. They aren't suffering and they can live productive lives. In fact, they are usually more happy and adjusted to their situation then the people they encounter.
You're a troll, the kind that lives under a bridge and the ones that like to post on slashdot.
There is a trend in science to try to close the debate, which is very unscientific. Global warming, er, climate change is the best example of this.
I believe evolution to be true, and I don't mind that others don't. In my HS AP biology class, the teacher separated all of the students into two groups: those that believed evolution and those that didn't. It ended with me and a Chinese student (one of a very few in my HS) on one side of the room and all of the rest on the other side. I passionately defended evolution and can remember one very cute little girl asking me, almost sadly, if I really believed we descended from apes. That same girl was our valedictorian.
I remember one theory about the life of Leonardo DaVinci, that he was attempting to validate all of the accumulated knowledge of his day. I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that the world would be a vastly different and worse place if he hadn't had the balls to question the scientific facts that were in place during his time.
We all know that Apple misleads in their ads. Even the 'I'm a mac and I'm a PC' ads are full of BS. Mac has 1% of the games that are available on a PC, yet Macs are more fun? But, but, you can run bootcamp. Whatever.
And the complaint IS about the internet, not the web. Apple needs to be careful, cause I know for a fact that over promising on tech products in the EU can lead to serious monetary damages.
Forced bundling is another problem that Apple will eventually have to deal with in the EU. That is, as soon as the EU is done milking M$. I don't know who is their legal council, but they put it in their EULA and their complaint against the Maclones. Not very bright.
The dripping Apple lawyer swarm should also consider that legal arguments are public records. Other courts in other countries will be very interested in the legal mumbo jumbo that they try out in this case.
Europe has been making big bucks from M$ and I can say with certainty would love to rake in some dough from Apple. Remember all the noises about unbundling windows? Well, Apple should take note, cause that's their whole business model.
Occam's Razor aside, I doubt there is one theory or computer simulation that can account for every instance of solar system formation. If these guys are right, then the old theory did not cover a great percentage of the systems that are out there. I reckon we will find out that the new theory also doesn't cover every instance, and as others have pointed out, even 1% of a huge number is also a huge number.
As far as being American, every country has it's share of idiots. Typically, it is a bell curve, with 20% being exceptional, 80% being average and 20% dumb as stumps. I have lots of observational data of this phenomenon. I also have a theory and computer simulation, if that helps.
This is probably the best example of the Streisand effect ever. They sued some annonymous posters for libel, which resulted the libel in question becoming exponentially more pronounced.
In hindsight, I hope they realize that they could and should have handled this differently, maybe turning the threats made over to the police and the university, maybe just handling it themselves by posting annonymous responses or maybe just ignoring it. They definately shouldn't have sued the site owner.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming them for what resulted. I doubt anyone could have predicted the results. But, after you open a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a bigger can.
Maybe they or someone else can figure out a way to reverse the google bomb. That would be better then trying to sue their way out of their predicament.
"clearly broke that law knowingly and with intent"
I seriously doubt that this can be proven in a court of law. There can be all kinds of explanations for these searches and there is no proof that these searches were the deciding factor in any hiring decisions. Unless there is a law that forbids nexis-lexis searches by government employees, which there isn't, then you're going to need a lot more then just this.
"You may disagree with this law. OK, contact your representative and ask that he sponsor a bill repealing these provisions. However, it is currently law and members of the executive clearly broke that law knowingly and with intent. Is that the kind of behavior you expect from your elected leaders?"
I'll use this quote the next time there is a post about FISA.
Slashdot Mirror
We never should have stayed in Iraq, we should have taken a left turn and over ran Iran. We would have been home by Christmas. Airdrop beer into key areas and the Marines will kill anyone between them and their suds.
Everyone still acts shocked about the war. If you had paid attention you would remember Bush referencing the Axis of Evil. He did exactly what he said he would do. It wasn't a con job. He told everyone from the start what he was gonna do. Iraq, having been under a previous cease fire agreement that they repeatedly violated, was just the easiest to start sumthin wit, after Afghanistan of course. Sadaam was one of if not the largest supporter of terrorism back when he ruled Iraq. Now it's Iran. If Bush had balls, he'd take on Iran before leaving office.
For the slashdot crowd, it's the money spent on the war that matters the most, then it's the reputation of the US in the world (haha), then maybe those poor Iraqi casualties (over-inflated, of course) and to top it off, it was all our fault to begin with. Sad, pathetic, basement dwellers.
So... you're voting for McCain? Obama is going to add lots and lots of programs. Take a look at his home state and you should have a better idea of the future if he gets elected.
The French and others have an entirely different concept of justice that doesn't give a rats ass about individual rights but instead seeks to arrive at the truth. I'm not advocating the French justice system, I'm just pointing out that there are others and that the societies that use them haven't crashed and burned.
The US justice system is a mess and has only been getting worse. DAs act like Monty Hall. Punishment doesn't even come close to fitting the crime. Aggravated assault is more harshly punished then murder, so if you attack someone with a weapon, make sure you kill them. Sentences are too long and jails are too soft. We don't even pretend to rehabilitate, which is why sentences were increased and while in jail, criminals just become better at not getting caught. Borrow a page from the Japanese and have them pound rocks while subsisting on fish heads and rice.
I'm not a sucker and I'm not lining up to buy one of these things. What I am saying is that you and your ilk have loose bowel syndrome which has spread to you brain case.
Maybe it is hokum and maybe five years from now you'll have one of these in your car. You posting that it is crap on slashdot does nothing to prove your position. You are basing all of your opinions on a single source of data.
There was a story not long ago about a lamp design that was to be powered by gravity. Everyone lined up to call bs on the design. And they were right. But, they also failed to recognize that the designer was counting on improvements in LED technology and also power generation.
They also failed to recognize that the designer was actually doing something clever, by using gravity to produce a uniform power source. I think that's a pretty neat idea. There are lots of power sources that aren't uniform, such as wind and solar. Maybe using gravity to produce a uniform electrical output would reduce the need for expensive transformers and batteries. You could store weight on a pole and when you need power, let the weights drop. It sounds crazy, but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work. It might turn out to be less efficient in some ways, but the idea is sound.
Feel free to shit all over this idea as well.
If anything, it is the Free Software movement that has attempted to redefine Open Source as something other then open source. Words have meanings, and FOSS != open source, not for most people on the street. A judge or jury is going to have a much easier time making the connection to the availability of source code as open source, then showing them the 10 or 9 commandments of the FOSS movement.
Microsoft is no more guilty of misusing this term then Sun, IBM, Apple or any other large software company. They all use fine print to limit customers and leverage their proprietary code. I would think that Apple is the most egregious party when it comes to making an ill gotten buck off of FOSS. IBM and Sun actually give back some of their work to the community.
Maybe a better term for 'Open Source' would be 'Open Development' or maybe we should just recognize that there are lots of different licenses and stop crying when someone doesn't use the one we like.
"Six months of road testing in a diesel-powered Mercedes-Benz automobile showed an increase from 32 miles per gallon to 38 mpg, a 20 percent boost, and a 12-15 percent gain in city driving."
But, but, but some asshole on Slashdot said it was snake oil, so the guy must be a scammer. Oh, and mythbusters did a show about people selling devices like this and they were scams, therefore this must be a scam as well.
Seriously folks, the guy isn't trying to sell you his device or asking you to invest in his company. Unless I'm missing something besides the huge scientific chips on your shoulders, where's the scam.
"The small device consists of an electrically charged tube that can be attached to the fuel line of a car's engine near the fuel injector. With the use of a power supply from the vehicle's battery, the device creates an electric field that thins fuel, or reduces its viscosity, so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine. That leads to more efficient and cleaner combustion than a standard fuel injector."
It's sad when so many slashdotters line up to shit on another persons hard work. It proves how unscientific the average slashdotter is. Repeat the experiments and prove him wrong or shut the fuck up.
My favorites...
Compile early and often
Save often
Backup your work area
I've done it myself but always regret writing a ton of code and then waiting to save it or compile it. Also, make sure your work is getting backed up on a regular basis. Disk errors always seem to occur when you haven't done a backup for a long time.
It sounds like you are going to be working on existing code. As soon as you get access to it, build it and run it. If you have a decent debugger, run the existing stuff through it and make sure it behaves how you are expecting it to behave. Keep a separate work area for your code so when the new code breaks, you can diff it with the old code.
I just started at a new company and I had the code built and running in debug mode the first afternoon. Haven't looked back since.
To quote Arthur C Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I would also recommend "The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible." from the same source.
Turning every post about science into a bitch-fest about creationists is counter productive. I'd rather spend the time talking about what this does or doesn't do to current theory. Is it a slight miscalculation or is this going to rewrite some books?
It's like there's this group that walks around with a scientific chip on their shoulder (actually that sounds pretty cool). This same reaction occurs with the Global Warming crowd every time there is a correction to their model or it snows in May.
Evolution is such an important theory. We should teach it every year, to every kid, in every school. It is so important because it makes so many predictions about the future. Without a proper grounding in evolution, those predictions will not be imparted on the children.
So, think of the children.
Can you point out a period of time when the Earth wasn't experiencing any "drought, flooding, heating, cooling, et cetera"?
I'm a big believer in Global Warming. I'm also a big believer in Ice Ages, as in, there have been several and the last one might not be the last one. I'm not sure what the current climatological models say about that, but I would be highly dubious of a model that precludes another bout of glacierization at some point.
In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion. The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial.
I'm not saying that's bias, but maybe publishing controversial ideas that go against the grain is what peer review is all about. Unfortunately, peer review is oft used to simply maintain the current consensus, which is arguably not advancing science.
Occam's razor favors simplicity and is a great starting point for any argument.
Looking into the past we discover all kinds of climate changes affecting civilizations. Darfur is another example and like the snows of Kilmanjaro, it is not causally attached to Global Warming. Considering it's location on the globe, droughts have always been common in that area. To quote the late, great Sam Kinnison... "It's sand! Ya know what it's going to be in a 1000 years? Sand!".
A hotter earth is going to also be a wetter earth. Check your peer reviewed articles, if you doubt that.
Winners and losers, always going to have those. The Earth heating or not heating, isn't going to change that.
Your grasp of history, even recent history, is wanting. Darfur is a tragedy of politics, not global warming. In fact, the majority of famines in your and my lifetime were produced by politics. Look at a country like Somalia, where one part of the country has more then enough food for everyone, but because of politics, it is not distributed.
Really, it takes a complete miscreant to tie the tragedy of Darfur with Global Warming. Have you no shame?
The bias in the peer review process has been well documented. It's a closed system and requires payment to participate. That's consensus science at work. You need that consensus, I don't. Which is why I was on the correct side of the room in my HS biology class. If the scientific community supported by consensus something you knew to be false, would you change your mind? Because that's what you are arguing for.
It took an outsider to point out the flaws in the data on global temperatures that all of the scientists were using, not peer review. That's what happens with consensus science. They draw the graph first and then plot the data.
As far as GW deniers muddying the waters and preventing action, there is no consensus on what should be done. I don't doubt that the world is warming. It has been since the last ice age. What I doubt is that it spells doom for humanity. Humanity has always done better in warmer periods. That's historically and scientifically provable, although not supported by consensus.
Debate of any kind is helpful to science and life in general. Critics of evolution have pointed out gaps in the fossil record that have been closed. Is that not a good thing?
Critics of global warming have pointed out flaws in the data, flaws in the collection of data (urbanization around temperature measuring sites) and other things. Those are all good things.
What I don't understand is the need for consensus by otherwise rationale human beings. Does a lack of consensus diminish your beliefs? If you truly believe you are correct, then have the balls to stand up to your critics. You may be surprised to find that your own views and arguments will improve because of the criticism, like the examples I give above.
Maybe she should force the child to have a lobotomy, like the Kennedy family did to one of their kids.
For Christians and others, this is the temporal world. So, her actions make sense in that context. Forcing people to abort children because you think it is right, is fascist.
I've known kids and adults with down syndrome and you couldn't be more wrong. They aren't suffering and they can live productive lives. In fact, they are usually more happy and adjusted to their situation then the people they encounter.
You're a troll, the kind that lives under a bridge and the ones that like to post on slashdot.
There is a trend in science to try to close the debate, which is very unscientific. Global warming, er, climate change is the best example of this.
I believe evolution to be true, and I don't mind that others don't. In my HS AP biology class, the teacher separated all of the students into two groups: those that believed evolution and those that didn't. It ended with me and a Chinese student (one of a very few in my HS) on one side of the room and all of the rest on the other side. I passionately defended evolution and can remember one very cute little girl asking me, almost sadly, if I really believed we descended from apes. That same girl was our valedictorian.
I remember one theory about the life of Leonardo DaVinci, that he was attempting to validate all of the accumulated knowledge of his day. I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that the world would be a vastly different and worse place if he hadn't had the balls to question the scientific facts that were in place during his time.
"Since the computer is a non-standardized tool"
Are you arguing that MS is not a monopoly? Hmmm...
We all know that Apple misleads in their ads. Even the 'I'm a mac and I'm a PC' ads are full of BS. Mac has 1% of the games that are available on a PC, yet Macs are more fun? But, but, you can run bootcamp. Whatever.
And the complaint IS about the internet, not the web. Apple needs to be careful, cause I know for a fact that over promising on tech products in the EU can lead to serious monetary damages.
Forced bundling is another problem that Apple will eventually have to deal with in the EU. That is, as soon as the EU is done milking M$. I don't know who is their legal council, but they put it in their EULA and their complaint against the Maclones. Not very bright.
Brilliant analogy.
The dripping Apple lawyer swarm should also consider that legal arguments are public records. Other courts in other countries will be very interested in the legal mumbo jumbo that they try out in this case.
Europe has been making big bucks from M$ and I can say with certainty would love to rake in some dough from Apple. Remember all the noises about unbundling windows? Well, Apple should take note, cause that's their whole business model.
Occam's Razor aside, I doubt there is one theory or computer simulation that can account for every instance of solar system formation. If these guys are right, then the old theory did not cover a great percentage of the systems that are out there. I reckon we will find out that the new theory also doesn't cover every instance, and as others have pointed out, even 1% of a huge number is also a huge number.
As far as being American, every country has it's share of idiots. Typically, it is a bell curve, with 20% being exceptional, 80% being average and 20% dumb as stumps. I have lots of observational data of this phenomenon. I also have a theory and computer simulation, if that helps.
This is probably the best example of the Streisand effect ever. They sued some annonymous posters for libel, which resulted the libel in question becoming exponentially more pronounced.
In hindsight, I hope they realize that they could and should have handled this differently, maybe turning the threats made over to the police and the university, maybe just handling it themselves by posting annonymous responses or maybe just ignoring it. They definately shouldn't have sued the site owner.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming them for what resulted. I doubt anyone could have predicted the results. But, after you open a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a bigger can.
Maybe they or someone else can figure out a way to reverse the google bomb. That would be better then trying to sue their way out of their predicament.
Never said to ignore it, just don't presume guilt based on 35 searches of a public database and the opinion of a college professor.
The government of the US works on a cycle that is thankfully much slower then the 24 hour news cycle which fuels slashdot debates.
Like all of the idiots claiming habeaus corpus had been pushed aside by Bush.
"clearly broke that law knowingly and with intent"
I seriously doubt that this can be proven in a court of law. There can be all kinds of explanations for these searches and there is no proof that these searches were the deciding factor in any hiring decisions. Unless there is a law that forbids nexis-lexis searches by government employees, which there isn't, then you're going to need a lot more then just this.
"You may disagree with this law. OK, contact your representative and ask that he sponsor a bill repealing these provisions. However, it is currently law and members of the executive clearly broke that law knowingly and with intent. Is that the kind of behavior you expect from your elected leaders?"
I'll use this quote the next time there is a post about FISA.